23 Million Would Lose Health Insurance Under Republican Bill

Prior to Obamacare, the story was that there were 47 million uninsured. Supposedly, this was why we so drastically needed the unconstitutional program.


Now, with repealing it, we only go back to 23 million uninsured. Looks like 24 million managed to find insurance. Why can't the remaining 23 million do what they did?


Anyway, the US has a population of 324 million. Why are 93% of the People being taxed just to provide 7% with insurance? Further, how many of that 7% are young, healthy individuals who feel they don't need insurance just yet, and would prefer getting a bigger paycheck, instead?


Even if the federal government had the authority to provide healthcare - they don't - why not simply address the alleged needs of that 7%, rather than screw up the insurance and healthcare plans of the remaining 93%?


Why not? Because the healthcare industry would lose their shirts being forced to cover "pre-existing conditions," unless EVERYONE is FORCED into the program.


Question: If one has no car insurance and gets into a wreck, is there a reasonable expectation that they can trot to an insurance company to buy insurance to cover that "pre-existing condition" for their car?


There is no "one size fits all" option here. And, that's all the feds can do, which is one reason why they are not authorized to meddle in healthcare.

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years

Those proposing anthropogenic global warming do not use the rigors of the scientific method to test their claim. They propose a theory and expect all to accept their opinion on face value. Their "belief," if you will. They want to prevent any competing idea from reaching the light of day.

To that, there is an apropos quote from Carl Sagan;

The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. And there is no place for it in the endeavor of science.
-- Carl Sagan, Cosmos.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is their religion and it is being used to further their politics.

Personally, I hope they're right.

No, really.

If they're right, then it means that Man IS causing global warming. And, if so, Man could stop the process.

But, they have not provided the smallest proof. As such, I am forced to conclude that it is Nature and that Man is ineffective against it. So, we better learn to adapt, if this is a long term problem.

US aim for ‘zero civilian casualties’ draws criticism

"U.S. and coalition air forces are aiming for zero civilian casualties in airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), frustrating some lawmakers who say the military campaign is progressing too slowly."

Oh my gawd!

Fight the war or not, you moronic pacifists.

"Zero civilian casualties?"

So, all ISIS has to do is grab some civilians, hand-cuff, tie or chain them to their vehicles or in their buildings, and voila! Instant protection from any sort of attack.

What we need to do is go all Dresden on their sorry @sses.

Terrorists can't hide where they aren't - at least - grudgingly accepted. If the civilians in these towns and cities didn't want ISIS, they could throw them out. So, we send over a few squadrons of B-52s, lay down a few hundred tons of iron bombs - none of this picayune "surgical strikes" malarkey - and level their cities, if they don't kick out ISIS. Make them fear US far more than they fear ISIS.

All these people understand is a heavy hand and all we're doing is giving them stern looks.

South Carolina governor expected to call for removal of Confederate flag

The Hill reports that South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is expected to call for the removal of the Confederate flag from the state capitol grounds at a Monday afternoon press conference.

Speaking as a born Yankee, I find this ridiculous. The flag didn't do anything. Leave it to the left to attack a symbol, rather than the party responsible.

When I first moved to Texas, I saw all these bumper stickers saying, "The South's Gonna Do It Again!!" My first thought was, "What, lose?" I thought that it was silly to revere this flag, but, hey, to each his own.

An insane fool shot up the church, not a hunk of cloth. Put the fool away, execute him, but attacking a collection of colored threads arranged in a pattern is just plain moronic.

Why Abortion Should Be Illegal

There was a time when I considered abortion as acceptable at any point prior to the fetus being viable outside the womb. My logic was, if the mother died, then the fetus would not be able to live without her. Admittedly, this was not a well-thought out position, but one borne of poor education on the topic.

However, as time went on and I became more educated in rights, logic and the law, I realized that the point of viability is a variable. It changes not only with the advent of technology, but also with each fetus. I came to realize that humans aren't machines; no two are alike, thus no two fetuses will have the same viability.

Connecting this to the fact that LAW must be definable; that it must be OBJECTIVE, not SUBJECTIVE; that it must be clearly laid out with parameters set in stone; I then realized that there is only point in a fetus' being where that can be pinned down:

Conception. Any other point is variable and depends upon natural events or outside intervention.

Then, I considered human rights and their nature. Bringing them into the equation, I determined that the question is; "At what point are human rights assigned to a human?"

Prior to this point, a human - well, potential human - is merely a mass of differentiated tissue; property. And, like any other property, it can be disposed of in any manner the owner wishes.
After this point, however, a human is - well, a human. He is embodied with all the rights God grants to all human beings and no man is empowered to take them away. One of those rights is the right to life.

So, the problem is, when are rights assigned?

They can't be assigned on some nebulous idea like "viability." As I pointed out earlier, that is a subjective assessment that cannot be presumed to be the same for all. No, rights MUST be assigned at a point that applies for ALL humans.

There are only two points in a human existence that are well-defined and subjective;

1. Conception, and
2. Death.

Well, it's silly to assign rights at death, so the only other point available is conception.

But, some say, what about birth? Why not assign rights at the time of birth? That is an event all share.

Alright, why not birth?

First, what is "birth?"

Is it expulsion from the birth canal? If so, does that mean that all delivered by C-section are not human?

Of course not.

How about that point at which the human life takes its first breath outside of the womb; either through natural or surgical means. Well, if for nothing else, we already have judicial precedence set where someone who has killed a pregnant woman has been charged with two murders. As one cannot "murder" differentiated tissue mass, obviously the law already considers the unborn as human with the rights there assigned.

However, even without that legal precedence, I cannot think of any magical process that takes place prior to a child's first breath that converts the fetus from a hunk of flesh to a living being with rights. After all, even birth can be subjective; arbitrary.

Birth can be induced and there is the C-section process, both of which introduce an outside decision on when the event takes place. Thus, even birth is subjective, and more so as our technology increases. Test-tube baby, anyone?

So, birth can't work, either, due to its subjective nature.

Therefore, by the above reasoning, I can see no other time than conception for the assignment of human rights. Thus, any abortion is an inherent violation of one's rights and that is why it should be illegal.

2014 Midterms

I have never wanted a token minority of either party.

I have always felt that the minority party needs to always be strong enough to keep the majority in check; to always keep them on their toes to do what's right. I believe that when we have too much power held by one party, that we then end up with laws like Obamacare, FDR's New Deal, or LBJ's Great Society.

I also feel that we keep electing as a reaction to the last election. We got Clinton because of Bush41, we got Bush 43 because of Clinton, we got Obama because of Bush43, etc. But, the problem is, the pendulum seems to be swinging wider each time and this is bad. Will we get someone too far to the right because of Obama?

So, now, I'm worried abut the mid-term. We might get an election where far too much power is resting in Republican hands. Don't get me wrong, here; I am a Republican, I come from a Republican family, my first election was in 1976 and it's been Republican all the way since then. But, even so, power corrupts.

Republicans are only human. They are subject to the same foibles, missteps and flaws the rest of us fall to. They can get big heads, too, like the democrats did in foisting Obamacare on us. One example; the TSA. So, I fear a too great Republican majority, just as much as a too great democrat majority. I want a minority with the power to tie down the majority, ensuring that as few laws as possible flow out of DC.

Of course, there are other things I want, too;

• Repeal of the 16th Amendment,
• Repeal of the 17th Amendment,
• Repeal of Obamacare,
• Phasing out of Social Security,
• Phasing out the popular vote for president as it is not in the Constitution,
• Return to a lassiez faire supreme Court, and
• A strict constructionist adherence to the Constitution.

This is by no means a complete list, but it is the high points.

But, my general point is, I want a Republican majority, but one that is held in check by a strong democrat minority. I fear we won't have that and may have a Republican Congress running amok.

Kerry: We Must ‘Put Real Islam Out There'

On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that to counter ISIS, we must support “real Islam.”

“It has to start major efforts to delegitimize ISIS’s claim to some religious foundation for what it’s doing and begin to put real Islam out there and draw lines throughout the region.”

Firstly, I’d like to remind the good secretary of the first ten words of the First Amendment;

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[.]”
-- First Amendment, US Constitution

Is the secretary not aware that Islam is a religion, not a social club? Or, perhaps given Obama’s love of his phone and pen being used to usurp the powers of Congress, that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the acts of the Executive? After all, the Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law,” not “The Executive shall make no Executive Order.”

Secondly, I’d like to ask the secretary about his credentials qualifying him to decide what, exactly, “real Islam” is. Are they recognized by the balance of the followers of Islam in the world?

One wonders what the response of the left might have been, had Secretary Rice said something about “real Christianity.” At least she has some claim to relevant knowledge of Christianity; more so than Kerry’s knowledge of Islam, I’d wager.

As part of Secretary Kerry’s foray into his “expert” knowledge of Islam, he goes on to speak about;

“...real Islam and how important the Friday sermons are and where they need to go.”

Well, the Divine Kerry is prepared to instruct others on aspects of Islam as well as tell its adherents their own direction.

I suppose, had Jefferson written, “separation of mosque and state,” Kerry would have a different opinion on the matter and might, even now, be telling the Pope how to run Catholicism.