Monthly Archives: July 2012

Just Another Day In Afghanistan

Gender, Islam, Media, Middle East, Military, Propaganda

Those vested in the US “mission” in Afghanistan—we don’t have a legitimate one—will spin the execution of an innocent woman by the Taliban in the province of Parwan, as a Taliban-specific atrocity. In that case, the Taliban represents the rest of tribal Afghanistan’s (mostly Pashtun) people quite well.

CNN buried the truth according to Christine Fair, with the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, in a little-watched, Sunday morning segment, which was further pruned for the online article (“Taliban shoot woman 9 times in public execution as men cheer”):

“It’s really important to not see this exclusively in terms of the Taliban, but this is a set of practices that actually have existed and continue to exist throughout Afghanistan.”

Honor killings are as endemic to Afghanistan as the opium trade, only much older. Dare I say that these “customs” are as old as Sharia?

And, as Faire pointed out (and this writer has with respect to honor killings elsewhere), women are active in mediating these killings against other women, daughters included.

Here’s what a “Palestinian” woman, Amira Abu Hanhan Qaoud, did to her child, after the girl – who had been raped and impregnated by her brothers – refused to commit suicide.
Plastic bag, razor, and wooden stick in hand, the mother entered her sleeping daughter’s room. “Tonight you die, Rofayda,” the wicked witch announced, before wrapping the bag tightly around the girl’s head. The murderess Qaoud then spent the next 20 minutes slicing away at Rofayda’s wrists, ignoring pleas of “No, mother, no!” Just to be sure, this alleged mother struck her daughter on the head with the stick after the poor child passed out.
Yet members of Qaoud’s community are nonplussed – they see the woman as driven by devotion to both community and family.

(“THE RETURN OF THE PRODIGAL FEMINIST”)

Presidents Barack Obama—who followed George Bush and the Republicans to Afghanistan—has run out of excuses for this nation-building expedition. A tribal society is never going to apprecaite the joys of gay marriage, the ballot box, and female emancipation.

UPDATE II: Heeere’s Health Care: ‘The Tax Man Cometh For YOU’ (Obey, Or Else)

Barack Obama, Healthcare, Law, Regulation, Socialism, Taxation

Someone asserted in my presence the other day that Obama Care would not affect his physician (and by extension, his own medical care).

The poster person for this mathematical improbability is Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi promised (and she believes her own institutionalized stupidity) to expand government through this enormous entitlement program, and drastically reduce the deficit and debt at the same time.

Pelosi math aside, call Obama’s Affordable Care Act what you may—penalty, tax, plunder, rape—it’ll affect you and your physician.

Via The Washington Examiner:

The health care law “includes the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years,” according to the Treasury inspector general who oversees the IRS. The agency will have to hire thousands of workers to manage it, requiring significant budget increases that already are being targeted by congressional Republicans determined to dismantle the president’s signature initiative.
“Knowing the complexity of the health law, there’s no question that the IRS is going to struggle with this,” said Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., R-La., chairman of the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee. “The IRS wants more resources. Well, we need to start digging down into what are they doing with the resources and personnel.”
Treasury spokeswoman Sabrina Siddiqui said, “The overwhelming majority of funds used by the agency to implement the Affordable Care Act go to administer the premium tax credits, which will be a tax cut averaging about $4,000 for more than 20 million middle-class people and families.
…an insurance company would send the taxpayer and the IRS forms each year verifying that the taxpayer has qualified insurance. Taxpayers would file the forms with the IRS along with their returns, and the IRS would check them to make sure they match the information supplied by the insurance companies.
The IRS says it is well on its way to gearing up for the new law but has offered little information about its long-term budget and staffing needs, generating complaints from Republican lawmakers and concern from government watchdogs.
The IRS is expected to spend $881 million on the law from 2010 through 2013, hiring more than 2,700 new workers and upgrading its computer systems. “

UPDATE I (July 9): SHORTAGES. The deadly silence from the Obama Heads at The American Medical Association over the devastating survey conducted by the Doctor Patient Medical Association is understandable. Unlike the AWE (Ass With Ears) and his supporters, some doctors are able to anticipate the effects on the practice of medicine of an increase in demand for services with no adjustment in the price. Via the Daily Caller:

Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.
The DPMA, a non-partisan association of doctors and patients, surveyed a random selection of 699 doctors nationwide. The survey found that the majority have thought about bailing out of their careers over the legislation, which was upheld last month by the Supreme Court.
Even if doctors do not quit their jobs over the ruling, America will face a shortage of at least 90,000 doctors by 2020. The new health care law increases demand for physicians by expanding insurance coverage. This change will exacerbate the current shortage as more Americans live past 65.

MORE.

UPDATE II (July 10): Obey, Or Else.

Gerri Willis, who does good reporting, claimed that “the government has no way to enforce the individual mandate – the tax that scofflaws have to pay for failing to get health insurance coverage.”

That’s unless the IRS’s arsenal doesn’t count. Judge Andrew Napolitano corrects this misrepresentation:

Blame ‘Supremacy Clause’ For Loss Of Gun Rights

Conservatism, Constitution, Democrats, Foreign Policy, GUNS, Trade, UN

Under UN auspices, an “international Arms Trade Treaty” is being hammered out; one “that could seriously restrict your freedom to own, purchase and carry a firearm.

Warns the Washington Times about the latest gun grab:

The United Nations is deliberating over a treaty that will place comprehensive limits on the international weapons trade. The language of the draft agreement is so expansive it wouldn’t take an Obama-appointed judge very long to extend the treaty to cover the domestic firearms market as well. If American jurists continue to be enamored by the popular trend to consider international precedence when making U.S. rulings, you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye.

Conservatives almost always get it wrong. Why? Because they seldom object to the structure that undermines liberty, but only to the Other Party’s temporary control over the rights-violating framework. Government monopoly, per se, is not what irks Republicans. Their fight is for their side/values to prevail within the monopoly.

In truth, the Constitution is the thin edge of the wedge that has allowed U.S. governments to cede the rights of Americans to the UN. Specifically, the “Supremacy Clause” in Article VI states that all treaties made by government shall be “the supreme Law of the Land,” and shall usurp state law. Article VI has thus further compounded the loss of individual rights in the U.S. (From “CRADLE OF CORRUPTION.”)

UPDATE II: A Romp Down Memory Lane With Justice Roberts

Bush, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Healthcare, Justice, Law, The Courts

HERE are excerpts from “A Romp Down Memory Lane With Justice Roberts,” now on RT.

Is John G. Roberts Jr. no more than a smooth operator, I wondered on September 15 2005.

I began tracking the now infamous Justice Roberts a month earlier, around the time he was exciting admiration from gay-rights activists for winning “Romer vs. Evans” for them. The Los Angeles Times, at the time, noted that “Romer vs. Evans” had “struck down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.”

Gay activists still consider the decision Roberts won for them the “single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay rights movement.” Special pleading not being this column’s “thing,” arguments from and against so-called gay rights did not sway me much.

Rather, I urged readers to pay attention to Roberts’ efforts against the private property and freedom of association of Coloradans. “When property is rendered insecure,” said Edmund Burke, “so is liberty.”

Alas, Roberts’ (pro bono) work comported with 14th-Amendment jurisprudence, aspects of which violate private property rights and freedom of association. Simply put, to the extent that the Constitution coincides with the natural law, it is good. More often than not, it has buried natural justice under the rubble of legislation and statute.

My choice for the Supreme Court of the United States, back when President Bush was pushing the goofy Harriet Myers, was Justice Janice Rogers Brown. An originalist, Justice Brown is also black. Pigment, however, only works in favor of candidates of the Left.

“Today’s senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much ‘free stuff’ as the political system will permit them to extract.” This was just one of Justice Brown’s many admirable utterances. (Today’s brazen cannibals would object to Brown’s maligning as vociferously as the obese derided this writer for telling the truth about their fat and flaccid icon, Citizen Karen Klein.) …

… But, here’s the thing that unsettled so about Roberts’ performance during confirmation proceedings. Or so I wrote on September 15, 2005:

“He seems to be all about the moves” …

READ the complete column. “A Romp Down Memory Lane With Justice Roberts” is now on RT.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive libertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION—AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY:

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” “Return To Reason” on WND, and the “Paleolibertarian Column” on RT.

UPDATE I: “A vast new federal power to ‘tax'” has been birthed by the philosophical successor to chief justice of the United States, John Marshall, the “intellectual progenitor of federal power”:

No one can know the true motivations for the idiosyncratic rationale in the health-care decision written by Marshall’s current successor, John Roberts. … Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts really means what he wrote – that congressional power to tax is without constitutional limit – and his opinion is a faithful reflection of that view, without a political or legal or intra-court agenda. But that view finds no support in the Constitution or our history. It even contradicts the most famous of Marshall’s big government aphorisms: The power to tax is the power to destroy.
The reasoning underlying the 5-to-4 majority opinion is the court’s unprecedented pronouncement that Congress’ power to tax is unlimited. The majority held that the extraction of thousands of dollars per year by the IRS from individuals who do not have health insurance is not a fine, not a punishment, not a payment for government-provided health insurance, not a shared responsibility – all of which the statute says it is – but rather is an inducement in the form of a tax.

“The logic in the majority opinion is the jurisprudential equivalent of passing a camel through the eye of a needle. The logic is so tortured, unexpected and unprecedented that even the law’s most fervent supporters did not make or anticipate the court’s argument in its support. …”

UPDATE II (July 6):

From: J
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 11:49 AM
To: Ilana Mercer
Subject: Recent article

Your article today was excellent.

Most notably the part about how Roberts answered the question posed by the Senator about the administrative state….. so true. That’s our biggest problem in this country because half of all “conservatives” are for it. Very strange how he steered around the question.

J.