Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $73,506
83%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $14.5k to go!! Let's git 'er done. Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by dufekin

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Mexico: We’ll Go to the U.N. to Defend ‘Human Rights’ of Mexicans in U.S.

    02/24/2017 9:14:05 PM PST · 73 of 103
    dufekin to tumblindice

    Sorry that I wasn’t clear. Canada and United States of America joined as founding members of North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The organization allows only European countries to join after the founding date. Canada essentially gets grandfathered, but if Canada departs from the alliance, it cannot reenter (unless it acquires part of Europe). Mexico did not join as a founding member and therefore cannot enter (unless it acquires part of Europe).

    The narcotics smugglers and sexual slavedrivers enter the United States of America through the southwestern border with Mexico as enemies of these United States and as enemies at war against the weak Mexican government and the Mexican people. The United Mexican States does not constitute a hostile enemy but fights a long-running war against that enemy within her borders. Just as the drug runners and urban gangs of Chicago do not define this country, the narcoterrorists do not define Mexico.

    Instead, the United States and Mexico share a common enemy: the narcoterrorists, the drug cartels, and the bankrupt oppressive communist government of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela that sponsors, supplies, and encourages them. This enemy now ravages much of Central America, driving repeated surges of refugees and other migrants northward toward our border.

    I make a distinction between the Mexican government and the friendly Mexican people on the one hand and the narcoterrorists, sexual predators, transnational criminals, and drug cartels that operate in or from Mexico on the other hand. The latter group we must defeat.

  • Mexico: We’ll Go to the U.N. to Defend ‘Human Rights’ of Mexicans in U.S.

    02/24/2017 8:11:29 PM PST · 61 of 103
    dufekin to Paladin2

    The founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949 included the United States of America, Dominion of Canada, and several European countries not under the oppression of communism. The treaty allowed expansion only in Europe. Newfoundland joined Canada five days before Canada joined North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and Britain (Bermuda and more), France (Saint Pierre and Miquelon), and Denmark (Greenland) also joined as founding members. The allies therefore perceived no opportunity for further expansion in North America; the European countries desired an alliance for their common defense against communism and not for activities in other continents except French Algeria.

    Mexico did not join in 1949 because it then suffered under the oppression of communism, which began during the revolution of 1910 to 1921 and faded into simple corruption in the 1960s through 1990s. The country was quite poor and had little capacity to project military power against anyone other than its own people, who numbered just 27 million.

    Notwithstanding the active Partido de la Revolución Democrática, which still advocates effectively communism yet regularly attracts almost a third of the vote, these conditions no longer exist. Mexico effectively forswore atheistic communism certainly with the election of Vincente Fox Quesada in 2000. Mexico now enjoys the status of a free country, albeit one at war against its own drug cartels and narcoterrorists, and a prosperous one too at least under global standards. The country now contains 124 million persons, and its (naturally ultra-left-wing-controlled) capital and its suburbs embrace more than 20 million.

    Because Mexico lies outside the European continent, it cannot join North Atlantic Treaty Organization now. But Mexico is now our friend, albeit not a formal military ally, and the future almost certainly will bring closer cooperation, especially if we successfully defeat our drug addictions and their narcoterrorists.

  • 'Nationwide shut down' planned for Inauguration Day

    11/11/2016 6:50:34 AM PST · 53 of 82
    dufekin to Mogger

    That looks like a baby Republican to me; the Democrats unfortunately kill most of their babies before they can get so old.

  • Hillary Aide Mysteriously Emailed in 2009 That Clinton ‘Had a Disaster’

    10/08/2016 1:49:22 PM PDT · 24 of 64
    dufekin to Reno89519

    August 28 is the memorial of Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo and doctor of the Church, probably the most brilliantly reasoned exponent of the Christian faith during his millennium.

    Hillary’s entire philosophy and system of thought are now and were then a total disaster, completely opposed to logic. Her insistence on killing millions upon millions babies abroad makes her an irrational, illogical purveyor of disaster. She supports Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who, now called Caliph Ibrahim of the Islamic State, certainly brought mortal disaster and indeed martrydom upon innumerable Christians of the Middle East, North Africa, and other parts of the world. Oh, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, then under debate, unleashed a disaster upon the American people that continues even now to spread and to intensify.

  • Blacks leave Democratic Party to vote for Donald Trump, collapse Hillary's base of support

    10/01/2016 10:01:21 AM PDT · 18 of 30
    dufekin to Dilbert San Diego

    Hillary Clinton vociferously supports the criminals who kill thousands of African-Americans every year. Even worse, she enthusiastically support those who kill a majority of black babies in this country and insists that we who live subsidize the expansion of this killing to even more babies. She received an endorsement from the racist eugenicists at the horribly misnamed Planned Parenthood, which perpetrates and perpetuates this genocide against the black community.

    Why would any African-American support her ever?

  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Donald Trump ‘Not Fit to Wipe Floors of the White House’

    10/01/2016 8:53:46 AM PDT · 20 of 117
    dufekin to ColdOne

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz clearly suffers from severe confusion. Notwithstanding the numerous shortcomings of Donald John Trump, she should consider the recklessness with which Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton maintains our national security secrets on a private, unsecured server, thus sharing them with the Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China, and other modestly sophisticated rivals and enemies of these United States of America but hiding public information from the American people. We cannot trust one with her repeatedly demonstrated cavalier attitude toward national security to wipe the floors of the White House, lest she encounter some important national secrets and share them with the enemy or grant them to the enemy in return for a quasi-legalized bribe.

    Moreover, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton enthusiastically supports federally subsidizing the killing of more than one million Americans every year. For anyone or any political party so sick to support such a veritable genocide against our beloved compatriots and our own posterity I cannot vote.

  • Things Are Going to Get Very Tough, Very Quickly, for the Church and Her Allies

    06/26/2015 9:02:16 PM PDT · 47 of 81
    dufekin to ebb tide

    I’m not sure why anyone would want to excommunicate John Roberts over this issue; he dissented solidly (unlike yesterday). As for Anthony Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor, are they even communicated that they may be excommunicated, or have they already been excommunicated?

    One justice really shines above his peers this week: Clarence Thomas, who writes solid, well-reasoned, historically grounded decisions, unfortunately mostly dissents.

  • House bill would force the Supreme Court to enroll in ObamaCare

    06/25/2015 7:10:27 PM PDT · 38 of 79
    dufekin to SoFloFreeper
    Actually he doesn't have to undergo such preposterous pseudo-legal analysis to get that same result. All he need do is read Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States of America:

    “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts...shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

    Now the compensation of justices of the Supreme Court includes both money and health insurance, as well as various other benefits, so removal or reduction of health-care insurance, especially without a concomitant increase in other parts of the compensation package, constitutes a diminishing of compensation, which violates the Constitution.

  • CBO: Repealing ObamaCare would cost $137 billion

    06/20/2015 2:24:10 PM PDT · 53 of 55
    dufekin to gleeaikin
    I apologize; I erred. That phenomenon of having children on separate more expensive policies apparently resulted not from a requirement of law but from a series of glitches in the enrollment software in various parts of the country. For example,

    http://nypost.com/2013/12/01/baby-not-covered-under-obamacare-family-plan/
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3097175/posts

    It also may affect certain families with income ranges suggestive of potential eligibility for the State Children's Health Insurance Program who lack actual eligibility or previous and ongoing enrollment, especially if the exchange does not send sufficient information to make a determination to the correct office in the proper time.

  • CBO: Repealing ObamaCare would cost $137 billion

    06/20/2015 8:48:00 AM PDT · 46 of 55
    dufekin to Secret Agent Man

    Except that the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act doesn’t save children; it kills them in very large numbers. In many states, some or even all plans sold on the exchanges shunt money into a fund used to kill unborn babies. The money so accumulated can fund enormous numbers of dead babies. And the feds ensured that prospective buyers of health insurance on the exchanges cannot know whether their plan participates in these funds.

    That says nothing of its special free service to women of chemical warfare against babies recently conceived. Unfortunately delivery of live babies doesn’t get this favorable coverage under the Act. Those babies born alive require as a penalty more expensive separate policies for their first two years.

    Moreover, Congress based the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act on a severely regressive tax against the working poor, sucking thousands of dollars per year from minimum-wage workers but giving them nothing in return. This severe taxation effectively prevents children in non-affluent families from accessing life-saving health care, extending the war of this Administration on women and children. And yes, with a million dead babies every year, make no mistake: this is a genocidal war.

  • CBO: Repealing ObamaCare would cost $137 billion

    06/20/2015 8:37:15 AM PDT · 43 of 55
    dufekin to Libloather

    But the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, as the Supreme Court discerned two years ago, primarily exists as a severely regressive tax on the working poor. It contains a tax on all not-excluded households with income (excluding welfare payments of course) exceeding the sum of the standard deduction and the personal exemption (that’s less than a full-time, minimum-wage job). That tax amounts to 2.5% of income (in addition to all other taxes) with a minimum of $695 per adult and $347.50 per child under 18 years of age (up to $2085 per household). The exempt include enrolled in a certain welfare program called Medicaid, those who get health insurance from their jobs (most of the middle class), illegal aliens, and incarcerated criminals. A maximum to this tax prevents the super-wealthy from paying the full 2.5%. For a single parent with four children (not a qualifying widow or widower) under 65 years of age earning just $13,050 per year of nominal income, the $2085 annual tax amounts to a whopping 15.97% surtax rate. But that’s not all.

    The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act also includes an increase in the minimum wage for those employed at least 30 hours per week without qualifying health insurance (again, the same working poor) at establishments with 50 or more employees. This increase amounts to $2000 per year, and all of it goes directly to taxes before the employee even sees it. This tax structure perversely prevents the aspiring working poor from attaining that full-time, minimum-wage job. So our single parent gets $13,050 per year of nominal income but earns that plus 7.65% plus $2,000 per year plus federal unemployment tax ($56 for private for-profit employers) (plus state unemployment tax and worker compensation tax not included). That’s $16,130.43 in earnings but $9986.68 after federal taxes, an effective federal tax rate of 38.087% versus 14.569% before the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.

    These higher taxes leave this family with far less money with which to obtain healthcare, however such medicine and procedures may improve the lives of its members. Hence the Congress named the act properly, the Patient Protection from Affordable Care Act, as it prevents prospective patients from attaining the capacity of affording healthcare. For the middle class, the Act provides an entire bureaucratic labyrinth to prevent access to meaningful, appropriate healthcare as well as additional taxes (many of them hidden more discretely) and high prices to decrease affordability of even that pittance still covered.

    So we can eliminate this ridiculous regressive tax on the working poor and increase taxes (or better, cut spending, a concept anathema to the Congress for the past six decades) to compensate for the revenue loss. Which taxes should we increase? How about eliminating the numerous obscure tax breaks designed to benefit a few wealthy influential political donors? Or drastically simplifying the tax code. Get rid of some subsidies and corporate welfare delivered perversely through the tax system.

  • Court Nixes Faith-Based Birth Control Mandate Challenge

    02/12/2015 10:03:39 PM PST · 15 of 17
    dufekin to boop

    The Hobby Lobby case decided the issue partially for closely held private companies; however, the Obama Administration promulgated a different regulation for religious organizations with objections. Those organizations must direct their health insurers or plan administrators to provide the illicit chemicals and mutilations for free without compensation. The Church contends reasonably that the insurers or administrators simply will increase their premiums or fees to recover their losses notwithstanding the ostensible legal prohibition on such cost-recovery techniques. Moreover, even if such ostensibly illegal cost recovery never occurs, the Church directly facilitates this evil through its compliance and direction.

  • Pope Francis: 'Corruption Is a Greater Evil than Sin'

    10/25/2014 10:35:48 AM PDT · 12 of 40
    dufekin to tiki

    Almost certainly, the words of Pope Francis sounded better, properly contextualized in their original language. The translator (or interpreter) obviously missed some subtlety in the original Italian.

    Note the use of the word “evil,” a term broader than sin, including physical, moral, and metaphysical maladies, according to Catholic Encyclopedia. Perhaps the pope identifies corruption not only as sin but also as a broader evil.

    And by the way, “All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.” (1 John 5:17) Saint John clearly implies that some sins are worse than others.

  • The Gutter bowling alley in Willamsburg shut down, due to Ebola scare (CMJ shows included)

    10/23/2014 9:19:51 PM PDT · 21 of 40
    dufekin to gunsequalfreedom

    Almost certainly he sweated, but as I understand, sweat usually doesn’t contain the virus until the Ebola virus disease progresses to the hemorrhagic stage, which has not yet happened. Even if his sweat contaminated the ball surface, it very likely evaporated quickly, leaving the virus dry. Even under ideal conditions, Ebola virus cannot survive more than a few hours of dehydration.

    The spray likely killed any virus in the shoes. Even if the virus survived the spray (because of incorrect or incomplete application for example), any sweat in the shoes dried overnight, and the virus thereby died.

    On average, each patient in West Africa spreads the virus to two others (and perhaps to asymptomatic persons); hence, the patient load doubles every three weeks or so. Usually these persons so infected contact copious quantities of hemorrhaged fluid (diarrhoea and vomit) or infected corpses.

    Ebola virus contaminates sweat primarily through hemorrhaging blood, sometimes in invisible quantities. This patient probably has not reached the stage of any serious contagion risk.

  • Pentagon hid info on thousands of chemical weapons in Iraq for years

    10/15/2014 11:44:36 AM PDT · 39 of 44
    dufekin to Daveinyork
    Why did Bush let the liberals accuse him of lying, when he could have proved them wrong at any time?

    My guess: We continued to find more stockpiles as the occupation persisted, and we didn't want those weapons to fall into the hands of the enemy (or the enemy to use them against us). The liberals in their false accusations perhaps convinced the enemy that these weapons didn't exist or at least partially inhibited the inclinations of the enemy to seek, capture, and use the weapons.

    I don't doubt also that more chemical and/or biological weapons exist than even now are publicly acknowledged, perhaps rather many not yet uncovered. And yes, I suspect that the easily mobile ones went to Syrian Arab Republic, where no one on our side really now knows who captured or controls or hid them.

  • Nebraska school district urges teachers to be more inclusive, stop referring to “boys and girls”

    10/08/2014 9:00:56 PM PDT · 20 of 35
    dufekin to SeekAndFind

    Question: how do we now teach basic reproductive biology and genetics, where, for example, we examine the various gonads on frogs or discuss heredity in peas? Or do we now ignore those parts of the biology curriculum as politically incorrect?

  • HHS: Grantees Sheltering Illegal Alien Children Must Provide 'Family Planning Services'

    06/12/2014 4:59:49 AM PDT · 14 of 23
    dufekin to txrefugee

    Our government under Barack Hussein Obama aims here and through other initiatives to tear these “children” (and indeed all children of God) away from their mother, the Church (to whatever extent they heretofore may have associated with her), for the duration of their minority and, preferably to our glorious Government, permanently castigate them on the path of damnation.

    Oh, by the way, I wonder...how many of these “children” are not Central American innocent teenagers but gangsters or, worse, Islamofascists? I recognize the possibility of conversion from gang life or secular humanism or Islamofascism to sanity, but our government obstructs the pathways of such conversion howsoever it dares so to do, minimizing an already low probability.

  • Pelosi pushes back hard on dropped plans

    10/30/2013 9:24:16 PM PDT · 28 of 38
    dufekin to Irenic

    Now obviously these millions didn’t have a health plan that they liked. They merely deceived themselves into the delusion that they had a health plan, that they liked their plan, or both. In the vast wisdom of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, they came to know what these fine folks already knew: they didn’t have plans or didn’t like them or both.

    Now, we know that according to law, only those who successfully purchase insurance through state-run exchanges on time can qualify for subsidies. Therefore, we can presume that the overwhelming majority will not receive subsidies, although vast millions will pay less than full premiums under the delusion that they qualify for subsidies and will repay the subsidies with their income taxes on 15 April 2015.

    Most Americans who procure coverage will cut other items from their family budgets to drive them toward balance. Perhaps they’ll cut utilities, skip heating during the winter, relocate to unsheltered portions of their cities and counties, or slash their food intake. They might possess coverage, but they won’t get health care beyond the free procedures because they still cannot afford the deductibles. Others will slash expenditures similarly to pay the higher taxes on all Americans with incomes who don’t get coverage or otherwise qualify for an exemption.

    All these Americans will rejoice as they starve and freeze in the damp dark of the global-warming-intensified winter and will vote Democrat forevermore, for the Democrats will have so improved their lives.

  • U.S. budget deficit down to $680B, lowest in 5 years

    10/30/2013 8:40:11 PM PDT · 9 of 19
    dufekin to central_va

    Actually, the analogy is worse than that. Your at least made progress toward a healthy weight. Let us say that your healthy weight is 180 pounds. You started gaining weight and went from 350 pounds to 500 pounds last year. This year, however, you put yourself on a drastic diet and therefore only gained only 10 pounds per month and will weight 620 pounds at the end of the year. You celebrate the progress that you’re gaining weight more slowly. Perhaps at the end of next year, your weight will increase to 750 or 800 pounds with a little less eating discipline.

  • Hayride: Preexisting Conditions Horror Story at Healthcare.gov

    10/02/2013 7:59:16 PM PDT · 72 of 74
    dufekin to AppyPappy

    From what I understand from reading the law, that’s not correct. He allegedly chose a silver plan with an annual premium of 13% of his annual income. But a literal reading of the law seems to suggest that skipping insurance without paying the tax, obtaining an exclusion because of lack of affordable coverage, requires that the premium for a BRONZE-level plan (which pays even less than the silver plan pays) in OTHER STATES (not necessarily actually available to you) must be less than 8% of your ANNUAL total household income each MONTH to cover ONE person. That’s 96% of your income (before taxes) going to health insurance for EACH person before Congress considers it unaffordable—even if you have 10 persons in your family. That premium actually doesn’t buy any health care; one still must find a doctor willing to take the insurance and pay any deductibles, co-insurance, and other fees. The premiums, however, will enable easy, free chemical warfare against your unborn baby.