Saturday, July 4, 2015

Political Pistachio: Health Insurers Forced To Seek 54% ObamaCare Rate Hikes

"People don't give a damn how much something costs as long as they don't have to pick up the tab.  Government subsidies are always the anesthetic that spares the lumpenproletariat the pain that would otherwise alert them to the horrible things being done to them.  Like, for example, Barack Obama taking away the healthcare they had and liked and forcing them into this Cloward-Piven boondoggle.  And when carriers are denied permission to jack up rates to where the distortions of the health insurance market indicate they should go.....death spiral."

 Read More here: Political Pistachio: Health Insurers Forced To Seek 54% ObamaCare Rate Hikes

Sunday, June 28, 2015

"Marriage"?

From the standpoint of our government,(not God), the word "marriage" refers to a very specific contract. [i.e. a contract between two parties wherein the offer, acceptance and consideration is that the parties to the contract are agreeing that if the resources of their bodies are to be used to create children they will only be used with the other party to the contract.]

The term "marriage" has, from the founding of this nation, referred to only a man and a woman. [And in, truth it can only refer to a man and a woman because same sex couples would be required to go outside of that contract to produce children. This would deny them their self evident and unalienable right to reproduce and therefore would not be a lawful contract for them.] In fact, in many states homosexuality was a capital offence.

What the SCOTUS has done, is to give a specific group a legislative shortcut to benefits by redefining the term marriage. This has, at it's essence, destroyed the rule of law. Because if words in the law do not mean what they meant when they were written, then the law is of no effect, because who knows what words may have their meanings changed tomorrow by such a capricious court? "Child", "Adult", "color", "speed" "limit"? Imagine the chaos that will ensue.

The proper course of action would have been for the SCOTUS to advise the homosexual community to get their own term to describe their contract and go through the legislative process just like married people did while leaving the decisions of whether or not to grant benefits of that nature to this new contract to the individual states. This is not what the SCOTUS did and for their destruction of the rule of law,(along with their usurpation of the powers of Congress to legislate and to "control the purse strings" in the deathcare ruling the day before the "marriage" ruling, they should be removed from the bench. Is it possible to remove a justice from the bench? Yes, and it starts in the House. Call your Rep.

"18 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;
2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: 3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. 4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; 5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. 6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. 7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? 8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" ~Luke 18:1-8

Friday, June 26, 2015

Scalia: Supreme Court now a 'threat to American democracy' | WashingtonExaminer.com

"Scalia said he didn't care about the substance of the ruling, but said the way the Court ruled means the nine justices are now essentially in charge of Americans.

"Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," he wrote." Read more here:
Scalia: Supreme Court now a 'threat to American democracy' | WashingtonExaminer.com

Thursday, June 25, 2015

And the Death of the Rule of Law comes by Jiggery Pokery

Why am I seeing that statement:"Words no longer have meaning" as a foreshadowing of the upcoming decision on marriage? Because that is what I have been saying about legislation by redefinition in regards to marriage for years now. Where is America?
I thought the end would come with the ruling on marriage, but the SCOTUS has decided to test the waters first. This ruling is nothing less than the oligarchy of the judicial branch feared by many of the founders asserting itself. It is also the end of the rule of law, for if the words of the law cannot be said to mean the same thing from one day to the next, then the rule of law is void.
Like the recent rush to approve fast track authority - in a bill held in secrecy from, not only the American people, but from the  very legislators charged with voting on it; an egregious affront to the very philosophical foundation of a nation that was said to be of the people, by the people  and for the people - the attitude that something, anything must be done and done now will be blamed for this insidious takeover of America. The logical  individual would say, no. If the choices are doing the wrong thing and doing nothing, do nothing. But that doesn't serve the current political agenda of fundamentally transforming America. 
It has been the opinion of this writer, that to be forced to use force to retake America would be a blot on our history, and so it will be. The fact that we are supposed to have peaceful mechanisms in place to remove any harmful people from office, to repeal harmful laws, rules and regulations was supposed to be the saving grace of the American form of government. 
Those mechanisms only work with a population of people who are self reliant, personally responsible and informed by Christian values as to the difference between right and wrong. In the absence of such a people, style overrules substance and disaster follows on the heels of the choices that are made.

If such mechanisms were working, there would be a lot more politicians in jail and every single member of the SCOTUS who ruled in favor of legislating through redefinition - even though it is a mild form - that of choosing one meaning over another, when the proper course would have been to send it back to Congress and tell them to make clear which meaning they intended - should be removed from their positions for "bad behavior". Because ending the rule of law in this nation, and usurping the right of Congress to legislate is very bad behavior indeed.

But then maybe "bad" = "good" now. How can we tell? 

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour....
ARTICLE III, SECTION 1

jiggery-pokery


nounChiefly British
1.
trickery, hocus-pocus; fraud; humbug.
2.
sly, underhanded action.
3.
manipulation:
After a little jiggery-pokery, the engine started.


"30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.
31 The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide.
32 The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him." 
~ Psalm 37:30-32

Monday, June 8, 2015

Do Big Unions Buy Politicians?







And where are We the People? That's why public sector unions are wrong.