Slotkin on the GOP’s Cuts to Healthcare Insurance

The GOP’s bill is hurting many people – people that weren’t previously identified and in ways we are just starting to learn about:

Senator Slotkin educates us – do any GOP members of Congress care? It appears not – they prefer to make sure the very wealthy get their tax breaks.

Fighting for Your Health Care: Senate Floor Speech
12 ½ minute video:
https://www.youtube.com/live/h7HY2yzB_Ko?si=Jx6nrs-WUh_f5_zE

A Balanced Discussion – MI Senator Slotkin:

An intelligent, balanced and reasoned discussion – by Senator Slotkin of Michigan touching on:
1) the looming government shutdown,
2) the hurt our farmers are facing,
3) a national security issue and
4) what freedom of speech really means in our country.

8 minute video:
https://youtu.be/sOSoEbK-ZoQ?si=Iq8xap8BrrArZFXL

Excerpts:
“Looming Shutdown?
As some of you may have heard, on September 30th, the government, the federal government runs out of money. So there is about a two-week period that we have to figure out what kind of compromise we want to get to in order to keep the government open for a few more months or many months.

No one wants a shutdown. But we got to get in a room and negotiate.

I you want to be seriously considering my vote, we got to have a conversation about healthcare. Every single Michigander is at risk of losing their health care or having the price of their insurance, including their private employer provided insurance go up.
So, if we’re going to have a conversation, let’s have it.

Our farmers – and tariffs:
I want to talk about a really important issue related to our farmers and the real struggle that our farmers are going through right now to keep their farms alive. People who are in active farming are worried about inflation, the price of inputs, regulation, all of these things that were already making farming difficult.

Then you have the tariffs. The tariff story that’s going on right now is kind of a sequel to the tariff story that went on in the first Trump administration. Trump put on tariffs back in his first term and in retaliation, a bunch of these countries cut off American agricultural products from their markets. Most important was China. China said to us, “Nope. um we’re mad at you because you put tariffs on our goods and so we’re going to retaliate by cutting off American soybeans from their markets. China said, “We’ll just find other markets.” They went to places like Brazil and no longer bought our soybeans.

So, as you can imagine, the soybean farmers, which are very important farmers across Michigan and across the country, um got into some real trouble. So, what did Trump do in response to um our soybean farmers being in such trouble? He just started writing checks. He created a program, $28 billion worth of a program to write subsidy checks to our farmers.

Now, our farmers don’t like receiving those checks. They want to work. They want their markets open. I have farmers say to me, “We want trade, not aid.” Wwhat we are seeing now in this Trump administration is exactly what we saw before, where there’s retaliation against our farmers because of these sloppy tariffs that the president has put on all kinds of countries in all kinds of ways.

And they’re attacking our farmers in retaliation. And our farmers are already coming to us and saying, “If we don’t have some relief soon, we’re going to again need those subsidy checks. We’re going to need someone to write us cash.” That means the Trump administration is going to go come back and have to find a ton of money, billions and billions of dollars to pay the farmers because of their tariff plan. So middle class Americans are having to pay those tariffs and our farmers are going to have to be the recipient of subsidy checks in order to keep their farms alive.

National security:
The president in August hosted Vladimir Putin in Alaska. He rolled out the red carpet and afterwards we saw the following things happen. Vladimir Putin launched the largest single raid on the capital city of Ukraine, Kiev. He went and hung out with the president of China, Xi Jinping, and attended a big military parade to show their relationship in front of the world. And then in the last couple of weeks, they’ve sent Russian drones over the border of Poland, a NATO ally, and then Romania, a NATO ally, just to test the defenses and see what the United States and what NATO would do in response. All of those things have happened in month and a half since the president welcomed Vladimir Putin.

This is a real thumb in the eye of the president. This is Vladimir Putin saying, “I know I just sat with you in your own country, but now I’m going to do whatever I want.” The president has some options in order to respond to this and to not let Putin walk all over us. There is a bipartisan sanctions bill that would add sanctions on to Vladimir Putin and the Russian government to send a signal that the president and the United States is not going to take Vladimir Putin just doing whatever he wants. Now, why is this important back home in Michigan or in the Midwest? It’s important because the other folks around the world, the other countries, both our friends and our adversaries, watch how we react to someone like Vladimir Putin, and they take notes. They say to themselves, “Huh, I guess the United States is willing to roll out the red carpet and then just be walked over by Vladimir Putin.”

It’s extremely important that we have a clear and consistent policy against someone like Vladimir Putin and urge President Trump to see the global ramifications if he continues to let Putin do whatever he wants.

On democracy:
It’s been a tough few weeks on the issue of freedom of speech. There’s been a lot of debate about which side of the aisle is allowed to say what and then what are the consequences for speech that people don’t think is appropriate or don’t like. And I think it’s important to review: the United States of America has freedom of speech written into our Constitution. We invented the concept that a citizen was free to speak their mind even when people disagree and there wouldn’t be retribution. That was a radical idea when the United States invented it.

But the thing about freedom of speech is that you can’t just take the position that you only like free speech when it’s your side or when someone agrees with you. If you want to be a real American patriot, you have to defend other people’s right to freedom of speech.

We saw problems with this this week. The president has his leader of the FCC, a man named Brendan Carr, who by the way wrote Project 2025. He put real pressure on one of the TV networks to fire yet another late night host that makes jokes about President Trump.

The reason why this is so worrisome is because if we become a country where whoever your whoever’s in power, whichever parties in power can just say, “We don’t like the talk that’s coming out of that person. We don’t like the conversation that’s coming out of that leader or that TV host.” We effectively eat away at one of our country’s most valued assets, which is that freedom of speech.

I’d ask everybody watching to just be honest about it, that we need to be okay with freedom of speech, whether we agree with it or not.”

Whitehouse – Sunlight on GOP Plan …to Cut MEDICARE

Yes, the Big Ugly for Billionaires Bill passed by the GOP does indeed cause cuts of ½ Trillion to Medicare.

Yes – MEDICARE – which is in addition to the well-known huge cuts of almost $1 Trillion to Medicaid.

In this speech on the Senate floor, Whitehouse shines a strong light on this situation, describes how this happens, and proposes a fix; a fix which the GOP Senate Whip rejects on behalf of the GOP.

Thus, Whitehouse exposes the lies of the GOP.

10 minute video:
https://youtu.be/ApRGCqkV8yY?si=EJeOgzhVQ2OYJ9V6

The Planned Cornhusker Clink…

Trump’s cruelty and evil is being embraced by Nebraska’s governor….
Where do Nebraska’s citizens stand on the matter?

If this hearing is any indication, there is some strong sentiment against any possible role by Nebraska. Cruelty and evil – stay out of our state!!!

https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/09/12/conversion-of-mccook-facility-into-ice-detention-hub-draws-overflow-hearing-statewide-concerns/?emci=b79e3d0b-3190-f011-b484-6045bdeb7413&emdi=120f24cd-9090-f011-b484-6045bdeb7413&ceid=391481

“Ur-Fascism”; Umberto Eco

From the essay “Ur-Fascism” by Umberto Eco; 1995:

I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counter-revolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but it was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism.

In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of them indulgently  accepted by the Roman Pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages – in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little known religions of Asia.

This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice”; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a silver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.

As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message. One has only to look at the syllabus of every Fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements. The most influential theoretical source of the theories of the new Italian right, Julius Evola, merged the Holy Grail with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, alchemy with the Holy Roman and Germanic Empire. The very fact that the Italian right, in order to show its open-mindedness, recently broadened its syllabus to include works by De Maistre, Guenon, and Gramsci, is a blatant proof of syncretism.

If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge – that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.

Both Fascists and Nazis worshiped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon Blood and Earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life, but it mainly concerned the rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and of 1776, of course). The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake.

Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism.

The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

5. Dissent is moreover a sign of diversity.

Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside.

In the U.S., a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson’s The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and power of their enemies.

When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, “a life for struggle.”

Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such a “final solution” implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic.

Aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.

Since the group is hierarchically organized (according to a military model), every subordinate leader despises his own underlings, and each of them despises his inferiors. This reinforces the sense of mass elitism.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.

In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Falangists was Viva la Muerte (in English it should be translated as “Long Live Death!”). In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.

This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons – doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view – one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.

Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was “I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples” – “maniples” being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament.

Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.