Author: Papa Giorgio
I am predicting a 6-to-3 opinion* ~Plus, largest health provider keepinig some of the common sense aspects of the bill
* but if it is strictly along party lines (originalists [4+swing] versus legal positivists), then it will be a 5-4
In as soon as ten days from now, the Supreme Court is expected to render its decision on the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare. During the week of June 25th, America will learn whether Obama’s attempt, using his draconian health care law and an unprecedented individual mandate, to take over 1/6th of our nation’s economy will fail to pass through the branch of government designed to protect our citizens from overreach and tyranny.
While we wait, Forbes has some good news.
So much for a national health care law.
Based on Intrade, there is a 69.9% chance that the Supreme Court will strike down the individual mandate in the national healthcare reform act, known in the political soap opera world as “ObamaCare”.
I Love This Word, `Sycophant` ~ Used by Michael Steele of Chris Matthews
Definition: “a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.”
Synonyms: adulator, backscratcher, backslapper, bootlicker, brownnoser, doormat, fan, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groupie, groveler, handshaker, hanger-on, lackey, minion, parasite, politician, puppet, slave.
(Caution ~ *VIOLENT*) One group of Khalistanis enforcing Taliban style Sikh Laws
Introduction to Khalistan Movement: The goal of the Khalistan movement is or was to create a Sikh homeland, often called Khālistān (Punjabi: ਖ਼ਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ, Hindi: ख़ालिस्तान “The Land of the Pure”), in the Punjab region of India and Pakistan, depending on definition. Harking back to the 18th century Sikh Empire, the envisioned Sikh state would include the Indian states of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, New Delhi, parts of the Kashmir, parts of Rajasthan, and parts of Gujurat. There is also a demand for areas in Pakistan, including Punjab and Sindh.
`Coon Cat` ~ Biggest Breed Yet of House Cat (as usual, all photos linked)
Say hi to what could soon be the biggest domestic cat ever
Although his owner boasts of his “magnificent, wild look,” we wouldn’t want to run into him in a dark alley — he’ll be the size of an adult bobcat when he’s grown. But chillax: This Maine coon cat is more likely to curl up in the chair next to you than attack.
We Evolved Into Needing Progressive Democratic Ethics/Government
Really the idea of “progressive, democratic evolutionary ethics” is meaningless if true (see here). Dennis Prager discusses a recent defense of Bloomberg’s “soda-ban” by an evolutionary professor from Harvard. He [Dennis] even wrote about this in a recent article:
————————————–
Control of Language (1984'ish)
To differ with the left is not only definitionally sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and bigoted (SIXHIRB, as I have labeled it) — it is now against science itself….
The quotation of the week last week had to be that of Harvard professor Daniel E. Lieberman in an opinion piece for the New York Times.
Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology, was among those who publicly defended New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to ban the sale of sugared soft drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces.
And he did so using, of all things, evolution.
Now, we all know that humans have always needed — or evolved to need — carbohydrates for energy. So how could evolution argue for Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on sugar, a pure carbohydrate?
“We have evolved,” the professor concluded his piece, “to need coercion.”
[….]
Evolution explains love, altruism, morality, economic behavior, God, religion, intelligence. Indeed, it explains everything but music. For some reason, the evolutionists have not come up with an evolution-based explanation for why human beings react so powerfully to music. But surely they will.
Now, along comes Professor Lieberman, not merely to use evolution to explain human behavior but to justify coercive left-wing social policy.
In other words, the left is not only progressive when it coerces citizens to act in ways the left deems appropriate but also science itself — through evolution — inexorably leads to government coercion on behalf of such policies.
Whereas until now, the democratic left has attempted to persuade humanity that left-wing policies are inherently progressive, this Harvard professor has gone a huge step further. Left-wing policies are scientifically based. This is exactly how the Soviet Communists defended their totalitarian system. Everything they advocated was “naoochni,” “scientific.”
To differ with the left is not only definitionally sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and bigoted (SIXHIRB, as I have labeled it) — it is now against science itself….
Here are the original comments by Prager on this deterministic proclamation:
Concepts: “What Does ‘Free’ Mean?” (Smaller Government)
(You can enlarge the article by clicking it.) This is a local, small town magazine, and John Van Huizum writes a regular piece that I will critique here-and-there. Here is my first installment:
I wish to write a response to a recent Concepts article by John Van Huizum, entitled “What Does ‘Free’ Mean?” There are a couple issues worth responding to or in-the-least offering a differing viewpoint on. The first of Mr. Huizum’s positions that needs de”concept”ualizing is the idea of “greed.” Mr. Huizum spoke of history, something Dr. Sowell reminds us of in the telling of Richard Sears ferocious greed in wanting to overtake Montgomery Ward.[1] This type of greed leads to lower prices. Alternatively the Fords, Rockefellers, and the Carnegies found ways to offer goods at lower prices. This type of greed leads to Carnegie — for instance — becoming a “prodigious philanthrop[ist] – building more than 3,000 public libraries in 47 states…, founding Carnegie-Mellon University and the Carnegie Institute of Technology (C.I.T.), establishing Carnegie Hall in New York, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and much more.”[2]
In a wonderful response to Donahue’s 1979 challenge to Milton Freidman on the issue of greed and if greed has ever caused Dr. Friedman to doubt capitalism. Milton Friedman responded that “the world runs on individuals pursuing their own interests, the great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory from an order of a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of the grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and free trade.”[3] So I wish to proffer another history that maybe, just possibly Forbes is taking into account and Mr. Huizum is not.
Another point worth politely rejecting is the definition given to Forbes by Mr. Huizum on freedom: “free from ANY government regulation.”[4] This is a fallacy of straw-man.[5] Mr. Huizum does not show a full knowledge of Forbes understanding on this matter. Nor does the facile dealing with this complex issue and the putting forth of a false definition as if-it-were Forbes do this topic justice.
One last point, the most important. Unlike big business when it makes mistakes, big government cannot go out of business. Unlike corrupt government, corrupt business cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation’s currency. Businesses cannot coerce you by force (tax liens, garnishing of wages, or armed IRS officials, etc) into an action. So the “greed” of the corporation pales in comparison to the greed of government.[6] Which is why our Founders stated that, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government” (Patrick Henry); “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master” (George Washington).
FOOTNOTES
[1] Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2004), 361.
[2] Michael Medved, The 10 biggest Lies About America (New York, NY: Crown Forum, 2008), 132; see also, “What Did He Get for That Money?”
[3] Milton Freidman on the Phil Donahue Show – “Greed” (VIDEO)
[4] John Van Huizum, Agua Dulce/Acton Country Journal, Vol. XXII, Issue 21 (May 26, 2012), 19.
[5] a) Person A has position X; b) Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X); c) Person B attacks position Y; d) Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
[6] Dennis Prager, Still the Best Hope (New York, NY: Broadside Books, 2012), 35-36.
Sean Hannity’s Panel Included Dennis Prager & Bob Beckel (both segments) ~ Watch Prager almost make Beckel’s head explode
`NYT Prints Democrat Leaks to Make Democrat Look Good, GOP Leaks to Make GOP Look Bad` ~ Coulter
Democrat, Pat Caddell, Names National Security Advisor Tom Donilon As Source For Top Security Leaks
Remember, Medved called this!
Will this be Romney vs. Obama??
Initerview with Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President of the Acton Institute
Rev. Robert A. Sirico is president of the Acton Institute, a Michigan-based think tank that works to integrate “Judeo-Christian Truths with Free Market Principles.” In his new book “Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy,” Sirico argues that capitalism is not only compatible with Christianity, but that even the most derided aspects of the free market — consumerism, international trade and “unfairness” — help create the most moral economic system available.