As the debate rages over whether the president needs congressional authorization for war prior to his deployment of the military to degrade or destroy ISIS, the terrorist organization that none of us had heard about until a few months ago, the nation has lost sight of the more fundamental issue of President Obama’s infidelity to the rule of law.

On the lawfulness of his proposed war, the president has painted himself into a corner. Last year, he quite properly recognized that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), a statute enacted by Congress in 2002 to permit President George W. Bush to use the military to track down, capture, degrade or kill all persons or organizations that planned the attacks of 9/11, cannot apply to organizations that did not exist at the time of 9/11, of which ISIS is one.

That leaves the president with two remaining alternatives. One is the War Powers Resolution (WPR), a statute enacted by Congress in 1973 to limit presidentially ordered military invasions absent congressional assent to 180 days or fewer. But the WPR is unconstitutional, as it consists of Congress giving away to the president express authority to declare war, which the Constitution delegates to Congress. The Supreme Court has prohibited such giveaways of core powers and responsibilities from one branch of the federal government to another.

Even if Obama decides to rely on the WPR, and expects that no federal judge will interfere with that decision, his military advisers have told him he cannot achieve his objective in 180 days. They also have told him he cannot achieve his objective by the use of air power alone.

"[Humanity] has unquestionably one really effective weapon—laughter. Power, money, persuasion, supplication, persecution—these can lift at a colossal humbug—push it a little—weaken it a little, century by century; but only laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand."

— Mark Twain

Never call the cops.

Unless you want to be shot and killed. 

"The policy of seeking values from human beings by means of force,
when practiced by an individual, is called crime.
When practiced by a government, it is called statism …"

— Nathaniel Branden

Citizen Photographers vs. the Police: Carlos Miller on the Tom Woods Show

"Collectivism is a form of anthropomorphism. It attempts to see a group of individuals as having a single identity similar to a person. … Collectivism demands that the group be more important than the individual. It requires the individual to sacrifice himself for the alleged good of the group."

— Jeff Landauer

The truth about the Ebola scare

even-stevens said: What's your view on universal health care if there's an option of private insurance for those who can afford it?

dorothyinwonderland:

moralanarchism:

dorothyinwonderland:

moralanarchism:

Have you looked at my blog for more than a few minutes? 

Everyone says insurance is expensive.  That health care is expensive. It is expensive to pay doctors, nurses, and assistance’s is expensive. 

To which I agree with basically everyone. 

But when someone talks about universal health care those people are saying that paying doctors, nurses, assistance’s, and government bureaucrats is some how cheater? 

That is complete disregard for common sense. 

Which, if you go back in time to the early 1900’s the problem with “health care” was that it was too cheap.  Health care didn’t become expensive until the government intervened. 

Mutual aid societies kept health care extremely cheap.  It would take a day or two days waged to pay for the entire year with unlimited visits of the doctor. 

But like most “problems” the government tries to solve the consumers never complain.  It is other people in the industry or other competitors. 

This is not true at all. One of the reasons that universal health care is cheaper is that it does not include the profit paid to the insurance companies. In Canada, there are still insurance companies for comprehensive coverage, but they are not involved in basic coverage – that is managed by the government – and insurance companies do not take a piece of it. Studies show that Canada overall spends significantly less per capita on health care than the US and specifically the Canadian government spends significantly less per capita than the US government. The idea that it was government intervention that was the primary reason for rising healthcare costs since the 1900’s is also just plain false – the primary cause of increases in healthcare expenditure is advancing technology. Acquiring and implementing new technology is extremely expensive and has placed an exacting burden on the healthcare system.

Why would I care about the “per capita spending” ratio? Those number are completely manipulated by the state.  Canadian health care is so great it has shown an 800% increase in the last decade in Florida from Canadian patients.  That’s what happens when states fully envelope “universal health insurance.”

So by your logic, the cost of technology should be so exponentially increased since the 1960s.  Since the invention of the computer, prices should rise year after year because technology is so much better?

Since implementing new and better technology is so expensive none of us should have lap tops. 

Oh wait…I’m posting on a laptop.

You should care about per capita spending because it is an indicator of how “expensive” health care is and your post was about just that. And I believe the study was done by the World Heath Organization not “the state”.

The reason there is healthcare tourism is because there are wait times for non-critical operations in Canada and some people – especially those with some extra cash to burn – don’t want to wait, it’s not because the procedures are not available to them. 

Um… I think you are confusing healthcare technology and electronics, compare the cost of your laptop with the cost of say an MRI machine – it’s not even in the same ball park. Also, you obviously don’t need any special qualifications to operate your computer.

So you want people to believe the industry government leaves more or less free, all things considering, electronics prices will fall.  Because technology improves. 

But the industry that government makes more socialized and less free prices rise because technology increases. 

So what you are saying, when industries have more freedom from the government prices will fall but when industries are more socialized by the government the prices will increase. 

At least we are on the same page.

even-stevens said: What's your view on universal health care if there's an option of private insurance for those who can afford it?

dorothyinwonderland:

moralanarchism:

Have you looked at my blog for more than a few minutes? 

Everyone says insurance is expensive.  That health care is expensive. It is expensive to pay doctors, nurses, and assistance’s is expensive. 

To which I agree with basically everyone. 

But when someone talks about universal health care those people are saying that paying doctors, nurses, assistance’s, and government bureaucrats is some how cheater? 

That is complete disregard for common sense. 

Which, if you go back in time to the early 1900’s the problem with “health care” was that it was too cheap.  Health care didn’t become expensive until the government intervened. 

Mutual aid societies kept health care extremely cheap.  It would take a day or two days waged to pay for the entire year with unlimited visits of the doctor. 

But like most “problems” the government tries to solve the consumers never complain.  It is other people in the industry or other competitors. 

This is not true at all. One of the reasons that universal health care is cheaper is that it does not include the profit paid to the insurance companies. In Canada, there are still insurance companies for comprehensive coverage, but they are not involved in basic coverage – that is managed by the government – and insurance companies do not take a piece of it. Studies show that Canada overall spends significantly less per capita on health care than the US and specifically the Canadian government spends significantly less per capita than the US government. The idea that it was government intervention that was the primary reason for rising healthcare costs since the 1900’s is also just plain false – the primary cause of increases in healthcare expenditure is advancing technology. Acquiring and implementing new technology is extremely expensive and has placed an exacting burden on the healthcare system.

Why would I care about the “per capita spending” ratio? Those numbers are completely manipulated by the state.  Canadian healthcare is so “great” that there’s been an 800% increase in Canadian patients in Florida hospitals in the last decade.  That’s what happens when states fully envelope “universal health insurance.”

So by your logic, the cost of technology should be exponentially increasing since the 1960s.  Since the invention of the computer, prices should rise year after year because technology is so much better.

Since implementing new and better technology is so expensive, none of us should have laptops. 

Oh wait…I’m posting on a laptop.