- Everyone should get everything for free without paying for it.
- Anyone should be able to demand that other people work to pay for his wants and needs.
- Making people work to support their own lives is mean and is therefore unnecessary.
- If someone forces others to work for him, it shall be known as slavery. If citizens force others to work for them through democratic government, it shall be called “social justice.”
- If someone wants to keep his own money, it shall be labeled “greed.” If some with less money want to take away from those with more money, that shall be called “fairness.”
- Politicians know more than the people themselves what are their wants and needs.
- Healthcare is a right, so anyone can demand that another citizen provide him free medical treatment on the spot and it is illegal to refuse.
- Housing is a right, so if you don’t have a home, force your neighbor to build one for you.
- Wages are arbitrary, and therefore, everyone deserves a raise.
- Debt is irrelevant, so we’re just going to pretend it’s not there.
- If you don’t feel like working, just retire, because it doesn’t matter how many people are supporting your needs.
- It doesn’t matter what country you’re from, we will give you money, whether or not you put anything into the economy.
- A job is a right, so everyone is now officially working for the government.
- All monopolies are outlawed, except for the government, which has a monopoly of coercion.
- If a citizen takes something by force, it shall be known as theft. If the government takes something by force, it shall be called “redistributive justice.”
- Taxing the rich will pay for all of our wants and needs forever.
- Success shall be punished, and failure rewarded.
- Hard work and talent shall be compensated with higher taxes, and mediocre work and idleness shall be compensated with government handouts.
- The only thing one must do to sustain these laws of economics is to continue voting Democrat.
Tag Archives: laws
In the wake of the Aurora, CO, shooting (a tragedy, both in and of itself, and MSM coverage), CNN held a “round table” discussion about the incident. Participants were CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Kate Bolduan, Newt Gingrich, and Jesse Jackson.
You can watch the 6:20 segment here, if you want to.
Newt Gingrich, FWIW, said that the most effective form of gun control is to focus on the criminal, that the shooter should be dealt with immediately, that others in society get the message that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated, and that existing laws be enforced.
But what had to be the “best” statement came from Jesse “Love Child” “Do as I say, not as I do” “Trayvon Martin” “You Can’t Vote Against Health Care and Call Yourself Black” “Blacks are under attack” “Hymietown” Jackson: “We Must Move From Prayer and Condolences To Policy.” He actually said that! And this from a man who, based on his past statements and actions, has absolutely zero credibility about this or any other subject.
Besides, there is already a little something about which Jackson may have heard in this country concerning guns. It’s called the Second Amendment. But wait, that is part of the US Constitution, something with which Jackson’s party is trying to discard, or ignore, or circumvent.
Jackson’s solution to the “gun problem” is to limit access. I guess he’s never heard the old saying, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them.” Or this old saying: “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” I would personally contend that this second saying is applicable in the Aurora, CO, case.
At the 4:06 point in this video, Jackson makes the statement: “What about the 71 people who were shot …?” Here he actually asks a very good question. Gingrich answers that question at the 5:25 point when he says that he would aggressively enforce existing laws. But Jackson doesn’t want to hear what Gingrich has to say. He thinks that more laws will somehow make us safer.
And we are familiar with Rahm Emanuel’s solution to the gun violence problem: beg the gang-bangers to not shoot children.
So Jesse, there is already a policy in play here. The policy is called “existing laws.” All we have to do is enforce them!
But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.
I think I’ll rob a bank today. Bank robbery is a federal crime. The FBI will come after me. When (not if) I get caught, I’ll just say that I’m choosing which law to obey and which laws to not obey, just like President Barack Hussein Obama did on Friday, June 15, 2012. Obama chose to ignore the law, so why can’t I? Not obeying the law did not get Obama arrested, so we’ll see if the police and/or FBI arrest me. I’m betting that what worked for Obama will not work for me and that I’ll get arrested.
Obama has announced that his administration’s policy is to no longer enforce our country’s immigration laws. The new policy will encourage agents to suspend deportation proceedings and grant amnesty to those who meet the criteria of the Dream Act. So the administration is declaring that federal agents will ensure our laws are not executed faithfully. “This grant of deferred action is not immunity, it is not amnesty. It is an exercise of discretion so that these young people are not in the removal system,” said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Hey Janet, can I get in on that “exercise of discretion” as well?
In September, 2011, Obama said, “I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce ….”
Speaking of “laws on the books that I have to enforce,” here is what the US Constitution says about the president’s role in law enforcement. In Article II (The Executive Branch), section 3, it states: “… he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….” The Constitution clearly says “the Laws.” It doesn’t say a word about laws he chooses, or about policies based on those laws.
Whatever happened to “no American is above the law?” Whatever happened to “equal treatment under the law?” Whatever happened to “justice is blind?” Oh, wait. I just realized that Eric Holder, an Obama appointee, heads our US Department of Justice, so Obama can act with impunity, but I can’t.
Since we now have proof that Obama is not enforcing ALL laws passed by Congress, will impeachment calls from the MSM and prominent Democrats be forthcoming? There certainly were calls when George W. Bush was president. The US Constitution, in Article II, section 4, states: “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.” So I guess the interpretation is now whether not enforcing a law rises to the level of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment, but the trial is conducted by the Senate.
We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high.
No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable-what does that say about our commitment to the truth? To the Constitution? To our democracy?
The trust of the American people has been broken. And a process must be undertaken to repair this trust. This process must begin with honesty and accountability.
I am not willing to put any political party before my principles.
This, instead, is about beginning the long road back to regaining the high standards of truth and democracy upon which our great country was founded.
I’m betting that none of today’s Democrats will remember anything McKinney said in her statement. Impeachment calls by McKinney, Democrats, and the MSM were based on perceptions and political disagreements, not on provable facts, as is what Obama is now doing.
I guess the question now is, “Does Obama think he is a king, an imperial president, and is above the law?” Dr. Charles Krauthammer said, “This [Obama’s immigration policy] ought to be in the hands of Congress, and it is an end-run. What’s ironic of course is for eight years, the Democrats have been screaming about the imperial presidency with the Bush administration, the nonsense about the unitary executive. This is out-and-out lawlessness.”
Obama’s dismissal of our nation’s laws is, at best, an outrage. Congress should take immediate steps to stop Obama’s imperial and near dictatorial actions. And Democrats and the MSM should also oppose his acts. Otherwise when George Romney wins in November, he could have quite a few precedents to follow. And expect Democrats and the MSM to shout the loudest if Romney does anything they don’t like, such as follow any precedents Obama has set.
To paraphrase George Orwell, “Some citizens are more equal than others.”
But that’s just my opinion.
There are currently 600 bills on the desk of California governor Jerry Brown waiting to be signed. Yes, you read that right- 600 bills. In a state gridlocked with overregulation and arbitrary laws, the legislature has decided what is needed the most is more regulation! This should hardly be a surprise to anyone who is at all familair with life in California-stan. Legislators in California are the highest paid in the nation, receiveing over $113,000 in taxpayer money per year. Add to that a per diem of $162/day for every day the legislature is in session and it doesn’t offer much incentive for lawmakers to get vital state business finished quickly and go home. A Senator in California-stan can earn up to an extra $40,000/year (on top of their salary) simply for showing up to a job they already get paid to do and signing in, as long as the legislature is officially in session. That works out to over $19,000/day taxpayers are giving away to lawmakers just to sit and make laws (which, again they already get paid to do). Many representatives also keep a second residence in the capital of Sacramento, apart from their families in other parts of the state. They are not engaged in the day to day responsiblities of running their own households, and thus have nothing better to do than collect money to devise new ways to meddle in the day to day activities of the taxpayers. With an abundance of time and money on their hands, and the opportunity to attach their name to a bill or law, California legislators piled 600 new bills onto the backs of their constituents. Here are just a few examples of the "necessary" bills waiting to be signed by Governor Brown.
AB 1319-Ban the chemical BPA bisphenol A from baby bottles, sippy cups and other food and beverage containers intended for children ages 3 and younger.
AB 746-Prohibit children under 18 years old from using tanning beds.
AB 353- restricts local police from impounding cars at sobriety checkpoints solely because a driver is unlicensed.
AB 101-Allow unions to organize child-care providers who work out of the home and handle subsidized clients. (dubbed the Babysitter Bill)
SB 292 and AB 900-would provide for an expedited judicial review of environmental challenges to a proposed NFL football stadium in downtown Los Angeles. AB 900 extends the same break to large projects involving clean energy generation or downtown stadiums that get environmental certification. (update: Brown signed this bill into law last week)
AB 6 – Among other things, remove the requirement that food stamp recipients be fingerprinted.