By Nathan Barton
Unions are “fleecing Texas,” according to the Daily Policy Digest, because of laws and rules that give “release time” to government union members and officials so that they get paid by taxpayers while taking care of union business (unions are private organizations, even in Texas). Of course, in reality, GOVERNMENT, not just government unions, are fleecing TAXPAYERS; people and families and businesses. Union officials are parasites ON parasites on the body politic.
What is worse than just plain taxes? As Daily Policy Digest explains, using a problem in Vermont to illustrate, it is because tax laws are so badly written and so meddlesome that businesses are driven to desperation in trying to collect and remit the stolen money. Vermont’s silly and nanny-ish six-percent tax on soft drinks (not just “sugary” ones but diet, artificially sweetened ones, as well) drives retailers nuts – especially small stores and businesses that don’t have million-dollar-inventory and point-of-sale systems. Just one more way government preys on us.
Tom Knapp notes this commentary as passed on to me by MamaLiberty: “Doctors will be the scapegoats in the coming ObamaCare disaster” according to Justin Haskins with Heartland Institute. “In short, since ACA was forced on the American people, costs have gone up, access to primary care physicians has fallen, and the overall health of the nation remains unchanged at best. Obamacare has clearly been a failure, and this damaging program’s supporters have already started looking for their next scapegoat.”
Mama’s Note: That’s been a given for a long time. Doctors and other health care professionals are bailing out as fast as they can. Soon, all those who believed that “insurance” guaranteed good medical care will begin to reap the fruits of their folly. Eventually, only the very rich and those willing/able to access care on the black/gray market will have any at all. A vast number of otherwise “middle class” people are now discovering that they simply can’t afford to see a doctor anywhere near as often as they used to. And, of course, there is a fast growing fear of entering any hospital these days… for excellent reasons.
Nathan: Too many people will still believe the propaganda of the medical institutions and government, thinking they have medical care, just as people (and Tranzis) believe that Cubans have good “medical care” when the quality is barely above that of a (poorly trained, inexperienced) 68W (Army Combat Medic). And they will pay, and mourn when their loved ones die from preventable things. Also, we are already seeing, in many smaller, frontier or rural communities, where people quickly learn which “highly rated” institutions and facilities and clinics have acceptable service and which do not. Medical records, as far as success and rehospitalization rates and other problems, will become “classified” (only for our own good, of course). Fortunately, with the internet, that is usually NOT going to be enough, as voluntary reporting and rating systems pop up constantly. Still, as MamaLiberty states, it is going to get a LOT worse in the near-term.
Huh? In a blog on Patheos?
Brandan Robertson writes “As an evangelical myself, I want to suggest a different perspective than the one many of my other brothers and sisters have been offering. I believe that Kim Davis’s arrest is neither persecution or an impingement on her religious liberties. In fact, I believe her arrest actually strengthens religious liberty nation wide.?” He goes on to elaborate his reasoning, which I reject.
There are so many things wrong with this argument that it is hard to figure out where to start. Gun licenses are unconstitutional, and therefore NOT a valid comparison. Her superiors, as a County Clerk, are NOT the courts or even the legislature, they are the people of the county who elected her to office. She is an “agent of the state” in the same way that many preachers (“pastors”) in many states are deemed (incorrectly) to be agents of the state when they are “allowed” to marry someone, so the argument is WRONG that preachers should not fear the same thing. We can add a dozen more items. But he misses the entire point. Even government officials have constitutional rights, which have now arbitrarily been denied this woman, not by action of the legislature (who sets the standards for the services she provides) of her state, but by five Nazgul, thugs in black robes, making a political opinion and judgment masked as a judicial decision, in order to grant “rights” to other people. This same logic, applied to medical personnel in the last article, would lead immediately to the outright slavery of those providers. You WILL perform abortions, you WILL euthanize the elderly, you WILL give drugs that you are told to give. (I admit, that is not a very good analogy, either, but certainly as close as the gun one.) She is NOT committing any aggression against those people she is declining to provide marriage licenses to, but they ARE committing aggression by using the power of other government to force her to do something against her conscience; something that she was NOT elected to do, and something that she has no LEGITIMATE authority to do.
Mama’s Note: As with so many other things, there is no good answer to any of this except the elimination of the “state” as the presumed “authority.” It is sad to see that so few understand this in any measure. The only legitimate, logical and peaceful thing to do is for each person to control their own life, and take full responsibility for the consequences of that.
By the way, to add insult to injury, that thuggish squatter in 1600 PA had his shills make the hypocritical announcement that “no public official is above the law,” as reported in Talking Points. The gall is just incredible, isn’t it?)
Well, good for them! Is this not the way it should be? True Activist (warning: not a reliable news source) tells us that when the Icelandic government capped the number of Syrian refugees at just 50, more than 10,000 Icelanders offered their own homes for housing refugees. Assuming that the average is the minimum: just one person per household, that is 200 times the number the government was going to accept. Now, people are attacking Iceland’s government for the very low number, but Iceland only has 300,000 people: that was one refugee for every 6,000 people.
If the UK used that same ratio, with about 50 million people, they would be accepting 80,000 refugees – that is a serious number of people. (And the US would be accepting about 500,000 – a half-MILLION: far more than came from Cuba during the Marielito Boat Lift in 1980, when 125,000 refugees hit the US quite hard. But I am heartened by the charity shown by Icelanders, as well as the caution of their politicians. I just hope that they are able to assimilate the Syrians: we know that the Netherlands, Belgium, and even Denmark and Sweden, have been unable to do so with the large number of Muslim immigrants now swarming those countries. And we know that much larger nations (the UK and France) are facing cataclysm because of the vast intake. Yes, I’m of mixed mind about this – but it DOES show at least one possible reconciliation between “unbounded immigration” and reality and stability and defending our homes.
If immigrants have personal, individual sponsors (not just some relative that has already come in-country) that is willing and able to pay the cost of them entering – provide necessary shelter and other services voluntarily – then the likelihood of acculturation and assimilation is much higher, and the impact on the receiving nation’s economy and society far more likely to be positive. It would not matter whether it was provided out of purely charitable considerations, or for business (guest workers; migrant workers, etc.). It is the difference between inviting someone into your home voluntarily and accepting responsibility for them, versus being forced to ignore (or worse, support) the intruder living in the back shed that snuck in while you were at work. I am sure that many people will object to my belief on this subject – if so, tell me!
Mama’s Note: In the current system, this would help the taxpayers at any rate. In a truly free country, it would not be necessary, since there would be no tax theft “programs” for the immigrants and they’d have to supply their own needs and wants. They would assimilate, or not, just as the countless immigrants did before the welfare state came into being.
This should NOT be an issue, if parents would get their children OUT of these evil institutions. CNS News reports that Miralora Elementary School, starting with kindergarten and first grade, is going to “gender neutral” toilets for children. Not enough information is available to see if this is based on individual stalls that only one child at a time can use. If so, well, not really a huge deal. IF the child has privacy: some states have interpreted “child protection” laws in such a way that a child no longer has any privacy when using the toilet, so who knows? How many parents have checked? There are still some issues. First, as any professional plumber will tell you, toilets are NOT intended to be used by people standing up – that is, men and boys: they are intended to be used seated. Standing and urinating causes splatter, which (given the acidity of urine) causes damage and increased maintenance costs – yes, even in the home.
That is why URINALS (yes, those horrific symbols of “male dominance”) were invented and used. They ARE intended for use standing up – which generally means by males, unless you have a female (remember, we are talking functional, biological males and females, with appropriate body parts and NOT mental conditions) who happens to own one of those Heinlein-esque devices to allow females to urinate while standing up. That (cost) is primarily the reason that (as a male) I assume that separate toilet facilities exist for men and women.
Men can stand, literally, at a trough, and urinate; women cannot. (I don’t want to go into the social aspects of women all going to the jane all at once – I AM a male.) But conservatives and others have gotten so paranoid (with good reason) about public schools – even while still stupidly sending their children to them – that this sort of thing creates a major brohaha. Witness the recent decision by a Missouri school district that says a functional male, who claims (and no doubt sincerely believes) that he is “female” is to be allowed to use the female locker room. (Hmmm. I wonder, if someone claims that although they appear to be human, they are really a dog, would they then NOT be forced to attend school at all? And be allowed to live in an animal shelter?)
Mama’s Note: This whole “gender”/sex thing is truly insane. The root cause, of course, is the incredible mania of so many to control the actions and choices of other people. I do remember the trauma of my first experience with a very large “public restroom” when I was a small girl (1950). Mother, sister and I were in a big city train station and there were easily a hundred women and children of every age in the restroom facility. The sound of all the toilets flushing was actually terrifying. I’m very grateful there were no men or “transgenders” involved… at least as far as I knew.
The problem is a matter of control by others, obviously, but also by the very existence of “public property.” In a free country, where all property and businesses were private, this would not even be a question.
Enough insanity for this column.