HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Polls  Debates  Trump  Cruz  Kasich  OPSEC  Benghazi  InfoSec  BigBrother  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Please keep those donations coming in, folks. Our 2nd quarter FReepathon is off to a great start and we have a chance of getting 'er done early! Thank you all very much!!

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $34,502
Woo hoo!! And the first 39% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by dufekin

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • 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,


    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.

  • Did The Planes Crash into the Buildings on 9/11 Because They Ran Out Of Gas?! (Our Schools at work)

    09/11/2013 9:57:32 PM PDT · 51 of 74
    dufekin to EinNYC

    I must wonder: have we forgotten? During the last presidency, the war and its progress dominated headlines and conversations throughout the country. The previous president (Bush) spoke of the progress of the war, lauding our troops, almost daily.

    Under this president, the war has vanished from popular perception. He now makes occasional noise about a new spat in Syrian Arab Republic but thus far without more than incidental mention of the Islamofascist menace. Google News today lists fewer than 100 articles that even mentioned the word over the past month.

    When I was a youngster in grade school, we confidently identified the Soviets (or Russians) as the enemy, associated them with the evil philosophy of communism, knew that people in the enemy land lacked freedom (although I did not appreciate yet the significance of that concept) but lived in fear, and recognized a man named Reagan as our leader in the fight against said enemy. We lauded our military as the force capable of deterring the enemy from overtaking these shores and necessary to preservation of peace and liberty. Perhaps my childhood experience was not universally shared in my generation. But we had fought that war for decades and rather suddenly prevailed in freeing much of eastern Europe from the yoke of communism.

    Today, in the words of one music star of the last decade, in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other fronts in this war not yet surrendered, “our brothers are dying for others who don’t even care any more.” As for liberty, even at home, it’s an anachronistic concept in the age of Obama care. None of this ignorance, however, in any way diminishes the desire of the enemy Islamofascists to prevail over us and to subjugate us as they even now attempt to subjugate more brutally the dhimmi populations of various Arab lands. Their war against us and our way of life continues. We must develop a way of life worthy of defense and defend it, or else we lose our country.

  • Jordan Prepares For Syrian Fallout; Places Air Force On High Alert

    09/03/2013 6:54:32 PM PDT · 22 of 28
    dufekin to Recovering Ex-hippie

    The Jordanians apparently oppose our intervention in Syria. Have we anyone on our side? The Turks? Israelis? Iraqis? Any allies at all? Yes, I know the French do not oppose the idea yet, but they’re likely to waffle too. What ever happened to coalition-building, at which, by comparison, Presidents Bush I and II both excelled?

  • A ‘head scratcher’ – No Atlantic Hurricane by August in First Time in 11 Years

    08/31/2013 11:51:58 AM PDT · 55 of 68
    dufekin to Ruy Dias de Bivar

    One. Ioke hit Johnston Atoll and Wake Atoll in 2006.

  • Need some help from some tax experts.

    01/21/2013 8:16:50 PM PST · 6 of 17
    dufekin to Jaguarmike

    “It stands to reason,” you contend. But tax law comes from the Congress and is very much not reasonable to the rest of us. For example, the deduction for health insurance, if you qualify, probably originated as an inducement to certain health-insurance companies, intended for their profit, almost certainly at the expense of other medical financing arrangements. Those health-insurance companies in turn almost certainly donated lavishly to Congressional campaigns, an incidental fact totally unrelated (in Congressional parlance) to this very profitable inducement. But that doesn’t apply to pharmaceutical companies, so it doesn’t follow that you can deduct the cost of your prescription drugs.

    Unfortunately, Congress is still writing the latest tax law for last year. But you can read the totality of the corpus by just typing “26 USC” into any search engine. It’s only a little more than 28 megabytes of text. That text, however, often only vaguely directs various government officials to issue regulations. Those regulations, if actually issued, you can find in “26 CFR.”

    Good luck! I’m far too stupid to understand the tax code, and I lack the benefit of election to the Congress. But I’m an idiot and a bad American. By the way, I happen to think that drastic simplification of the tax code and unambiguous elimination of filing and payment requirements could encourage entrepreneurship, which might stimulate the economy. But then again, I repeat myself: I’m an ignorant, stupid idiotic bad American.

  • The EPA’s Mercury Problem

    01/09/2013 7:57:56 PM PST · 10 of 23
    dufekin to Venturer

    These politicians in Congress despise light and prefer darkness. Why else did they just pass an enormous multi-trillion-dollar law, ramming it through the entire legislative process in the predawn hours on a holiday? Because they fear light and also hate children, the population most likely to suffer from in-home mercury poisoning.

    Moreover, the Congress allowing incandescent light would entail an admission of error in previous legislation, something anathema to the Congress.

    Therefore, we should revel in darkness. But know this: the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness shall not overcome Him.

  • President's Laughable Fiscal Plan Called “Will of the People”

    12/01/2012 10:40:03 AM PST · 9 of 15
    dufekin to CrazyIvan

    Oops. They killed our children. And at a time when America suffers from its lowest birth rate in its history, Obama proposes to use the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act to kill at least twice as many babies yet unborn as Americans now kill, not including any of the innumerable American babies he plans to poison to death immediately after their conceptions. So who yet may survive to inherit the debt?

  • Experts: New Health Rules Show Obamacare Will Raise Costs

    11/21/2012 8:23:33 PM PST · 15 of 15
    dufekin to Graybeard58

    PS: As for doctors, I’ve heard some considering continuing their practices through relocation to foreign countries.

  • Experts: New Health Rules Show Obamacare Will Raise Costs

    11/21/2012 8:22:35 PM PST · 14 of 15
    dufekin to Graybeard58

    Actually, illegal aliens are exempt from the tax on violating the individual mandate. They don’t get the privilege of paying a tax on being too destitute to afford health insurance or too pious to subsidize the intrinsic evils that such purchase must entail.

  • Judge: Hobby Lobby must offer morning-after pill

    11/19/2012 9:57:55 PM PST · 29 of 97
    dufekin to TigersEye

    The First Amendment does not confer or guarantee any sort of religious freedom, even to the Church, in an Obamanation; we now consider it as a nullity. Obamacare particularly qualifies as an income tax insofar as one must generate income with which to pay the tax; therefore, it falls under the Sixteenth Amendment, which naturally overrides any provision of any preceding amendment, especially the First. Individual Americans moreover did not build businesses; rather, enterprises exist as a creature of big government alone for the good of big government to follow the orders and commands and mandates of big government.

    Moving forward, Hobby Lobby should thank the judge graciously for clarifying its obligations and options. Hobby Lobby then must shut down its health insurance, reduce its employee compensation to account for the consequent tax against Hobby Lobby, and instruct its employees and their spouses and children to avoid any professional health care entirely. They moreover must pay a special tax from their reduced compensation for the privilege of lacking health insurance or access to medicine.

    As a practical matter, this means for example that the wife of an employee will deliver their baby at home without medical attention rather than in a hospital equipped to handle any complications. She also will get no prenatal care beyond that which she can self-administer with the assistance of her husband. Such are the risks that people must assume for themselves in an Obamanation. Fortunately, even amateurs still can access limited medical information via libraries and Internet connections.

  • Hey GOP, take the Palin cure

    11/17/2012 3:45:39 PM PST · 54 of 148
    dufekin to cicero2k

    I can tell you that in Oklahoma, Sara Palin engendered actual excitement in 2008. The only people I know excited about voting for Romney (and not merely against Obama) are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

  • With Obamacare now a reality, employers choose strategies

    11/12/2012 9:00:52 AM PST · 9 of 12
    dufekin to Nachum

    Employers of faith, who oppose abortifacients, contraception, sterilization, or some other mandate under Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, face stark choices:

    (1) They can organize under the exemption: certain houses of worship who qualify under the particular section of the Internal Revenue Code, serve almost exclusively members of their denomination, employ almost exclusively members of their denomination, and focus their primary mission on the inculcation of religious values. Because Patient Protection Affordable Care Act builds upon the taxing power, and particularly the income tax, none of the rights and liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply; the income-tax amendment superseded them. So these employers must prove their eligibility beyond reasonable doubt to a party inclined toward bias against them. Moreover, these criteria raise troubling questions: is worship of God and preaching the Gospel, even exclusively toward believers, “inculcation of religious values?” Can churches oppose abortion (and voting for its proponents) on theological grounds yet maintain their exemption? How many new members can they accept? And more.

    (2) Cease to offer any form of health insurance to any employees. If employer employs more than 50 persons at least 30 hours per week, then a special tax of $2000/employee may apply. Employers will want to stay below this threshold, hiring mostly part-timers. In a collapsed labor market, employees so hired will be grateful for any work. If, however, employee lives in household that earns more than the filing threshold ($12,850/year for a single parent), employee will pay a large tax ($2085/year if said single parent of said income has four or more children). Employees subject to the tax presumably will reduce remuneration of employees concomitantly to recoup the money necessary to pay said tax.

    (3) Cease to employ anyone and leave business entirely.

    (4) Provide the coverage at extreme financial cost here and the risk of eternal damnation hereafter.

    The law grants no other options for employers. Because of the high cost of medical care, many Americans therefore will cease to use any professional medical resources. Fortunately, the law does not prohibit yet the dissemination of medically related knowledge through books, websites, and other media for amateur medicine; the provision of uncompensated first aid among friends and acquaintances, which may involve suddenly heavily taxed medical devices still publicly available over the counter; or the avoidance of the government-sanctioned pro-death medical establishment.

    For women, these limited arrangements may increase significantly the risks associated with childbearing. For those of sufficient wealth, however, the law does not prohibit—at least as far as we yet know, but Congress passed the law so that we may find out what is in it—paying doctors and hospitals exorbitant fees as a cash customer. Nor does it yet require explicitly said doctors and hospitals to kill babies or engage in other ethically compromising behavior as a condition of their entry into or persistence in the profession. Nevertheless, further regulations not yet announced and future federal legislation may degrade even these caveats.

    Put simply, health insurance soon will be a benefit of the past, and higher taxes a feature of the future. This situation will degrade access to actual health care for millions of marginally healthy Americans (i.e., those economically productive with significant medical expenses) who in the future will scavenge, die, or live in pain. Employers may have compassion on them but cannot provide any form of health insurance. The diminishing middle class continues an ever more precarious existence.

  • Pelosi: We were given an economy in the “depths of hell” (We know better)

    09/22/2012 6:01:58 PM PDT · 30 of 50
    dufekin to Ken522

    I don’t think Nancy Peolsi is lying here.

    First, officials from the Bush Administration in fact did spook Congress into passing a tremendous bailout for the billionaire bankers. We might not like to recognize it, but Bush himself did “abandon free market principles in order to save the free market,” in his own words.

    Second, Nancy Pelosi is obviously delusional. This characteristic would make her unfit to represent the people in Congress, except that she well represents the delusional majority in the City and County of San Francisco in California. So coherent reasoning we should not expect from her.

    Third, the economic problems that this country faces run far more deeply than even the tenure of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Congress set the housing bubble in motion with stupid legislation like Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which lay relatively dormant until a caustic combination of high price inflation, declining wages, and artificially low interest rates dropped sufficiently to make gimmickry like negative-amortization adjustable-rate interest-only payment-optional loans with low introductory rates seemingly attractive to bankers.

    Fourth and most importantly, Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats, and her anti-baby ideology (her own progeny notwithstanding) set the seeds for economic hardship in this country with such horrific and downright genocidal policies as the glorification of feticide, the leading cause of death in this country. More than 54 million Americans already vanished anonymously in the abortuaries of this country, their demise almost completely unmourned.

    Please pray for her immortal soul, that she may repent and never know the depths of Hell to which she here refers. By the way, Dante placed Pope Saint Celeste V in the inner circles of Hell, but the Church canonized him still, so hope endures.

  • GARY SHILLING: Here's Why There's No Housing Recovery And Prices Will Collapse Another 20% (Oops!)

    09/20/2012 7:22:58 PM PDT · 18 of 18
    dufekin to blam

    A couple issues:

    (1) DEMOGRAPHICS: Houses are only worthwhile insofar as people exist to live in them. The birth rate in this country has collapsed since 2007: parents simply aren’t making babies, so families don’t exist to move into larger homes to accommodate more children. Moreover, the student loan debacle and labor-market collapse in most of the country have compelled young adults to postpone indefinitely dating, marriage, and childbearing en masse. And birthrates in Mexico have collapsed over the past generation, so even if the labor market improves in this country, progressively fewer Mexicans will exist to jump the border (legally or otherwise) to seek work or settle in this country. And now Obama comes to the rescue with a plan to murder even more American babies, driving the live-birth rate even lower.

    (2) LABOR MARKETS: Some combination of building costs and local incomes (usually wages and salaries) drives a healthy housing market. In areas with rising population, building costs drive the market, and local incomes determine the size and amenities of the newly constructed housing; however, in areas without population expansion sufficient to drive a significant house-building industry, local incomes alone drive the market. Wherever incomes and labor markets decline as precipitously as has happened in the past several years, house prices must decline concomitantly so that ordinary persons can afford houses. An increasing lack of job stability and career development prospects also reduces the proportion of prospective owner-residents among buyers. Also, in neighborhoods distant from job sites, one must consider commuting costs when calculating the value of the property: higher petroleum costs and automobile prices (EPA, anyone?) decrease the capacity of prospective owner-residents to afford the houses.

    (3) TAXES, INTEREST, and UNCERTAINTY: Mortgage interest rates already rank among the lowest in many decades; any increase in mortgage interest rates would lead to higher regular mortgage payments, which, if higher incomes to not offset these payments, would tend to reduce prices. On the other hand, interest rates now are so low that lower, even zero, rates will not lower payments significantly enough to inflate housing prices (assuming that lenders demand regular repayment of principal). Property taxes, however, continue to escalate, and make property worth less. How much is the obligation to pay $12,000/year worth to you? Something very negative, right? What if some local politicians can and habitually do raise that payment on a whim? Very high property taxes, especially in markets with labor market weakness or instability, tend to suppress prices for the object of the taxation. The greater the uncertainty associated with the financial capacity of a prospective owner-resident to maintain the property (taxes, heat, utilities, access to work, et cetera), the lower the price goes.

  • EPA Levies $40,000+ Fines on Landlords Who Fail to Provide ‘EPA-Approved’ Pamphlets to Tenants

    08/25/2012 12:58:14 PM PDT · 4 of 46
    dufekin to freedumb2003

    EPA does only what the Congress commands it to do. The Congress commanded this extortion, and EPA merely must do it. Indeed, given excessive and exorbitant Congressional spending and the perpetual threat of overriding the debt ceiling, EPA has a fiduciary duty to big government to maximize revenues to preserve the fading vestigial aura of national solvency.

    Direct thy ire at the Congress! If Congress only repealed (or never passed) this punitive legislation, then EPA would not and could not exact such extortion.

    Of note: I have lived in pre-1978 housing my entire life but never received the worthless brochure that Congress mandates with severe penalties.

  • Swing-State Voters Say They Are No Better Off Than in 2008

    08/20/2012 6:42:46 PM PDT · 21 of 21
    dufekin to Ryan_Rubio_2016

    No. The packages get smaller AS the price increases. You get less but pay more.

  • There is no California

    08/16/2012 7:45:08 PM PDT · 70 of 79
    dufekin to Jacquerie; p. henry

    Perhaps the California Supreme Court did shoot down a law denying public school to illegal aliens; however, the United States Supreme Court decided the matter in Plyler v. Doe (1982). Strictly speaking, that decision struck down Tyler Independent School District (Texas) rule charging $1,000 tuition to each illegal alien. Gray Davis then served as first-term state assemblyman in California and obviously did not appeal because he lacked standing as a non-party to the case. Moreover, one cannot appeal a Supreme Court decision to any entity other than the Supreme Court itself, which naturally rarely entertains such appeals.

  • CBO: 30 Million Will Remain Uninsured Under Obamacare

    08/08/2012 8:49:16 PM PDT · 19 of 20
    dufekin to freekitty

    Obama-care has numerous points:

    1) To demonstrate that the Congress can and does pass legislation without reading it, without understanding it, without having even the slightest clue what is in it, so that in inflicting it upon you, they can discover for what they voted.

    2) To inflict punitive taxes on the filthy rich (read: working poor), extracting $2,085/year from a single parent of four or more children with a total family income at least $12,850/year. The children, if employed, may have to pay the same tax too from their own incomes, even if the parent also pays it on their behalf.

    3) To extract punitive taxes on big businesses, defined on any person who dares to employ 50 others in any combination of enterprises, thus providing powerful incentives to restrict hiring and employment growth and so to make economic recession a semi-permanent feature of the American economy.

    4) Perhaps most importantly, to punish innocent babies and drive the birthrate to sub-European levels, promoting demographic implosion. The law provides unlimited free drugs to prevent the conception of children, to poison those conceived children to death, to dismember tortuously painfully those who escape the poisoning, and to tax those born into destitution. The law provides for a slush fund sufficient to triple the staggering number of feticides in this country. Feticide already claims the lives of one American in four and ranks as the leading cause of death.

    5) To advance the culture of death in other ways, including euthanasia and through propaganda promoting free services, including encouragement of counseling intended to induce the choice to kill.

    6) To repress and persecute the Church, especially the Catholic Church, through requirements and taxes that make forfeiture of religious freedom essentially compulsory to meaningful participation in the American economy. These measures will drive Christians, especially but not exclusively Catholics, away from the medical sector, as doctors, nurses, bureaucrats, operators of clinics and hospitals, and even as patients and non-medical employers.

    7) To expand and enhance the power of a bureaucracy in Washington over the life and indeed the death of ordinary Americans, causing Americans to revere the Government as some sort of god. This objective denies natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Instead, Americans live and die by the wish and whim of big government and exist for and at its pleasure. American companies exist to magnify the might and execute the will of President Obama and authorities at various levels of government (including the local alderman), without whose beneficence they could not exist.

    8) To spend money even faster than it taxes and thus to justify even more repressive Congressional action later, especially if Americans do not respond by removing themselves from the healthcare system as patients and pay debilitating taxes.

    9) Hope and change, dude! Okay, I’m sure that Obamacare will accomplish even worse than we can imagine, considering that many sections remain un-implemented, implemented in secret, or so convoluted as to be incomprehensible, or regulations not yet written.

  • 27 Things That Every American Should Know About The National Debt

    07/28/2012 11:45:08 AM PDT · 19 of 20
    dufekin to ProtectOurFreedom

    Mrs. POF is a good wife for you. Love her and cherish her all the days of your life. Yes, you have needs, but they’re vastly simpler than you think. Praise God for what enormous riches you have, including your wonderful wife. You can survive without any of the “reasonable needs” you mentioned as “mandatory.” Very simple food, water, and shelter can keep you alive. Even if you do have 18 children, and perhaps you should, then you won’t need an 18-room mansion and certainly not a 6-car garage; you can learn to survive on less.

    Ultimately, the government will require spending cuts (from you as it raises taxes and drastically curtails employment opportunities). Save money now to cushion the blow, especially for your wife and those children.

    A 6-car garage may prove helpful if you’re an auto mechanic or small manufacturer (and those professions are both very profitable and still legal). In that case, slash spending, save money, and pay cash. Otherwise, you’ll pay double or triple or quadruple or more, and they won’t be yours but the bank’s. Don’t be like our government, so precarious.

  • 27 Things That Every American Should Know About The National Debt

    07/28/2012 11:34:53 AM PDT · 18 of 20
    dufekin to reefdiver

    Very extreme taxation is necessary at this juncture. Our generation—and our children’s generation, if we dare procreate any posterity—must repay all this debt. The Congress has not shrunk the federal government since the aftermath of World War II, so we cannot rely upon cutting spending (even if politicians promise it) until Americans endure years or even decades of persistent impoverishment through taxation.

    I propose a tax ratchet whereby taxation automatically increases until the federal debt decreases at a reasonable amortization rate of not less than 1% per month. Whenever Congress increases spending, taxes increase automatically in response.

    We are all slaves to this debt, not a free people, and even our non-economic rights—for example, freedom of religion—the government will usurp from us. As for the move after collapse, watch Europe, and remember: our debt-to-gross domestic product ratio exceeds that of Hellenic Republic after considering state and local debt and government pension obligations. Moreover, scarier still, in this recession as in that of the 1970s, our birthrate has plunged below replacement to something more typical of Europe.

    By the way, if AND ONLY IF you are MARRIED (and of childbearing age), then now is a great time to procreate babies.

  • "You Didn't Build That": Picture Posting Vanity Thread

    07/19/2012 7:03:29 PM PDT · 63 of 153
    dufekin to Doogle

    One huge problem with that picture: it vastly understates the magnitude of the federal debt. If the City of Oklahoma City drained Lake Overholser, one of its principal reservoirs, and citizens of the United States then packed it to the brim with dollar bills with no airspace, the lake still would not hold enough money to repay the federal debt.

  • The Mandate After the Court [Roberts’s decision may end up killing Obamacare after all]

    07/16/2012 7:51:28 PM PDT · 23 of 24
    dufekin to Former MSM Viewer

    Your argument, unfortunately, is flawed. The only enforcement part of Obama/Pelosicare declared a tax is the mandate on individuals. A separate mandate applies to employers, but the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of that mandate because the petitioners did not bring that argument to the Court.

    Moreover, the government can tax the Catholic Church as much as it taxes any other entity. The Sixteenth Amendment (income tax) supersedes the First Amendment (freedom of religion), and in any case, this Administration considers religious liberty as a nullity. Only a special provision of the tax code grants the Church an exemption from income taxation, and the Church must comply with certain regulations to qualify. For example, the Church cannot maintain her tax exemption and support or oppose a political candidate or any other political issue; a special exception allows black Protestant churches to agitate for Democrats yet retain their exemption.

    Catholic hospitals, however, do not qualify as churches under the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. They must comply with the legislation as ordinary businesses. If they object to the abortion mandate, then they must pay gargantuan fines. The Catholic Church, her institutions, and her faithful cannot provide abortifacients, contraception, sterilization, and abortion as these are intrinsically evil.

    That leaves these groups several options. They can continue to operate without employing anyone; the requirement to provide these procedures applies only to employees. For a hospital, that’s impractical right now, although I suppose that a tremendous surge in vocations of medically qualified persons to religious orders may displace the current staff.

    Alternatively, the hospitals may pay a special tax ($2,000 per employee) and simply not offer health insurance (for reasons unrelated to opposition to abortion, which carries a special punitive fine). The employees then each pay a tax of not less than $695/person (or $2085/family) and simply decline medical attention. That arrangement may prove economically viable, especially if other employers drop their coverage. Essentially, health insurance becomes too expensive, so the employer pays a tax, reduces wages to compensate for the tax, and have each employee pay a special tax from the wages. Technically, if the hospital employs fewer than 50 persons, or if no employee nor spouse nor dependent of any employee receives a subsidy on any exchange, then the hospital need not pay the $2,000/employee tax. In the case of hospitals, this arrangement may prove particularly enticing if the hospital then can offer or provide some limited form of healthcare to employees, their spouses, and their children; however, I’m not sure how legal that might be.

  • Mandate waiver for some low-income people

    07/10/2012 10:12:23 PM PDT · 21 of 31
    dufekin to Lorianne

    The clearest low-income exemption from the tax under 26 USC § 5000A comes in 26 USC § 5000A(e)(2):

    “Any applicable individual for any month during a calendar year if the individual’s household income for the taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is less than the amount of gross income specified in section 6012 (a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.”

    The “taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” is “the most recent taxable year for which the Secretary [of Health and Human Services], after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, determines information is available.” I conjecture that it likely refers to a year before the year for which the taxpayer might pay insurance premiums or taxes for lacking health insurance.

    “The amount of gross income specified in section 6012 (a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer” is quite complex but generally refers to the sum of your personal exemption (if allowed, 2 if married filing jointly) and standard deduction (if allowed). This does not include personal exemptions for any dependents.

    For a head of household, that amount will be approximately $12,850 in 2013, and the tax under 26 USC 5000A, unlike regular income tax, includes the income of any dependents.

    By the way, it now seems that a dependent who earns just $950 will have to pay the $695 tax ($348.50 if under age 18)—even if parents who can claim such dependent (even if they do not claim such) also must pay the $695 tax ($348.50 if under age 18) on the same dependent. Such a small income, however, may make health insurance not “affordable” as annual premiums exceed 96 per cent of the annual (gross) income of the individual for such prior year as Health and Human Services has information. But the indexing of the 8 percent per month (96 percent per year) threshold for affordable coverage to the increase in health insurance rates may render this tiny exemption effectively meaningless.

    I didn’t make up these laws. Congress did; blame its distinguished members. They wrote this sordid law and sold it through deceit. The more I read it, the more abhorrent it gets.

  • (Keith)Ellison(PBUH) moves to adjourn House to protest Obamacare vote

    07/10/2012 9:10:27 PM PDT · 25 of 33
    dufekin to txrefugee

    They can’t use reconciliation until and unless the Congress passes a budget to reconcile, but Senator Harry Reid considers even bothering to discuss the merits of proposing to consider whether to vote on debating one beneath his dignity.

  • Mandate waiver for some low-income people

    07/10/2012 8:01:30 PM PDT · 18 of 31
    dufekin to Lorianne

    Even it it does create 30 million “newly covered” people, they won’t have any significant access to healthcare, only possibly to death, because they won’t have the money to pay both the premiums, the food bill, the taxes (yes, premiums get taxed, just to make them more “affordable” for Congress), and the required copayments to get actual healthcare. Life-ending and death-inducing procedures of course are provided for free.

    More likely, the working poor (as opposed to the welfare classes)—those lucky enough to get something close to a year-round full-time minimum-wage job will pay an additional tax of $695/person (indexed for inflation). For a single mother of 4 with an income of just $12,850.01/year, this new tax takes away a whopping 16.2% of total income. That doesn’t include a $2,000/employee tax on her employer, which money otherwise might go to providing wage raises. But Congress doesn’t think such families are suffering enough already.

    So Democrats use tax policy to oppress the poor...the widow and the orphan! That’s who they mean when they say “tax the rich.” That’s what they did.

  • Mandate waiver for some low-income people

    07/10/2012 7:47:45 PM PDT · 17 of 31
    dufekin to Principled

    Let me try to parse this report. If the reporter accurately conveyed what Kathleen Sebilius said, then one of several things is true:

    (1) The term “low-income residents” refers to those with income of less than $10,000/year for those filing as single, $12,850/year for those filing as head of household, and $17,950/year for those married couples filing jointly, including united homosexuals. The statute specifically exempts these individuals from the tax. The tax also exempts illegal aliens, members of Indian tribes, and those incarcerated without pending charges regardless of income.

    (2) Although Sebilius will exempt the “low-income residents” from the mandate, they still must pay the tax on their low incomes unless they fulfill the mandate. Although she failed to articulate so, this situation does not differ materially from the situation of “high-income residents” except that their tax will be more affordable, and they could afford health insurance if it did not conflict with their moral systems.

    (3) The statute (26 USC § 5000A) actually allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to grant exemptions from the tax in cases of “hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage under a qualified health plan.” However, she must act through functioning Exchanges so to do: if no exchange exists, then no hardship exemptions can exist.

    (4) Quite possibly, some low-income persons with may fall under the situation wherein the monthly premium for one individual exceeds 8% of the annual household income for the most recent year for which the Secretary of the Treasury gives her information (probably your household income one or two years before the coverage year). For a household with a constant income, this effectively means that the household would have to spend more than 96 percent of gross income (before taxes) on each individual’s health policy to get the exclusion. A household experiencing a collapse in income may have to continue to pay for health insurance for years based on previous years’ income before qualifying for the exclusion. Worse yet, the 8% monthly rate gets indexed, not to anything particularly helpful, but to “the excess of the rate of premium growth between the preceding calendar year and 2013 over the rate of income growth for such period.” In other words, if health coverage costs continue to soar, the threshold for the exclusion would rise concomitantly.

    (5) Some other section of law may empower her to do as she proposes, or, alternatively, she plans to induce Congress to pass such a law (if Democrats win victories in November).

    The more I read this statute, the lees sensible it seems. I guess that’s why the Congress had to pass the law so that we could find out what is in it. We who hold the Congress in utmost contempt wouldn’t have believed that the Congress could do something so awful otherwise.

  • “Taxes” are for Revenue. SCOTUS is Wrong.

    07/07/2012 4:52:40 PM PDT · 21 of 22
    dufekin to sourcery

    It’s an income tax. It has to be. It even has a rate schedule.

    For a $0 tax,
    Income < {sum of personal exemption (2 if married filing jointly) and standard deduction for filing status}
    Income < $17,950 (married)
    Income < $12,850 (head of household)
    Income < $10,000 (single)

    The tax on income even slightly above that threshold is:
    $695 for each taxpayer, spouse (if filing jointly), and dependent aged 18 or older, PLUS
    $347.50 for each taxpayer, spouse, and dependent under age 18
    BUT not more than a total of $2085.

    If the 2.5% of difference between total household income and the filing threshold (listed earlier) exceeds this calculation, then you will pay this greater amount instead of the flat rate.

    But, to protect the very rich, the tax cannot exceed the national average bronze premium for plans on exchanges.

    So it’s a very regressive tax. For a single mother (or father) filing as “head of household” with four (or more) dependent children, a household income of just $12,850.01 triggers an automatic $2085 income tax, sending 16.2% of total income straight to the federal government. This tax payment provides no medical care or health insurance and indeed impedes access by driving the family into deeper poverty.

    Moreover, if $10,000.01 of that household income comes from a 17-year-old dependent child (or a 24-year-old college student), that child (if single) must pay $347.50 (or $695 if over 18 years of age) in addition to the parents’ tax penalty on behalf of the same dependent child.

  • “Taxes” are for Revenue. SCOTUS is Wrong.

    07/07/2012 4:11:02 PM PDT · 20 of 22
    dufekin to varmintman

    Patient Protection Affordable Care Act comprises myriad sections of law. The waivers exclude favored entities from the requirements of a few sections (or parts of sections). They do not guarantee categorical exclusion from the entire law. Secretary of Health and Human Services statutorily can waive this particular tax requirement if she judges that the politically connected applicant would experience a particular hardship, but insofar as I know, she has not issued any such waivers of this requirement. Remember, this tax section imposes a particularly regressive penalty on the working poor. It does not punish lack of health insurance; it punishes INCOME, particularly income generated from work that does not provide health insurance. It hits the working poor especially hard: the tax on a full-time, year-round minimum-wage income ($15,020/year) for a family (two married adults and two or more children OR a head-of-household and four or more children) is $2,085/year (in and after 2016). That tax applies in addition to other income taxes: regular income taxes, state income taxes, local income taxes, Federal Insurance contribution income taxes, Medicare income taxes, et cetera. Congress specifically designed this income tax is intended to penalize such families if they choose to work and thereby induce them to enroll in welfare programs.

    The act does provide for an exclusion for taxation if health insurance is not affordable, but the monthly premium must exceed 8% of annual income for the household; effectively, the insurance premium for EACH individual in the household must cost more than 96% of pre-tax income for the entire household (including employee benefits).

  • “Taxes” are for Revenue. SCOTUS is Wrong.

    07/07/2012 4:10:44 PM PDT · 19 of 22
    dufekin to varmintman

    Patient Protection Affordable Care Act comprises myriad sections of law. The waivers exclude favored entities from the requirements of a few sections (or parts of sections). They do not guarantee categorical exclusion from the entire law. Secretary of Health and Human Services statutorily can waive this particular tax requirement if she judges that the politically connected applicant would experience a particular hardship, but insofar as I know, she has not issued any such waivers of this requirement. Remember, this tax section imposes a particularly regressive penalty on the working poor. It does not punish lack of health insurance; it punishes INCOME, particularly income generated from work that does not provide health insurance. It hits the working poor especially hard: the tax on a full-time, year-round minimum-wage income ($15,020/year) for a family (two married adults and two or more children OR a head-of-household and four or more children) is $2,085/year (in and after 2016). That tax applies in addition to other income taxes: regular income taxes, state income taxes, local income taxes, Federal Insurance contribution income taxes, Medicare income taxes, et cetera. Congress specifically designed this income tax is intended to penalize such families if they choose to work and thereby induce them to enroll in welfare programs.

    The act does provide for an exclusion for taxation if health insurance is not affordable, but the monthly premium must exceed 8% of annual “modified adjusted gross income” for the household; effectively, the insurance premium for EACH individual in the household must cost more than 96% of pre-tax income for the entire household (including employee benefits).

  • Clinton: 10 years to get out of recession, housing crisis

    06/05/2012 6:35:05 PM PDT · 18 of 18
    dufekin to The Duke

    Japan has a demographic crisis like that to which our President and Congress demands that we involuntarily succumb.

  • Region 1 EPA Administrator: Obama coal rules ‘painful every step of the way'

    06/04/2012 7:22:31 PM PDT · 13 of 14
    dufekin to Former Proud Canadian

    Now here’s the real problem. Under the Clean Air Act, any regulation, once successfully imposed, never can be revoked or diminished. Even if EPA does repeal the regulation formally, federal judges likely will rule that it retains full force and effect unless EPA passes even stricter regulations to replace the repealed regulations. So a new President can do nothing to stop the demise of the coal industry once decreed.

    Only Congress can do that, and that would require Congress through legislation to repeal the relevant portions of the Clean Air Act and to order EPA directly and clearly to repeal its regulations without regard to the anti-backsliding provisions of the Clean Air Act. To repeal an EPA regulation, the Congress would have to act in the interests of the American people and ignore the environmental lobby and its special-interest lawyers and campaign contributions. Congress almost certainly will not do anything even remotely close to something so sensible. The past several years gives practically no precedent for such lawmaking on any issue, regardless of the party in power.

    So the demise of the coal industry is now effectively irrevocable. And likewise, half of the electricity industry will vanish. And if EPA yields to the anti-fracking folks, then most of even that remnant will collapse, at least for those not among the high elites of American society (including tax collectors, bureaucrats, and politicians).

    This regime fulfills the yearning desires of the American people, who enthusiastically elected a politician who promised to render electricity unaffordable to them personally, to encumber their access to heating in winter and air conditioning in summer, to ration their health care, to limit their access to food, and even to annihilate their posterity.

  • Jeb Bush says he would back tax increases to reduce deficit

    06/02/2012 7:28:06 PM PDT · 45 of 54
    dufekin to irishtenor

    With the Democrats, when they get serious about budget deficit reduction, that means $1 in tax increases for $4 (or more) in spending increases (euphemistically called “painful cuts”). Of course, the tax increases actually discourage the economic activity subject to the increased tax so much that they cause long-term decrease in revenue to the Treasury, whereas the spending increases result in regulation that fatally punishes economic activity, the taxation of which brings revenue to the Treasury.

  • Maureen Dowd: Fight really about controlling women, not birth

    05/28/2012 9:14:58 PM PDT · 57 of 59
    dufekin to ctdonath2

    You say, “here, outright overt killing is unpalatable,” but at least 54 million American babies have perished from outright killing. It just occurs in secret, and the innocent victims don’t see it coming and lack the strength and means to stop it. We Americans kill the weak, voiceless, and defenseless, those without anyone to speak for them.

    Euthanasia is coming soon. Who will the victims be? The weak, almost voiceless and defenseless, those physically unable to protest, those without support or incapable of galvanizing public opinion. We already dismissed one Florida woman as a potted cactus despite national news coverage. Think it’s not getting more commonplace with each passing year? Think again! (And Obamacare will make the odious practice of offing the weak even more pervasive.)

    And the killing won’t start there. It never does.

  • Maureen Dowd: Fight really about controlling women, not birth

    05/28/2012 8:53:51 PM PDT · 56 of 59
    dufekin to Popman

    Well, Onan is in Genesis 38, so he predates Levirite law, although he does presage it. He did not use a condom because no one yet had invented them. Instead, he practiced the primitive form of birth control most readily available to him. Rather than declining to contribute as biological father of the children of Tamar altogether, he went halfway, beginning the act but intentionally stopping short of accomplishing its procreative aim. A condom merely provides a more technologically sophisticated method of doing likewise.

  • Maureen Dowd: Fight really about controlling women, not birth

    05/28/2012 8:45:21 PM PDT · 55 of 59
    dufekin to Popman

    This is a difficult question to answer succinctly yet charitably. For a better explanation, I refer you to Casti Connubii (Pope Pius XI, 1930), Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI, 1968), and Evangelium Vitae (Pope John Paul II, 1995).

    Simply stated, however, the use of the condom (or any other physical or chemical contraceptive) to prevent the pregnancy of the wife intentionally separates the conjugal (baby-making) act from its procreative function. When a husband and wife engage in the conjugal act, they each sacrifice everything to the other because of their love for one another. God may choose to bless this marital love with a child. Of course, a marriage can persist and indeed thrive even if God does not bless it with children; however, why frustrate God’s designs and put you trust not in the Almighty Who can create a child for you but in some piece of plastic to thwart His blessing?

    Remember, in a true marriage, marked by love and not by lust, God unites the two partners into one flesh. The condom frustrates this sacred mystery by creating an artificial barrier between the spouses. It also lowers the dignity of the wife (in the eyes of the husband) from that of a loving, nurturing mother of his children yet unborn to a mere object for his self-gratification and perverse perceived pleasures.

    Applied to a different organ system, it’s akin to using a physical barrier to separate breathing from absorbing oxygen (despite no medical necessity so to do). Granted, reproduction isn’t as essential to human survival as respiration is, but the barrier compromises the reproductive system and, by extension, the marriage—perhaps imperceptibly to those involved—as surely as a piece of plastic wrap across the face compromises the respiration.

    Other contraceptives effectively disable the uterus and create a hostile environment for the conceived child and lead to the premature death of an embryonic human.

    But again, the popes explain far more accurately, lovingly, and powerfully than I can. So please read them.

  • Archbishop: Networks 'missed the boat' on coverage of church's ObamaCare lawsuits

    05/28/2012 2:34:10 PM PDT · 40 of 48
    dufekin to rwa265

    From a draft letter to my Congressmen:

    Of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, boasted, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Its vague provisions may sound innocuous. Consider this newly enacted section of law (42 USC §300gg-13, §2713 of the Public Health Service Act of 1944, Public Law 111-148, title I, § 1001(5), March 23, 2010, 124 Statutes 131), from which I quote paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(4):

    (a) A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for -
    (1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of “A” or “B” in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force;
    (4) with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not described in paragraph (1) as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this paragraph.
    Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a plan or issuer from providing coverage for services in addition to those recommended by United States Preventive Services Task Force or to deny coverage for services that are not recommended by such Task Force.

    With the cooperation and likely intent of Congress, President Obama and his Administration used paragraph (a)(4) for sweeping, devastating political ends. The “Health Resources and Services Administration” supports “comprehensive guidelines” that provide for “additional preventive care and screenings” with respect to “women.” Every “group health plan” shall “provide coverage for” these “preventative care and screenings” for “women” without imposing any “cost sharing requirements.” Health Resources and Services Administration effectively outsourced its delegated authority under this provision to Institute of Medicine, which impaneled several medical professionals who authored “Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps (2011) .” Although Institute of Medicine employed distinguished medical professionals to make these determinations, those deliberately selected medical professionals made recommendations in accordance with their political views and in full knowledge of the political ends to which the government would put their judgement. To dismiss their recommendations as purely scientific facts perverts the meaning of science.

    Table 2-2 (pp. 34-37) of this Institute of Medicine document lists the extensive services provided to women under paragraph (a)(1). Pages 102-110 discuss “preventing unintended pregnancy and promoting healthy birth spacing,” closing with, “the committee recommends as a preventative service for women: the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.”

  • Piratical feds, town police trying to take couple’s hotel

    05/26/2012 10:21:46 AM PDT · 25 of 30
    dufekin to JimRed

    In all seriousness, the government can’t seize public housing because the government already owns public housing. To whom would the government forfeit its property? To itself. Sorry, but the government wants more property (and desperately needs more revenue to finance its spending habits), so only private property is in danger, not property that the government already owns.