The Week That Was

It was a helluva week for the “fundamental transformation” of America brought to you by the fascist progressive minority and the newly minted fourth branch of government – the legislative wing of the Supreme Court. When CJ Roberts ruled on the individual mandate vs tax issue in 2012 I think everyone was a little surprised that he ignored the obvious intent of the legislation that the mandate was a “penalty”, not a tax, because the authors knew very well that selling a tax increase to pass the bill was not an option. Yet the tax angle was the only option to pass Constitutional muster, and Roberts was there to save the authors from themselves in the final ruling. Fast forward three years, once again CJ Roberts ignores the intent of the legislation as expressed by Jonathan Gruber to force State’s to set up exchanges or lose out on Federal subsidies. In order for the numbers to work, the Federal Government needed State’s to set up exchanges so they could pass on the financial burden of the subsidies, yet when many State’s refused to accept that financial burden, or went broke trying to set up exchanges, the entire ACA paradigm was in peril. Enter newly minted SC Legislator Roberts to save the day yet again as he magically waved his wand, reinterpreted the intent and made all the little fascists happy. It is obvious the SC no longer strictly interprets the constitutionality of legislation as it is written. They now have magic powers to see into the hearts of man, assess the intent and rule accordingly. And just a reminder, these folks are not up for election and serve in their positions for life, so in reality it wasn’t a good week for our “representative republic” at least on this issue.

In re: to SSM, I think public sentiment was clearly headed in this direction and despite the numerous failures at the State ballot boxes in recent years, SSM was on a trajectory towards acceptance. Enter the SC Legislative branch, who once again disrupt the natural evolution of democratic reform and impose their position on the issue upon the ignorant masses who are clearly not as evolved and wise as they are. Ironically, had patience won out and State voters were the impetus of change, this issue would not be the rancorous issue it has become. But that possibility was evidently not acceptable to the petulant progressive fascists who once again relied on the Legislative branch of the SC to impose their desires. Again, a bad week for our “representative republic”.

And while we are all adorn in rainbows, love and free health insurance, ISIS is having a field day in exploring new ways to slaughter innocent people. Remember them? I don’t even think Orwell could have envisioned this.

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “The Week That Was

  1. Retired Spook June 28, 2015 / 10:51 am

    The speed with which this fundamental transformation is occurring is what’s so disconcerting. One of the hallmarks of the Progressive movement has always been patience — two steps forward and one step back. We now have a generational confluence that has never been seen before, and, hopefully, will never be seen again — the combination of aging 60’s radicals with the first full generation educated/indoctrinated by those 60’s radicals now entering middle and upper management and leadership positions within the government. And what a dangerous combination it’s proving to be.

  2. Amazona June 28, 2015 / 11:10 am

    I strongly recommend reading the transcript linked here:

    http://beforeitsnews.com/middle-east/2015/06/stunning-transcript-michael-t-flynn-lieutenant-general-2491794.html

    From the testimony of Lt. General Michael T Flynn, here is just one of the warnings he issued to Congress a couple of weeks ago. (Emphasis mine)

    19. I believe that Tehran would choose ballistic missiles as its preferred
    method of delivering nuclear weapons, when it builds them. Iran’s ballistic
    missiles are inherently capable of delivering WMD, and Tehran already has
    the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. Iran’s
    progress on space launch vehicles—along with its desire to deter the United
    States and its allies—provides Tehran with the means and motivation to
    develop longer‐range missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles
    (ICBMs).

    20. Iran possesses a substantial inventory of theater ballistic missiles
    capable of reaching as far as parts of southeastern Europe.
    Tehran is
    developing increasingly sophisticated missiles and improving the range and
    accuracy of its other missile systems. Iran is also acquiring advanced naval
    and aerospace capabilities, including naval mines, small but capable
    submarines, coastal defense cruise missile batteries, attack craft,
    anti‐ship missiles, and armed unmanned aerial vehicles.

    As the Washington Post editorialists have said, regime change in Tehran is
    the best way to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The same applies
    to their missile arsenal, which is of high quality and growing. Even today,
    their missiles cover most all of the Middle East, and the next generation
    will include ICBMs capable of attacking the American homeland.

    Just look at the cooperation with North Korea, China and Russia. Connect
    those dots, and you get the outline of a global alliance aimed at the U.S.,
    our friends, and our allies.

    • M. Noonan June 28, 2015 / 10:42 pm

      It all works out, you see? Having Iran as the regional super power in the Middle East is what both Iran and Obama want. In a certain sense, Obama and the liberals will get what they want…just as eastern and southern Europe were quiet while the USSR dominated the area, so will the Middle East be quiet once Iran imposes its will on the area. Problem solved, right? That people will be murdered and oppressed won’t matter to our liberals 10 years from now any more than it did when people were murdered and oppressed in Europe 30 years ago. Of course, it might go badly for Israel, but the left has been worked towards outright anti-Semitism by their leadership for a long time…

  3. Cluster June 29, 2015 / 7:40 am

    Considering the financial melt down in the entitlement based society of Greece, don’t you think this would be a good time for a POTUS candidate to campaign on increased entitlements here at home?

    ……much of his (Bernie Sanders) message focused on improving the lot of the lower and middle classes — by providing free college; guaranteeing workers vacation time, sick leave and family leave; and raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

    If only the rich would pay their fair share.

  4. Retired Spook June 29, 2015 / 2:02 pm

    I’m thinking we should start a pool on how many perversions of marriage will make it into the court system in, say, the next year. Polygamy is the most obvious, and even Chief Justice Roberts laid out that possibility in his minority opinion.

    Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

    • bardolf2 June 29, 2015 / 10:03 pm

      Given that polygamy has been culturally permitted in an overwhelming majority of societies throughout history, why is it a perversion of marriage?

      Temple Judaism allowed polygamy (it’s in the Torah), Islam allows polygamy, Mormonism allows polygamy, most of the Eastern philosophies allow polygamy and so on.

      The Greco-Roman, Christian, post-temple Jewish and most of Western culture (up until recently) had uses for monogamy different than those other cultures. It reduced the corruption and violence which naturally arise when some males are kept out of the genetic lottery because other males have multiple wives. At the same time for women, monogamy led to an implicit promise of a building up of a surplus of production from a potential husband and a lifelong financial commitment from that husband, divorce was intentionally hard to come by and men were encouraged to strive in the workplace.

      But the West got rid of the implicit bargains of monogamy some time ago. No fault divorce, alimony and the welfare state replaced the guarantee of the husband’s commitment and the state monopoly on violence (plus endless entertainment) guarantees a ‘peace’ among men who do not have access to the next generation. Add to this the attack on male individuality, with the over prescription of psychiatric drugs already in elementary school, meant to keep them obedient and a predictable pattern emerges. Men of the current generation are opting out of traditional marriage in record numbers irrespective of ‘marriage equality’.

      Gay marriage will accelerate and normalize the idea that marriages should be open (a kind of polygamy) but here too we see a parallel in the inner city celebration of the dude with kids from 4 or more different ‘girlfriends’. That situation has been a problem for more than a generation and neither political party has done much in response to this. Indeed, black fatherhood has been undercut by the left and is mostly a talking point for those on the political right.

      • Retired Spook June 29, 2015 / 10:31 pm

        Given that polygamy has been culturally permitted in an overwhelming majority of societies throughout history, why is it a perversion of marriage?

        Yeah, that was probably a bad choice of words. “Variation” would maybe be a better description. And I suspect you’re going to see lots of variations in the coming months and years.

      • bardolf2 June 29, 2015 / 11:40 pm

        There will be a lot of variations on ‘marriage’, but all will weaken the bargain that was put forward which gives a reason for middle class males to opt into marriage. If the economy can be based on financial geniuses at the top and a serf class at the bottom then maybe the corporate-government-media axis has it right after all and traditional Western marriage can be improved by the enlightened elite.

      • M. Noonan June 30, 2015 / 10:34 am

        They’ll consider it improved – but what I wonder is: who will fight for this Brave, New World? If Christians become second class citizens, I definitely see a drop off in recruits for the military, as well as police and fire departments. Are our SJW going to volunteer to fill the gap? I doubt it. The other day I was walking out of a place and walking into it were four fine examples of the type…with one looking so altered by tatoos and piercings that it would have been impossible for me to have a conversation with him due to the distracting amount of decoration. These are the people who will stand up when the Chinese attack? Who will go back to Waziristan to fight the Islamists? I don’t think so.

    • M. Noonan June 29, 2015 / 10:22 pm

      I really can’t think of a single argument against polygamy outside of Christian arguments. As long as some sort of legal safeguards are built in to ensure that all parties to a plural marriage are freely giving their consent, I think that eventually such marriages will be ruled valid – though compelling State interest will still allow, I believe, various restrictions on who can get benefits in such a marriage in terms of government spending.

      As for family members marrying – once again, I think that compelling State interest against allowing such to happen will be ruled. I could be wrong – but even most Progressive types won’t want to get into that.

      As for tax free status of religious bodies – a lot of people on the right are very justifiably worried about this, and we all know full well that the more fascist parts of the Progressive world would love nothing more than to stick it to Christians on this matter…but, in the end, such a move would also apply to mosques and predominantly African-American religious bodies, as well…and so the left will leave it alone due to electoral considerations. Though I’d love to see them try – I can’t imagine any Progressive move which would be more likely to move African-Americans and Latinos over to our side (and if the Church did lose her tax exempt status I’d just kick in a bit more…so would most; it wouldn’t be the biggest thing in the world and, eventually, we win and restore the tax exempt status; it is just a matter of law, not Constitutional matters).

      My larger worry is that in their mania to enforce conformity of thought on this matter, our Progressives will really go after free speech…and I’m not at all convinced that Justice Kennedy will be on our side in this matter. With that in mind, I figure we go ahead and pass the Employee Non-Discrimination Act that our Progressives want…with an amendment prohibiting any institution from discriminating against a member, customer or employee for opinions expressed outside the institution.

    • Bob Eisenhower June 30, 2015 / 11:42 pm

      The SC ruling would, indeed, open the door to polygamy, though it seems most here don’t have a moral footing against that. As for incestuous marriages, there is a bona fide medical argument against it and incest is the only universal taboo (meaning it exists in every culture ever studied), so that won’t be allowed.

      All the other examples I’ve heard discussed,es people give – why can’t I marry a horse, for example – don’t have consent of both parties. Until a horse can provide informed consent, it cannot enter any contract, including one of matrimony.

      • Amazona July 1, 2015 / 10:11 am

        Not the best straw man setup we’ve seen, Bob—both tired and silly. It’s kind of interesting, in a way, to see what passes for intellectual discourse way over there on the Left, but really, Bob, you need to work on your material.

        There is “..a bona fide medical argument against ..” against anal sex, too, yet it is not only legal it is celebrated by some and is the basis for much of the subsequent argument about gay “marriage”.

        If the official stance of the feds is that they simply can’t define marriage, and won’t let the states define it, then what ARE the restrictions, where can they be found, and what authority does a state have to enforce a restriction if it IS found?

        Where, exactly, is a law demanding “consent” to marriage? Surely you realize that many forced marriages take place without the consent of the woman, or in too many cases the consent of the child.

        The fact is, five unelected people have once again trampled on the will of the people and overturned the most basic tenet of our Constitution, which is that the federal government must be severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with nearly all authority left to the states. The federal government is required, as so clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment, to address ONLY those specific duties assigned to it and enumerated in the body of the Constitution.

        And we need to remember that this entire hysterical episode has nothing at all to do with “equality” because that could be and often has been codified without hijacking the word “marriage”. It is and always has been about the WORD, not the reality, because of the desperate need to pretend that there is nothing aberrant about homosexuality.

        “Aberrant” doesn’t have to mean wrong, evil, nasty, sinful, disgusting, etc. It really only means different, out of the norm. Trying to apply a word that has a tradition that is within the norm to something that is not will not change the facts. I am very very sorry that so many homosexual people are so deeply and profoundly ashamed of their sexual orientation that they can’t simply accept it and have their own word to describe their version of a mutually committed legal relationship with certain benefits and restrictions, just as heterosexual people have had for centuries. It is very sad. But this is what this whole thing has really been about. It has been a heart-wrenching exhibition of shame, wearing a thin veneer of a search for “equality”. It has been a pathetic hope that if Jim can call Harry his “husband” this will make this relationship exactly like that of the married couple next door.

        Well, it started off as sad. But when it turned into a wall-kicking, invective-spewing, shrieking temper tantrum laced with the predictable Leftist lies and the wholesale emotional manipulation game, and a shrill demand that everybody ELSE change to accommodate a few, it became annoying.

        Right now the saddest thing about it is that the entire country has been turned upside down because a few emotion-ruled Lefties felt that the end justifies the means, and the end they wanted was to play the game, meaning that they shredded the Constitution one more time.

        As an aside, if Colorado had chosen to validate gay unions by slapping the word “marriage” onto them, instead of just making them equal to marriage but without the word, I wouldn’t have liked it, but it would have been OK because it would have happened according to Constitutional law, a decision made at the state level where it belongs. The vile distortion of facts has already begun, with people now claiming that objection to the ruling is “homophobic” (an utterly stupid word with no real meaning) when it is really an objection to the assumption of vast power and authority by the Court and its blithe dismissal of the Constitution.

      • Amazona July 1, 2015 / 10:13 am

        “….most here don’t have a moral footing against…” against polygamy?

        Got another “here” going we don’t know about, “Bob”?

      • M. Noonan July 1, 2015 / 12:01 pm

        Yeah – I think most of us here have a moral thing against polygamy…we just realize that in a legal sense, there’s not much anyone can do to stop it, given the SC ruling on SSM.

      • Bob Eisenhower July 1, 2015 / 12:07 pm

        Amazona

        How did I offend you that you would start your response with hostility? My questions had no straw man at all, and considering I stated no position at all, I don’t see how you determined I am “on the Left.”

        As regards the medical argument, I chose my words poorly. There is a bona fide medical issue that affects society with regards to incest. While anal sex can cause medical issues, those issues only affect individuals or couples, not society at large.

        And the “no moral standing” point again, you make a good point. Mark Noonan had stated he could find no argument against polygamy but for Christian dogma and I completely forgot about the “except for Christian dogma” part.

        Amazona, I hope our introduction was just getting off on the wrong foot. Your post was surprisingly hostile. I came here for good discussion, to share my views and hear others share theirs.

      • Amazona July 1, 2015 / 11:34 pm

        Bob, you are way too sensitive. What you posited WAS a straw man—the whole thing about wanting to marry a horse IS silly, the equivalent of saying that people who believe in God worship an old man with a beard who lives on a cloud.

        How about getting over your conviction that I am hostile and address real facts and issues. I notice that you ignored this: “The fact is, five unelected people have once again trampled on the will of the people and overturned the most basic tenet of our Constitution, which is that the federal government must be severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with nearly all authority left to the states. The federal government is required, as so clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment, to address ONLY those specific duties assigned to it and enumerated in the body of the Constitution.” in favor of claiming I was mean to you.

      • Bob Eisenhower July 2, 2015 / 1:35 pm

        Amazona

        I did not posit the straw man, I argued against it. There are countless times I’ve seen public figures say “well, if gays marry, what’s next, marrying a horse?” I stated this makes no sense, as a horse cannot consent.

        As for requiring consent for marriage, ALL legal contracts require informed consent of all parties or a court can throw them out. You state that “surely” I know of marriages forced upon women and I say no such marriage legally exists in America. I’m not saying women haven been forced into marriage, such as the FLDS town that was eventually raided, but those were not legal marriages. They existed so long because that group made their land physically and politically difficult to enforce the law.

        As for your response, two things:

        1. Regarding “five unelected judges deciding the law” nothing could be more constitutional than that. Article III requires SC judicial review. You cite Amendment X as though it supersedes Article III. It does not.

        2. I don’t see you can open our first dialog calling my argument (which you misunderstood) as “tired and silly” and somehow feel I am sensitive for calling out your hostility. I am not oversensitive (in this regard, at least), I am not a shrieking Lefty or anything like that. I simply pointed out you were hostile from the get-go. Own it, and let’s move on to some good dialog.

      • Cluster July 2, 2015 / 6:54 pm

        1. Regarding “five unelected judges deciding the law” nothing could be more constitutional than that. Article III requires SC judicial review.

        Bob, you’re missing the point and your citation of Article III strengthens Ama’s point. Regarding the ACA, the SC literally ignored the language and intent of the legislative body and ruled the law to be constitutional only by asserting their own language and intent. There was an obvious “irreconcilable variance” in the bill and according to Article III, the judiciary review is to consider the Constitution as the “fundamental Law”. Therefore the SC should have referred both cases re: the ACA back to Congress (the people) to debate the language and intent. That would have been the proper judicial review process under Article III.

      • M. Noonan July 2, 2015 / 9:25 pm

        There is also the provision – never invoked as far as I can tell – where Congress gets to decide which sorts of cases and under what circumstances the SC will be appellate review. That is something we need to start doing…but better is my plan: just pack the Court with people who will lock-step vote as we want, just as liberals always attempt to do. We have to punish the left for turning the SC into a legislative body…best way to make them cry “uncle” in such a fight is to make that legislature a majority conservative legislature…all of a sudden I’ll bet they’ll start talking up how important it is that we go through the normal legislative process.

  5. Retired Spook June 29, 2015 / 2:21 pm

    Rush is pointing out a glaring inconsistency in the SCOTUS SSM decision. Just two years ago the same 5 justices struck down DOMA using the argument that marriage was an exclusive responsibility of the states. Now two years later — not so much. It’ll be interesting to see how historians treat this period 25 or 50 years from now.

    • Cluster June 29, 2015 / 2:29 pm

      The only thing consistent with the SC lately is inconsistency.

Comments are closed.