Gay Patriot Header Image

Republican Leadership: “If you elect us, we’re not going to repeal Obamacare but we will pass Amnesty”

Posted by V the K at 9:35 pm - April 26, 2014.
Filed under: 2014 Elections

Making sure no one has any reason to vote Republican this Fall, Representative Cathy McMorris-Rodgers… who, if you recall, gave the official Republican response to the State of the Union address… says we can forget about repealing Obamacare.

U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a stalwart opponent of the Affordable Care Act, said it’s unlikely the President Obama’s landmark program will be repealed.

“We need to look at reforming the exchanges,” the Eastern Washington Republican said Thursday.

McMorris Rodgers has been part of the Republican leadership in the House that has voted multiple times to repeal parts or all of the health care law. GOP members have said it is unworkable, will increase costs for some and force others into inadequate coverage or plans they don’t want.

McMorris Rodgers continued those criticisms Thursday, but said the framework established by the law likely will persist and reforms should take place within its structure.

Also… Amnesty (but don’t call it Amnesty).

“I believe there is a path that we get a bill on the floor by August,” she said. “We’re going to have to push that this is a legal status, not amnesty,” she said.

John Boehner, the Republican Speaker, also agrees that the Republican Party should help the president pass an amnesty plan and help turn millions of illegal immigrants into stalwart Democrat voters.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Boehner told donors at a Las Vegas fundraiser in March that he was “hellbent on getting this done this year.” After he met with President Barack Obama at the White House in February, Boehner said that he agreed with Obama on immigration during the meeting.

So, Obamacare stays, and the Democrats get their Amnesty Bill. There is officially No Reason to vote Republican this November.

(more…)

Good, Old-Fashioned Leftist Indoctrination

Posted by V the K at 6:18 pm - April 26, 2014.
Filed under: Obama Worship & Indoctrination

A Bill has passed the California Assembly that ‘encourages’ schools to teach students about the historical and racial significance of the Obama Presidency.

The bill says the election was a “historic step in the effort towards equality in the United States” and that previous elections in the nation involved intimidation and physical violence that prevented millions of African-Americans from voting. It also commends Obama for his work as a community organizer who registered voters after he graduated from Harvard Law School.

One wonders if students will be taught the proper hymns with which to praise The Lightbringer.

(more…)

Is government dependency like slavery?

Clearly, a life of dependency on the government is not literal slavery – but is the metaphor / comparison valid? I’ll state my view (which is basically “no”), and people can disagree (or whatever) in the comments.

The essence of slavery is lack of self-ownership. You’re someone else’s property in a direct way, where they tell you what to do, seize all the products of your labor, and violate your body (or worse) at their option.

Excepting criminals (people deprived of rights under due process and for heinous acts), I think that if the government can either conscript your labor, or seize more than half of the product (the wealth/income) of your labor – and jail you or worse, if you don’t comply to the government’s satisfaction – then metaphors/comparisons of slavery begin to apply. Because the conditions for slavery have been met in part, even if the government gives you “freeman” status and a lot of lifestyle choices.

One of the lifestyle choices that you face, as a non-slave, is the extent to which you live off of government-provided benefits – in other words, the extent & duration of your being a government dependent. I don’t think that government dependents can be compared to slaves. Because, while the dependent may indeed be lulled into a lifestyle which is passive, limited and degraded, they still keep the right/option to change and become less dependent.

Thus, comparisons to slavery may be valid when speaking of government mandates on people, oppressive levels of taxation, and denials of rights (e.g., right of free speech). That is why we speak of Communist nations as “slave nations” and so forth.

But it’s not valid to compare voluntary government dependency to being a slave. If anything, the person who lives a lifetime of voluntary dependency on the government is closer to being a slave-master; someone who (partly, or metaphorically) uses other people as slaves.

And that would be another reason that I find fault with Cliven Bundy’s recent remarks. (While defending, of course, his right to make them – and the pro-liberty movement in general.)

To suggest that government dependents are like slaves is to suggest that their dependency isn’t voluntary. In other words, it’s to suggest that government dependents somehow didn’t choose their situation. And if you really believe that, then you deny their natural human power of choice; you believe implicitly that they are sub-human, or the moral equivalent of children. And I don’t believe that.

The people who are partly like slaves are not the government dependents, but rather, the productive working people whom the government forces to pay for its dependents.