Someone speaks some sense.
Archive for the ‘Personal Responsibility’ Category
Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/11/25
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/11/20
37% you say? Hm, it actually doesn’t seem like 37% of the people I meet are complete morons or absolute pieces of sh**. Maybe I should make up a ‘worthless p.o.s. idiot test’:
1. Are you entitled to an income just for being alive?
2. Are you entitled to healthcare just for being alive?
3. Do you believe your gender, race, ethnicity, or combination thereof entitle you to preferred treatment in any aspect of societal interaction, i.e. preferences for hiring, housing, public assistance etc., or deference in ordinairy social interactions?
4. Would you refuse miltary service, or other public service, to qualify for the above “entitlements”?
5. Are you of sound mind and body but not actively seeking employment?
6. Do your engage in non-contraceptive-use extra-marital sex while without the means to independently (free of public assistance) raise a dependent child?
If you answered “yes” to any of the above questions, you are most likely a “worthless p.o.s. idiot”.
And you probably still think Obuggerme is just swell.
(typos in original)
Sadly, far too many people have rejected the US Constitution and would say “yes” to one or more of those questions.
Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/11/15
In Article II of the US Constitution, that would be the the one that Presidents swear or affirm to uphold in Article II Section 1. says he shall take the following oath or affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
With that, the President must uphold the laws of the United States. On occasions, the Supremes have said this happens in the “Take Care Clause” which is below in Article II, Section 3.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
…………….; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, ……….
Note, it didn’t say just the laws you like, or unilaterally change the laws you don’t like.
The remedy for not doing this is in Section 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Now in the last few weeks due to the LAW known as BarackObamaCare, we have seen 5 million people thrown off their then Affordable Health Care, but the reason was, they were inferior to ObummerCare, but they also met the losers needs at a lower cost. BO has caught lots of flack for having a law doing this. And further more, Obummer has told these 5 million at least 29 times they could keep their policy. When called on this, Obummer said he didn’t say that. Now that a minor revolt has happened with the losers, the Reps and Senators seeing what they voted for, they were going to answer for. So, Obummer did what he has done a number of times, unilaterally changed the law. However, instead of doing what he usually does in the middle of the night, he did in the daylight, and poorly. Now Obummer is losing his allies in the Press, in Congress, and has lost the trust of the public.
This is reminding more and more of Nixon. We do have what looks like a probable Constitutional Crisis.
Posted by DNW on 2013/11/12
It’s a striking fact that the predicate of Obamacare, i.e., the premise of a redistributionist implementation of what John Rawls approvingly called, a “commitment to a shared fate” is simply, and unequivocally, fascist.
This “shared fate” social obligation, is the very principle behind Obamacare; and is rhetorically traceable among others, to the Fascist in Chief himself.
Hyperventilating lefty professors, so fond of directing the charge of “fascist” at others for whatever rhetorical effect they imagine they can leverage out of it, will continue to busily construct their self-serving political taxonomies based on wish-fulfillment listings of the supposed attributes essential to a fascist attitude and polity. These attributes, they claim, invariably involve hostility to foreigners, or the arts, or minorities.
Yet a libertarian polity or anarchist system of association with a population that manifests these three traits on average, would not thereby be transformed into a fascist solidarity or corporatist state. Something more “positive” must be added without which the fascist state cannot logically or coherently be said to officially exist.
Recall here Obama’s problem with our current charter of negative (negatively defined) liberties. The problem as he sees it, is that it defines what you are free from, not what you must do for whom, or what you are entitled to expect from others.
The individual mandate with its across the board legal transformation of freeborn men and women into social resources unconditionally available to the government for the support and maintenance of a redistributive social solidarity state, is that necessary addition. It’s what the fascist left seeks to implement. And as such it’s the manifest essence of the fascist concept.
Recall that this Obamacare individual mandate claim upon the individual is not temporary, nor based upon the necessity of a repulsion of foreign invaders by all citizens, nor upon the need to distributively protect all from some contagion that knows no distinctions of person. It is instead, based upon the presumption of one’s open-ended duty to sacrifice one’s own opportunities and life choices in order to indemnify others against the costs and consequences of being themselves.
It’s emotionally difficult – despite the occasional rhetorical exercise by those like myself warning of a possibility to the contrary – for many of us, myself included, to face the fact that people whom one has heretofore considered as probable moral fellows, are not in fact anything of the kind. Obamacare has now brought this into the sharpest relief.
They, its advocates, have now willingly and overtly become people who in active and current fact, as well as in prior principle, operate off the principle that they will now recognize no limit to their claims upon other human beings for the sake of that secularized social sodality regime which they crave, and which they feel will benefit themselves through the coerced access they gain to your life energies and expenditures.
It, sadly, is therefore not at all hyperbolic to state that the Democrats in Congress who voted for Obamacare and the individual mandate were seeking to institute or to further an already incipient social fascism in the United States. The Democrats should just rename themselves the Fascist Party, and have done with it.
This Obamacare state of affairs has long been the obvious goal of left-wing ideologues: to construct a default situation wherein there preexists a sociopolitical presumption that the individual exists for the utility of others.
The Democrat party has now explicitly advanced and endorsed this premise through Obamacare. Whether the impulse further progresses to the social or state ownership of some or all productive resources or tools of production, as in full blown socialism, is besides the point. The point is that man has now been made by law, and by virtue of his mere existence, into a social resource upon which the state has a legally unlimited claim.
The definitional lines are drawn, and the sides chosen. How friends and relatives will react to being told to their faces that they are fascist, remains to be seen. My guess is that they could not care less what they are, or are called, as long as they get what they want out of others.
They like it that way.
And that, is not a matter of mere politics, but includes something that might almost be seen as a “spiritual dimension”.
Note: I wrote this out earlier today on the fly, and hit “post” rather than “save”. I’ve made a few of what I think should be improvements in clarity and precision. The labored language … well, that, I can do nothing about. LOL.
Posted by DNW on 2013/10/29
Before I forget: Another reference to a conversation with the mail lady.
Concerning liberals, and rape, and what they – or some of them – really believe about the integrity and inviolability of the human person.
I might have mentioned before that we have this rather outspoken mail carrier. She’s generally cheerful, very left-liberal, not shy about saying so, and armed with all the usual talking points you would expect from someone for whom progressive media sources constitute the information gold standard.
Though it escapes me at the moment how the topic of the exploitation of women came up, it did. Or rather she brought it up.
Probably something about the abuse and physical exploitation which females are commonly acknowledged to suffer in the so-called third world.
I agreed with her by and large. I said so. In fact I went further. I said that rape should be absolutely intolerable. I said that it constituted a crime beyond the pale. “Yes!” she exclaimed.
“You have an absolute and inviolable moral right to your physical integrity,” I said.
“Absolutely! ” she said. “And,” she added, ” many people expect these women to bear the child of a man who has beaten and degraded them! You can’t expect a woman to allow that monster’s offspring to grow in her womb, can you?”
“You have an absolute right to your own body then? We agree on that?” I asked.
“I’m glad you feel that way” I said. “Would you agree that rape should be a capital crime?”
“Oh, our justice system …” she began.
“Well hypothetically then, in a case where there was a brutal physical attack, a forcible act, …”
“There’s always doubt” she said “look at the cases where …”
“Ok, let’s limit ourselves to the question as to whether you believe that you would have the moral right to kill – a justification – in order to stop an ongoing act of violent rape being perpetrated on yourself, if: a, it was the only way to stop it, and b, you had the means, to assuredly do so.”
“If my kids were …”, she started.
“I’m not talking about your kids.”
“Well, do you mean, later?”
“Stop!” I said. “Forget any scenario involving the legal system and mistaken identities. Forget about after the fact self-help acted out in cold blood, if that is what is also disturbing you. “I’m asking you, you personally, as a “progressive female” if you would use lethal force on a brutalizing rapist in process, if that was the only way to get him to cease, and if you were sure to be successful in doing so. Hell, and assume it’s lawful to do so, if that helps you to come up with an answer”
“Uh, well, uh … wellllll, uh I have to think about that. I’ll get back with you later.” she said as she sidled out the door.
Virtually identical to the words she used the last time we had this kind of a conversation. That now makes two of those “I’ll get back with you later”s she’s never gotten back with me on.
Leftists, do have different interpersonal boundaries. And for all their shrillness and squawking about domination and violation and exploitation, they, some of them, seem to think that the last thing they should be required to do, is to take an absolute stand on the only absolute locus of self which they have.
What integrity then, is it that they are trying to preserve, if they will not preserve their own?
And if they will not preserve their own if they can, why should anyone else take the care and trouble to do so for them?
Credit: The image of the two postal workers is from Ilana Cohn’s “thefunclub” parody of a USPS public service announcement featuring Tonya and CiCi, found on Cohn’s YouTube channel. It’s a bit rough for a family style blog, so I won’t link directly. Depending on your sensibilities, it might be said to be hilarious.
Posted by DNW on 2013/10/12
Most will have noticed that the founder and owner of this blog has been absent for awhile now, and that a couple of us, his blog associates that is, have filled in with a posting here or there.
Not with the deeply researched, time consuming, political data point blogging that he tended to engage in, but with somewhat more abstract or even frivolous posts.
I’m pleased to say that in some cases our new postings have generated almost half the interest his old postings on “clouds” still clock up.
Ahem, well …
But, like a number of conservatives I know, his long-term personal unselfishness was getting in the way of his realizing his own ambitions.
That’s a challenge of course, which liberals seldom face. Their trick is to have others labor to do good, while skimming the proceeds as directors, thus fattening their wallets while simultaneously lightening their pseudo-consciences.
The reason for his recent absence is that our conservative friend decided that it was long overdue for him to grant himself some well justified “me time” in a serious economic sense.
He decided to return to the trucking business for awhile. This is a project which in order for him to reach his goals would obviously require a single-mindedness and dedication which would leave little time for blogging efforts; especially in the manner he was operating.
The upshot is that John has now reported back that he’s been a busy entrepreneur these last several months, taking names and kicking … uh tires … and making real progress in building up his trucking business. He and his trainees, have logged an astonishing number of miles, and it seems as though he’s not far from making some additional capital expenditures which will expand his once fledgling enterprise significantly.
We might soon have a gen-u-wine tycoon on our hands.
” John Hitchcock
Tuesday, 15 October 2013 at 17:22
Congratulations John, and keep up the good work. Success and economic power in others is the one thing, unfortunately, that grasping liberals respect; or better said, FEAR.
Posted by DNW on 2013/09/21
I’m working today and while doing so I’ve been accessing the Internet.
I don’t know why exactly, but possibly because after hearing about the House Republican’s courageous act of defunding Obama Care, I glanced at one of Perry Hood’s typically puling exercises in social justice pimping.
I then decided to revisit and review the fact situation premises underlying the arguments we’ve all seen concerning “national” health care costs by doing a couple of searches. Just for the sake of Auld Lang Syne …
My first search was on the topic of uncompensated emergency care. I Googled: “Percentage of US health care expenditures on uncompensated emergency room treatment”.
There, in the results window I found links that informed me that emergency room treatment accounted for only about 2 cents of every dollar expended on medical treatment in the United States.
Emergency care represents less than 2 percent of the nation’s $2.4 trillion in health care expenditures while covering 136 million people a year.i ii
Emergency departments are open 24 hours a day and provide “one-stop shopping” with all the hospital’s resources – such as diagnostic testing and consultation by other medical specialists – in one place.
The most pressing economic issue in emergency medicine is uncompensated care: the lack of adequate reimbursement for emergency medical care has led to the closure of hundreds of emergency departments.
The focus on preventing so-called “non-urgent” ER visits distracts policymakers from the real cost savings in reducing hospital admissions.
Emergency departments are critical to our communities and must be adequately funded.”
We also learn that,
“About half of all emergency services go uncompensated, according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).iv The typical ER treats 1 in 5 patients without insurance or a clear method for reimbursement. The CDC reported that 19 percent of all emergency patients in 2009 were uninsured.”
“Nearly half (44 percent) of emergency physicians responding to a poll say fear of lawsuits is the biggest challenge to cutting emergency department costs. More than half (53 percent) say this fear is the main reason for ordering the number of tests they do.viii Every additional diagnostic test adds to the overall cost of care.”
See also this American College of Emergency Physicians link
So, at first glance anyway, only about 20 percent of 2 percent of the money spent in the US on medical treatment is spent on the uninsureds’ emergency room treatment. Though, this burden is costly enough, and damaging enough, to the facilities treating these patients.
Next I began to check on structural issues related to demographics. Say for example, on the cost of behavioral problems to the US economy. But that was not really a fruitful avenue. We learn of course that fat kids are a large (pun intended) and growing (same) problem and that they will likely experience a host of chronic conditions which will eventually …
Oh. Yeah, “Chronic care”
Wonder what that costs “us” as a portion of what “we” spend?
Google: “Chronic condition expenses as a percentage of American medical costs”
And this my friends really set me back on my heels. I couldn’t believe it. Though I cannot now explain why I hadn’t known it earlier.
We debate insurance reform, and malpractice reform, and we talk of defensive medicine. But what are the real causes of this social phenomenon are we being held political hostage to? Is it really primarily due to greedy doctors and profiteering insurance companies, inflated drug costs, scheming lawyers, and proliferating defensive medicine?
We speak in terms of “social costs”. What of social use? Is the demand itself unreal? What of actual use and spending, and of who is doing the using and spending?
” … Half of the population spends little or nothing on health care …”
it turns out that,
” … 5 percent of the population spends almost half of the total amount [spent]…”
What? How can this be? Feeling dizzy too? But why should we stop there when there is so much more to learn …
” … In 2002, the 5 percent of the U.S.community (civilian noninstitutionalized) population that spent the most on health care accounted for 49 percent of overall U.S. health care spending …”
” … the 50 percent of the population with the lowest expenses accounted for only 3 percent of overall U.S. medical spending, with annual medical spending below $664 per person. … those in the top 5 percent spent, on average, more than 17 times as much per personas those in the bottom 50 percent of spenders“
” … The elderly (age 65 and over) made up around 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2002, but they consumed 36 percent of total U.S. personal health care expenses. The average health care expense in 2002 was $11,089 per year for elderly people but only $3,352 per year for working-age people (ages 19-64 …”
” … people in the highest 5 percent of the distribution of medical expenses were 11 times as likely to be in fair or poor physical health as people in the bottom half of that distribution (45 percent vs. 4 percent) …”
” … 21 percent of people in the top 5 percent [those with the highest medical expenses] were in fair or poor mental health, compared with 3 percent of people in the bottom 50 percent [of medical expenses]“
Chronic, crazy, (and a modest percentage of the) elderly account for half of that infamous 16 percent or so of the GDP being spent on health care. This then is half of the “crisis” that has been driving a formerly free people into the clutches of an Obama Care mandate, and toward the degraded status of “Property of the State”.
I’m going to quit writing now; before I say something really, really cruel …
You can read and judge for yourself. As for me, I am done researching for today.
Oh you can bet your bottom dollar on this though. Once the government really gets its say, and those figures are considered, as they already have been by many in the Single Payer system movement, there will be death panels.
And what will the left do? That is to say the same left that earlier mocked Palin?
They will shrug and ask, “What did you fools expect?”
Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/07/06
This may sound a little familiar. It just happened in Canada. But not the killing.
Seventy-two killed resisting gun confiscation in Boston!
Boston – National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.
Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.
The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.
Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.
One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”
Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/06/29
Yes, sometimes Miracles do happen in the most unlikely places. Yes, I know Anderson Cooper is gay, but the main part of this story to me is he confirms as a lib what we all knew, but no lib dare utter – Confirming MSM BIAS
Anderson Cooper: ‘Why Does Alec Baldwin Get a Pass Using Gay Slurs?’ Conservative ‘Would Be Vilified’
By Noel Sheppard | June 28, 2013 | 18:35
As NewsBusters previously reported, Alec Baldwin had another major meltdown on Twitter Thursday which included a homophobic attack on a British reporter.
CNN’s Anderson Cooper struck back Friday posting on Twitter, “Why does #AlecBaldwin get a pass when he uses gay slurs? If a conservative talked of beating up a ‘queen’ they would be vilified”:
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/01/15
A man brutally murdered his own grandmother in 1980, got convicted, and went to prison. After getting out of prison, he once again went on to murder people. He set a building ablaze, then proceeded to lay in wait for the firefighters to arrive so he could murder them. I’m sure you’ve already heard a little about him. He’s the man in western New York that was on the news. But did you know he was already convicted of murder?
It’s already illegal for him to have in his possession the gun he used to murder the firefighters, because he’s a convicted violent felon. He already murdered before, using a hammer and not a gun. He murdered family. And did a stint in prison for it. But the Left, always looking for ways to prevent criminals from bearing full responsibility for their actions, let the violent murderer free to murder again. And the Left, always looking for ways to prevent criminals from bearing full responsibility for their actions, blamed guns for his next bunch of murders.
The solution is very easy to understand. The solution is also Biblical. Execute the murderer and that will serve as a deterrence. No murder, once executed, has ever gone on to murder another person. But a violent hammer murderer who murdered his own family member has gone on to murder other people outside his family after being released from prison.
It wasn’t the gun that murdered those firefighters. It was a convicted violent murderer who did. But the Left refuses to lay the blame at the convicted violent murderer’s feet. To do so would be to require adults to be responsible for their actions, and the Left is apparently incapable of the basic logic necessary to come to that conclusion.
No, they want to steal our Providence-given Second Amendment rights from us law-abiding citizens.
Make it illegal to carry a gun and only criminals will have guns.
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Posted in Character, Constitution, Constitution Shredded, crime, Culture, Law, Liberal, media, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, society | Tagged: hammer murderer, murdered firefighters, Second Amendment, western New York | Comments Off
Posted by Yorkshire on 2012/12/15
She’s the Bitch that took God out of School and nothing has been the same since. And this was over her son having to pray at Poly HS in Baltimore. Remember it well. She moved to Texas, went missing, found dead much later. And I think her son became a minister. Now today we had another PREYING at school, but it was of children. I wonder if each school shooting, the heat is turned up higher at her current residence.
Saw Obama comment on this. And honestly, I didn’t think he was going to get through his comments without breaking down. He did wipe away a tear or two. It was tough for him to handle. I will praise him for his words.
It happened in 1963 along with all the other things that altered the course of America and more or less derailed the core fabric of the country. To me, it was the start of the long slow descent we’re in now. What was commonplace in 1962 has been peeled back slowly to the point of what was normal life then, is now looked at as you could do that then. This woman was a starting point of all normal nuclear families complain of today. That is if normal nuclear families still exist anymore.
From Wikipedia: Madalyn Murray O’Hair (April 13, 1919 – September 29, 1995) was an American atheist activist. She was the founder of the organization American Atheists and served as its president from 1963 to 1986. One of her sons, Jon Garth Murray, was the president of the organization from 1986 to 1995, while she remained de facto president during these nine years. She is best known for the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling ending official Bible-reading in American public schools in 1963. This came one year after the Supreme Court prohibited officially sponsored prayer in schools in Engel v. Vitale. O’Hair later founded American Atheists and became so controversial that in 1964 Life magazine referred to her as “the most hated woman in America”.
In 1995 she was kidnapped, murdered, and her body mutilated, along with her son Jon Murray and granddaughter Robin Murray O’Hair, by former American Atheist office manager David Roland Waters.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/11/07
Weimar Germany had an economic crisis.
The Germans elected a bunch of politicians who scapegoated large groups of Germans, pitting Germans against each other.
German political leaders turned their backs on their Constitution, and the German people followed along, like sheep, out of a sense of expediency and crisis.
Free Germany then collapsed into a totalitarian state, which soon crumbled into total devastation, but only after tens of millions of lives were lost.
We are repeating history. But this time, there’s no gleaming beacon on the hill to come to the rescue. We are the last bastion of Freedom left in the world. And We The People are willfully letting that freedom vanish.
DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT
Posted in Constitution Shredded, economics, Elections, history, Law, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, Poetry, politics, society, truth, war | Tagged: Dylan Thomas, expediency, freedom lost, Germany, history repeats itself, Weimar Republic | 1 Comment »