novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts in liberty

Oh, yes, the time is long overdue to have term limits on Congress and judges. Why would we only limit the Executive Branch without having the same constraints on the Legislative and Judicial branches? Why indeed. It appears that the need of limits is really making its case known in these modern times. You see, politics is a “scratch your back, you scratch mine” type of forum. Unfortunately, bias does not belong in any of these branches and when the party trumps the people, the system is surely broken. Case in point is the recent decision on subsidies for ObamaCare sign-ups.

It appears that two conflicting court decisions are at issue: the U.S. District Court (just below the Supreme Court) where a 2-1 decision was handed down stating that subsidies could only be given through state exchanges. By the way; this court had 4 Obama judge appointments placed after Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option in the Senate. The other court, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ( which is supposedly equal to the District Court ) held that the subsides could be granted by HealthCare.gov. What the 4th based there opinion (why would they have an opinion and not a sound ruling?) on is that Congress (read Dems ONLY) had the INTENT to make subsides available for all. Unfortunately, that is not what the law READS.

Here is my beef. We are no longer a nation ruled BY LAW. We have become a nation ruled by the intent of someone’s opinion of how they interpret the meaning of someone else’s thought. Words use to have meaning but, if you read this site enough, you will realize that Dems/liberals don’t use definitive definitions but, rather, however something should be interpreted at the time (which seems to change as constantly as wind direction). So it appears that all branches of government have been corrupted and no longer seem to function as their assigned duties prescribe. An old joke: “What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?” Answer: “A good start!” Don’t get me wrong; lawyers were a needed and noble profession once. Anymore it is a stepping stone for self glorification. It has become corrupted in too many ways and lawyers are ever mindful of side-stepping the rule of law and perverting it. This isn’t the entire profession but a good portion of it. It seems that those same lawyers become judges…..with political ideology and leanings, where law is NOW being made instead of interpreted AS WRITTEN. There is no separation of powers anymore because we no longer have checks and balances as established by the Constitution. Since lawyers won’t clean up their own house, term limits, review boards for misconduct and dismissals are our next line of defense.

Yes, the left is going bonkers for Ginsberg’s “blistering” dissent from the Supreme Court majority’s ruling in Burwell v Hobby Lobby.

Let’s take those “8 Best Lines” seriatim:

Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, “in a decision of startling breadth,” would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find “incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The first thing to note is that Dana Liebelson does not consider Justice Breyer male. Interesting. Maybe she knows something we don’t.

But be that as it may, if such laws are incompatible with sincerely held religious beliefs, then they are clearly in violation of the First Amendment unless they protect the rights of others, and should be overturned by the Court. But then, the requirement from which Hobby Lobby and Conestoga won relief is NOT A LAW. It is merely a REGULATION written by a nameless bureaucrat. Also, the regulation does not protect anyone’s rights — the employees of these companies can still obtain the abortifacients they desire.

The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage.

Those women obviously have jobs, or this would not be an issue. Therefore, they can pay for them themselves.

Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.

Irrelevant — they can go work for someone else if they do not like their employer’s benefits package.

Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.

In which case, it should be her autonomous PAYMENT, too. If you want to choose the tune, you can choose to pay the piper.

It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.

No, it really doesn’t “bear note”. If one cannot afford an IUD, one can choose to use other forms of birth control. Or, choose not to have vaginal sex.

Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

Sure. Why not? Again — if you don’t like it, get another job.

Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.

Well, that’s easy — just approve them all. Duh.

The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.

No — it is the legislature (in passing the law in the first place) that planted the mines, and the executive branch (in writing such heinous regulations) that is going for a stroll therein. They deserve to have it blow up in their faces.

Of course as many of you have heard, our new Attorney General, Mark Herring,  has announced that he will work to overturn the Virginia state law banning same sex marriages.

I have stated here on this board in the comments that I feel that rather than the states continuing to attempt to define “marriage” (which is becoming more legally amorphous) they should simply get out of the business of “marriage” altogether and allow individual couples or even groups to define it for themselves, according to their religion and whatever god they believe in (or don’t believe in). The states should only concern themselves with the contracts between the parties for the purpose of distributing property in the event of the death of one or both parties and/or dissolution of the contract (i.e., “divorce”).

Same sex marriage will at some point (probably relatively soon) be declared to be legal in all 50 states via incorporation. The next legal challenge will be polyamory, and using the same logic as gay marriage, I foresee no legal restriction on that either. Traditional marriage advocates can scream all they want about the issue, but the toothpaste can not be put back into the tube. So the best way to move forward is for the state to get out of the business of blessing marriages.

Now it appears that a state lawmaker in Oklahoma is proposing a bill to do just that. This first round will probably not be successful, but I predict that it will happen – probably in a Southern state – after some national debate on the matter. Once it happens in one state, many others will follow suit.

I am amazed that the ACLU rep, quoted in the article actually disagreed with this potential proposal. That is strange because it seems like a win-win to me. Those who want to define marriage as they see fit (same sex, polygamous, polyandrous, or whatever) can do so while those with traditional views on marriage can also continue to preach what they believe as well. Both can follow their own beliefs without the blessing or the curse of the government. Private differences will no longer be policy disputes and no one is enforcing their moral views on the other.

It’s the only way forward.

The other day I ran across the film trailer for a movie that will be released soon called ‘Elysium‘. It is set around 140 years in the future where the few, very rich live very well on a luxurious satellite that orbits the Earth called ‘Elysium’ while the rest of humanity lives on an extremely overpopulated and desolate Earth suffering from a Malthusian catastrophe.

Today, it seems that most of our science fiction foretells of a future that is awful and horrible: feral zombies roaming the countryside to eat us, oppressive government, and/or going backwards in technology.  (In fact, can anyone tell me a recent film that presents a bright future for humanity?) I believe much of that is a reflection on us because we are much more pessimistic about the future than we used to be. Man walked on the moon exactly 44 years ago on tomorrow (July 20, 1969). How many of you can imagine us going to the moon today? I just wonder how many people believe that some form of Elysium is what the future holds for us.

I thought about my youth and what a difference these films are from when I grew up. I loved science fiction as a child and I especially loved reading Star Trek novels. My little friends and I would pretend to be Starfleet Captains that explored the far reaches of the galaxy or Buck Rogers out in space defending the earth. We figured that in the future there would be flying cars, like on the Jetsons. Much of our science fiction reflected our belief that the future would be filled with wonder as humanity would continue to advance and invent all types of new gadgets, build moon bases, continue to discover new things, travel to the bottom of the sea and even to other parts of the solar system and beyond. Yes, there were some science fiction that was dystopian, but most of it was bright and I believe that reflected our attitudes at the time.

continue reading…

Listen to what he says at the beginning. Some people believe morality and values belong at the kitchen table. They may start being instilled at home but they follow you wherever you go and must be promoted and strengthened, including outside the home, all through life. Political correctness is the term that has caused so much prohibition in what we use to normally say and do. Even the dictionary has become politically correct. We learn through teachings and understanding. When the understanding is relayed as a false premise, or the teachings are biased against a norm that is strong in the fabric of society and community, something went terribly wrong. Although this is HS, it gives me hope that a new generational revolt will come to pass and re-instill that which has become lost and is core of this nation. We are a different nation than others because of our roots. The plantings of late take us on a path where we will become a clone of all other nations. I like being different and exceptional. It is what gives hope to people of other nations to ape our ways and beliefs. Why do we want to crush their dreams by not retaining the image of role model?

Amen.

Remember the elections of 2010 where the Tea Party put up conservative candidates for election and many of them won seats in Congress? And do you remember the angst they gave Boehner when he tried to deal with Obama (read give away the store) and these conservatives bucked him and the system? And remember when the Republican Party was known as the “conservative” party? Then what is this all about? And why is he presenting 800B in deduction elimination? I don’t know who is driving this bus but Boehner and Cantor are surely in the back seat. This needs an investigation with public humiliation towards those involved.

Why are we worried about raising the debt ceiling when all we do is borrow money to pay interest on the money we borrowed? If the House holds the purse strings, why are we funding ANYTHING until spending is gotten under control? If Boehner and the Republican house want to deal, there is a Ryan Budget Plan sitting over in the Senate and needs to be voted on. Let that be the starting point and have the Senate and Obama work from that platform. This is beyond stupid. The conservatives are looking for a home and the GOP is no longer it. We need amendments on term limits, no retirement pensions for congress and a flat tax. We also need another party for conservative values only. Why there isn’t open revolt from the people is beyond me. I would like to go secession and back to State rights where we belong because the US govt is out of bounds and out of control. Tar, feathers and firing squads come to mind.