Since the time of Holmes, the United States has drifted steadily in the direction of becoming a government of men, not law. This drift pervades the government when a Congress imposes penalties on citizens for not buying a product. A Chief Justice creates a “tax” that did not exist. A president orders a department of the government to not enforce a law. A Supreme Court argument takes place about the constitutionality of legislation and no one discusses the Constitution.
The litany of extra-constitutional actions that effectively contract, rather than expand, liberty is long. Through the adoption the Historicism, in which a decision maker is constrained only by his sense of history, the United States government continues to grow ever further from the Natural Law philosophy that gained and maintained the acceptance of the people. The government runs the risk of losing its acceptance. Control will only be maintained either through fear or propounding the idea that actions which violate the originating principles are now “tradition”. In either event the end result is illegitimacy.
» White House: No backup plan if Obamacare fails
When Obamacare implementation began, its supporters said the program needed about seven million people to enroll by next March. Of that number, advocates said, a large portion — about 40 percent — had to be young and healthy, to cover the costs of insuring older, less healthy Americans.
As Obamacare’s problems mounted, and it became more and more likely the system would not hit those marks, supporters began to lower their standards. First, they said Obamacare will be fine even if far fewer than seven million sign up. Then they said it will be fine even if far less than 40 percent are young and healthy.
Now, it’s becoming apparent why Obamacare advocates are putting on such a confident face: They have no backup plan if their national health care scheme fails.
The people that dreamed this up knew that would happen. This will become unsustainable and more and more private insurers will withdraw from the market, leaving their customers without insurance. In order to take up the slack, the government will create their own insurance provider – we’ll call it Fed Cross for convenience’s sake. Now Fed Cross doesn’t have to make a profit, so it doesn’t have to abide by the same rule that governs competition between private insurance companies. As such they will be able to undercut and drive the remaining private insurers out. The end result is that there will be only a single provider – Fed Cross – and with that you have effectively instituted single-payer without ever having fired a shot.
~~ via BookWorm
One of the recurring themes has been puzzlement about why A&E would cut off its nose to spite its face. Duck Dynasty is the franchise right now. Why would they risk destroying their own cash cow?
To understand the why, we have to go back to the beginning. Duck Dynasty is not the show that they wanted, it is the show that got away from them.
This is what happened. The whole idea of the show was to parade these nouveau riche Christian hillbillies around so that we could laugh at them. “Look at them,” we were supposed to say. “Look how backward they are! Look what they believe! Can you believe they really live this way and believe this stuff? See how they don’t fit in? HAHAHA”
When the producers saw the way the show was shaping up, different than they envisioned it, they tried to change course. They tried to get the Robertson’s to tone down their Christianity, but to their eternal credit they refused. They tried to add fake cussin’ to the show by inserting bleeps where no cussword was uttered. At best, they wanted to make the Robertson’s look like crass buffoons. At worst they wanted them to look like hypocrites.
They desperately wanted us to laugh at the Robertsons. Instead, we loved them.
A&E wanted us to point fingers at them and laugh at them. But something else happened entirely. Millions upon millions of people tuned in, not to laugh at them, but to laugh with them.
I also see the burqa as a sensory deprivation isolation chamber, (sensory deprivation is used as a form of torture); a burqa is also an ambulatory body bag and I oppose this with all my mind and heart as a violation of human and women’s rights.
Muslim-majority countries do not view daughter-beating or forcible veiling as a crime.
Many Muslim immigrants (and increasingly, converts to Islam in our time) behave as if they are living in the past or in a Muslim-majority country and they view Western customs as unacceptable and dishonorable.
We must enforce the laws of our land and make it clear, as Canada and several European countries have tried to do, that we do not believe in “cultural relativism,” that there is one law for all.
Podesta won’t be advising the president on how he can work within our constitutional system of government in order to advance his policy priorities. He will be advising the president on how he can advance his policies by going around Congress – and in doing so, bypassing the American people – to impose a radical leftist, game-changing agenda on the country. Remember, this is a president who seeks a fundamental transformation, and Podesta was brought in to help Obama make good on his pledge before he really becomes a lame duck.
Now, can the president, at Podesta’s urging, simply resort to imperial rule? No – and yes. There there are some limitations to what he can mandate by fiat, but because of the bastardization of our governing process over the past century, there is much Obama can do, and is prepared to do, to achieve his objectives.
During Obama’s first term, the EPA overruled the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ approval of a water discharge permit for a surface mine in West Virginia. The veto was retroactive, occurring nearly four years after the Corps approved the permit.
Clearly, such action by any federal agency cannot be allowed to stand as a precedent. Imagine the consequences if any company in any industry began an economic development, poured money into it after receiving government approval – then, nearly four years later, was told, “no dice.”
In an op-ed titled “Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. Why don’t all newspapers do the same?” Nathan Allen — who described himself a Ph.D. chemist for a major chemical company and a moderator on Reddit’s “/r/science” forum — explained his decision to wipe comments from some users he dismissed as “problematic.”
“These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking,” Allen said in his article, which is posted on Grist.org. “They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong.”
The move has drawn accusations of hypocrisy, as Reddit claims to be a haven for free speech and debate. The site describes itself as a place “friendly to thought, relationships, arguments, and to those that wish to challenge those genres.”
Now, consider the next link. The title alone should be enough to embarrass ass-hats like Allen above.
From June 1988:
» Hansen : Twenty Degrees Warming Possible In The Next Eleven Years
I think Mr. Nathan Allen (Ph.D[umbass]) described himself with “These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking”
the app will allow homosexuals as young as 12 to connect with each other, to set up times to get together and will even provide a map and directions to wherever the meeting takes place. However, the most dangerous aspect of the app could be used for sexual predators whether they are gay or straight.