Archives for: March 2014

Future Leaders Not Into That “America” Thing

There is much to be happy about today. Another banner day for the stock market (ain’t paper wealth grand?), we are not at war with Russia (yet), and here in the Bay Area it is raining. Maybe that Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride that the country is on to self immolate with it’s economy is slowing down a bit. And then there is this;

OK, maybe it is bunker time.

Here’s the thing, most American’s really are dumber than, well, use your favorite comparison, there are many. We laugh when we see segment’s of “Jay Walking” where Leno goes out among the masses to expose the cavernous void occupying the brain cells of our citizens. What makes this video especially glaring is that they are college folks, you know, the best and the brightest, people that just took their required civics classes in HS so they should know the basics about our 3 branches, how bills are made, and how the government works. And yet, all is forgotten, un retained. Like a bucket that is full, if you pour more information in, like the name of that dopey song, something will sloosh out the other side, like how many Senators from each state.

And yet, they all can vote, and since voting is cool (the one time every couple a years where you can pretend to give a damn) we have people Like Obama running the show.

Pussified services and all that.

Man, every time you think that the bullshit PC environment can’t do more damage than it already has to the military services, you get stories like this one, and you realize the sad state of affairs:

Everyone at khaki call thought it was a joke.

But when a chief on the destroyer Jason Dunham told the assembled chiefs and officers that he was going to line up residents in two female berthings and make them march human feces down the pier to portable toilets, he was serious.

The chief was irate because the toilets in both women’s berthings had been used even though the ship’s sewage system was turned off for repairs during an overhaul, according to a Navy report.

The chief intended the task to teach the women a lesson in following orders and being considerate towards those whose job it is to fix the toilets. But to investigators, it crossed the line into humiliation and hazing that should have been stopped.

The Naval Surface Force Atlantic investigation found Cmdr. Kenneth Rice and Command Master Chief (SW/AW) Stephen Vandergrifft failed to take immediate corrective action when they had enough information to know lines had been crossed. Both lost their jobs. Officials pulled Rice’s command qualification and gave Vandergrifft nonjudicial punishment.

The report found that the decision to force 19 women, all E-6 and below, to clean feces out their toilets was an unsafe act of hazing. Navy Times obtained the roughly 250-page report via the Freedom of Information Act. Officials removed all names and titles except those of Rice, Vandergrifft and Cmdr. Michael Meredith, the ship’s commanding officer.

The incident was several days in the making, the report found.

The investigation found there were prior incidents of people using toilets that couldn’t be flushed, and each time a member of the ship’s repair division — damage controlmen and hull technicians — had to clean it up. The week before the incident, a sailor received the CO’s approval to make residents of the offending berthings help the hull techs clean up.

WTF? If these women are shitting where they shouldn’t, and this is the umpteenth time of this brown bombing exercise, I think this Chief had the right idea. If these stupid women can’t follow orders, they need to be disciplined, and shame is a lot less painful than some of the other shit they used to do back when this sort of bullshit would never have been tolerated. If you think you are too good for the “hold your shit” order, then don’t be surprised when you have to carry your shit out in a bucket.

Heck, if we were still into shaming bad behavior, we would have less of it. This would go doubly so about the shenanigans from our political class. In the meantime, the military is becoming more of a nanny service than a fighting force. I sure hope these sailors never have to face some real hardship, cause the pussified NAVY sure isn”t getting them ready for it.

Wretched Hives Of … People Smoking

One of the claims made by the anti-pot crusaders — particularly government USA’s and DEA agents prosecuting legal medical marijuana clinics — is that pot shops are a magnet for crime. These claims have just been thrown out there with little evidence to back them up. But they’ve used to justify raiding pot shops, shutting them down, threatening landlords with asset forfeiture and other fun games our federal government likes to play.

Well, someone took a look at the, you know, facts:

A study published by the online journal PLOS One yesterday finds that adoption of medical marijuana laws is not associated with an increase in crime and may even result in fewer assaults and homicides. Robert G. Morris and three other University of Texas at Dallas criminologists looked at trends in homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, and auto theft in the 11 states that legalized marijuana for medical use between 1990 and 2006. While crime fell nationwide during this period, it fell more sharply in the medical marijuana states, even after the researchers adjusted for various other differences between states. Morris and his colleagues suggest that the substitution of marijuana for alcohol could explain this result, although they caution that the extra reduction in crime might be due to a confounding variable they did not consider.

This is what legalization advocates have been arguing for years — that prohibition creates crime and criminals and that a legalized drug trade would drive down crime rates. In fact, this comports so closely to their claims that I’m actually reluctant to read too much into it. I want to see what other studies show — including studies of Colorado and Washington — before I draw any firm conclusions.

Despite my caution, I will say this is an encouraging finding. I don’t expect the Drug Warriors to acknowledge it (they would, of course, trumpet a study that claimed the opposite). We also have to see what the effects of legal pot shops are on use, addiction and other health outcomes. But it is both satisfying and enraging to see more evidence piling up that our decades-long experiment in prohibition was as big a disaster as we feared.

He Just Wanted to Stifle the Competition

Holy shit:

In a stunning criminal complaint, State Sen. Leland Yee has been charged with conspiring to traffic in firearms and public corruption as part of a major FBI operation spanning the Bay Area, casting yet another cloud of corruption over the Democratic establishment in the Legislature and torpedoing Yee’s aspirations for statewide office.

Yee and an intermediary allegedly met repeatedly with an undercover FBI agent, soliciting campaign contributions in exchange for setting up a deal with international arms dealers.

At their first face-to-face meeting in January, “Senator Yee explained he has known the arms dealer for a number of years and has developed a close relationship with him,” an FBI affidavit says, noting Yee told the agent the arms dealer “has things that you guys want.”

I’ve seen parts of the complaint and it’s pretty stunning. If the FBI’s account is to be believed — and I’ll grant that’s a reach — there is no question about what he was doing, or at least promising. It’s possible that, like a lot of politicians, he was talking a bunch of shit to get campaign contributions and had no idea how to smuggle their guns into Africa. In fact, I think it’s quite likely this was the case. After all, it wasn’t like the gun runners were going to sue him if he couldn’t deliver the contacts.

Now … does it surprise you that this guy was a huge gun control advocate? That he was honored by the Brady Campaign for his efforts? That he wanted to crack down on bullet buttons and 3-D printed guns and “assault weapons”? That he even advocated against violent video games? As Walter Olson quipped:

Maybe Sen. Yee came down so hard on private gun dealers because he wanted to muscle into the business himself.

The stunning thing is that the papers are indicating that everyone knew Yee was dirty. But, as with Bob Filner, they overlooked it because he was a powerful Democrat pushing issues they cared about.

I don’t expect this to get as much coverage as we see when an obscure Republican candidate for dog catcher does something hypocritical. But this is pretty stunning. And very likely the tip of the iceberg.

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. This case concerns whether the federal government can force an employer to provide birth control to their employees. Hobby Lobby is claiming it violates their Freedom of Religion and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to force them to pay for a service they have a moral objection to.

You can read some legal analysis from Mataconis and a series of posts from Stephen Bainbridge. It looks like the Court is leaning in favor of Hobby Lobby, perhaps with a narrow ruling that only addresses this particular issue.

There are two things I wanted to note about this, however.

First, I tend to side with Hobby Lobby on this one. My support has little to do with birth control and everything to do with opposing coverage mandates. Coverage mandates drive up insurance costs and provoke these kind of bitter arguments. It’s bad enough that the government is forcing people to provide or buy insurance. Why must it insist on specifying what the insurance will cover?

The potential for abuse is very high here. What’s to prevent some moonbeam President from mandating coverage for pseudo-scientific gibberish like therapeutic touch or aromatherapy (as indeed, some Senators tried to do and some states actually do)? What’s to prevent a future President from forbidding birth control coverage, especially given the precedent this President has established for ad hoc rewriting of the law? It’s bad enough that employers can control our healthcare. Many employers are now mandating “wellness” programs and the like. Must we let the politicians do it too?

Frankly, I’d prefer the Court strike down coverage mandates in general but they are not going to make such a broad ruling.

But second, this is another reminder that although I side with the Left on a number of culture issues, I am never very happy about the company I keep. The Left Wing, with the sympathetic media in lockstep, has responded to the Hobby Lobby case with a barrage of lies about the case, the law and birth control that is really despicable. They are desperate to pretend that, if Hobby Lobby wins, this means the end of birth control. But it does not:

The New York Times’ Adam Liptak puts it right there in the first sentence: “The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear arguments in a case that pits religious liberty against women’s rights.” This could not be further from the truth. Women will have the same constitutional rights to acquire and use contraception regardless of whether Hobby Lobby wins or loses. More than that, they’ll have the exact same rights as they had before the contraception mandate was a gleam in Sec. Sebelius’ eye. What women won’t have is the right to force other people to pay for their contraception, but that has never been a right recognized by the Supreme Court.

In the Bizarro World of the newspapers, not paying for someone else’s contraception is the same thing as prohibiting them from purchasing and using them themselves. This is an obviously false equivalence, but one that leftists are bent on telling themselves. No matter how many times you point out that the business owners in these cases aren’t preventing their employees from purchasing and using contraception, a smug leftist will smile and say “but women’s rights, you see,” as if these magic words excuse the lie.

Opponents of Hobby Lobby say that, if the Court decides in their favor, this will allow employers to “impose their morality” on their employees. But there is no such imposition. Hobby Lobby can not stop their employees from buying birth control. They can’t stop them from having sex. They can’t stop them from having gay abortions while smoking pot and watching Girls.

So why is having to pay for your own birth control oppression? Because the Left Wing has convinced itself that healthcare is a right, that health insurance is a right and therefore, if your employer refuses to pay for any healthcare service, they have deprived you of that right.

I find this view absurdly childish. This isn’t heart surgery we’re talking about; this is birth control, which is available for a few hundred bucks a year for most women and can be replaced cheaply with condoms or withdrawal or abstinence. Claiming that you have been “deprived” of birth control because someone else won’t pay for it is no different than claiming you’ve been deprived of electricity because you have to pay your own electric bills (which are, incidentally, usually more expensive than birth control).

If the Democrats are so passionate about birth control, why don’t they create a government program to provide it? I would oppose such a program, but it would likely be constitutional. Of course, they could never get such a program through the legislature. So they have to resort to the back door of forcing other people to pay for it.

Let me be clear. If I ran a business, I would choose insurance that included birth control coverage. I think employers should include it, although bringing birth control into the insurance sphere will likely drive up the cost of it for everyone. But there is a distinction between thinking something should be done and decreeing that it must be done, a distinction that seems lost on the Left Wing.

I would also point out that the “employer imposing their morality” argument only applies in this case. As Bainbridge points out, corporations debate morality all the time — whether to do business with sweat shops, whether to go green, whether to provide daycare, how much maternity leave to provide, whether to divest their funds from nefarious foreign countries.

Large corporations are already faced with choices over whether to pursue social justice, civil rights, and environmental concerns, and with disputes over the interests of majority shareholders, proxy questions, and the like. Corporate law has extensive mechanisms in place for dealing with these scenarios. Religion as one motive among many does not change the landscape.

In fact, religion is already part of that landscape, since state law allows corporations to pursue it among all lawful purposes. There are no practical or theoretical grounds for specifically excluding religion as a permissible basis for corporate decision- making—indeed, it would be a clear violation of the First Amendment to even try. See Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990) (noting that the government cannot ban “acts or abstentions only when they are engaged in for religious reasons”). Yet businesses infrequently choose to pursue religious ends.

As a practical matter, it is hard to demonstrate any interest shown by large, publicly-traded corporations in exercising religion. Market forces tend to push such firms far away from religious controversy. It is no accident that this case and related litigation involve corporations that are closely held.

Is Chick-Fil-A “imposing their religion” by being closed on Sundays? What if Apple announced that they would provide cars to their employees … but only if those cars were electric or hybrid cars. Would the Left Wing start screaming about Apple “imposing their morality” on their employees? What if a university were to ban Apple computers because they don’t like the work conditions in Apple’s factories? There would be some vigorous debate — I would oppose it. But would people think the federal government should step and force the university to use Apples? What distinguishes these moral decisions from a moral decision about what kind of health insurance to provide?

If Hobby Lobby — an ostensibly non-religious organization — were forbidding their employees from obtaining or using birth control pills, I’d be on the side of their opponents. But all they are asking for is to not have to pay for it.

In fact, the Left Wing’s arguments are so disingenuous, I think we are seeing a degree of hysteria. I think they are scared because if the Court strikes this down, it will endanger all coverage mandates. Their ability to dictate every detail of our insurance coverage — to effectively create single payer through mandates and restrictions — will be badly damaged.

But I also think there’s a more concrete motive. The Democrats are pushing this issue and lying about it because, as I pointed yesterday, the polls are not looking good for them. They are worried they are going to lose the election in 2014 and possibly in 2016. And so they are dragging the “War on Women” back out.

Am I too cynical? I don’t think so. This issue has reached a fever pitch at almost the same moment that pundits are projecting a Republican Senate in the fall. The attempts to stuff what is ultimately a business issues into a “War on Women”-shaped hole has almost exactly paralleled the rising unpopularity of Obama and Obamacare. And frankly the Democrats have a long and ugly history of trying to terrify the populace — especially the distaff part of it — with scary stories about how Republicans, if elected, will take away their Medicare, their Social Security, their Obamacare, their birth control, their abortion, their education and their dental fillings if they fall asleep.

So, in the the end, this really isn’t about birth control. If the Democrats really cared about access to birth control, they’d be talking about the solution many libertarians favor — make birth control available over the counter. That would do far more to make birth control available to women than a coverage mandate. No, this about politicizing the hell out of women’s reproductive systems in the hope of holding off electoral defeat.

The Republicans may or not be fighting a “war on women”. But the Democrats are using them as vehicles for their own political gain. I don’t see that that’s any better.

Do I Get A Free T Shirt With That?

Me being a big Free Market guy, I’m in favor of just about anything where supply meets demand, contract killing? Hey, if the guy deserves it who am I to judge? Exchanging labor or a service for money, the linchpin of societal existence. And most of the time when governments get in the middle of these transactions, it has little to do with societal norms or inflaming delicate sensibilities, but mostly because they want their cut, to wet their beak.

Although not the first of it’s kind, an enterprising college student has decided to sell her virginity to the highest bidder, I wonder if she takes American Express?

A 27-year-old medical student may have the prescription for instant Internet notoriety by auctioning her virginity.

The woman is using the name “Elizabeth Raine,” and claims to be a student at one of America’s top medical schools.

Raine hopes to net at least $400,000 from the bidding and is using an Australian agent to avoid breaking U.S. prostitution laws.

Hardly scandalous (or original), what makes this newsworthy is not the act, but the price, what glue has she been sniffing?

Does anyone really believe that she is a virgin or that no man has ever seen her naked? Also, whats the big whoop about taking anyone’s virginity? Somehow I think her offer is presented more to attract those gents that pine for more medieval times, like Muslims, who else would really care one way or the other?

“Money is my motivation, but by no means do I need the money. I’m pretty safe and secure financially,” she told EliteDaily.com.

Adventure, eroticism, scandal and challenging norms about virginity also rank on her list.

She really thinks sleeping with a complete stranger, losing something you held on to for 27 years, with no guarantee that it will not be vomit inducing, is somehow adventurous or erotic? Hardly scandalous, women have been screwing for money for a few years now. She is not coming across as all that bright.

Not to denigrate the overall package, but I’ve been to Vegas enough times to know you can get a professional, better looking who actually knows what she is doing for a fraction of the price.

Some people might ask why she is doing this, because she can, because some stupid men (or woman, I guess, but does that count as losing her virginity?) will give her money, maybe even ,lots of money.

I admire folks who hold out for marriage. We have done a few posts on the Virginity Pledge in the past. I never made it, but then I wasn’t trying either, but anyone that places a value on their sexuality, whether it be for religious or personal reasons, that choice is up to them, they get to treat their body (either as a temple or a carnival ride) any way they want. Modesty, chastity and temperance, these should be honored, nowadays they are as rare as Obama actually honoring one of his red lines.

The Phantom Koch Menace

Let’s face it: the Democrats are scared. Polling shows them down, Nate Silver now projects the Republicans to gain the Senate this year and while Hillary is popular in Democrat circles, it is quite likely she would lose a general election. There is a very real possibility the Republicans could control both Houses and the White House in 2017.

There are many ways for the Democrats to respond to this downturn in their political fortunes. They could work on getting their message out. They could change their agenda to be more in tune with reality and the needs of the … spttt … teeheeehee …. OK, I can’t finish that sentence with a straight face. I actually think the best political strategy for anyone, regardless of party, is just to shut the hell up and let your opponents defeat themselves.

But no, they’ve decided that the path to electoral victory is … attacking the Koch Brothers. I’m not joking. Harry Reid has been lambasting them on the Senate Floor. A progressive group incorrectly accused them of being behind the Keystone XL pipeline (said group being under the impression that Americans oppose it). That turned into a hilarious incident in which the WaPo mindlessly repeated their bogus claims. When called on it, they said:

The Powerline article itself, and its tone, is strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year. That’s why we wrote the piece.

In short, the Democrats are going to make the Koch Brothers an issue so we are going to make them an issue, facts be damned.

There’s only one problem. Most Americans could give a rat’s backside about the Koch Brothers. Half of Americans don’t even know who they are. Another fifth don’t care. The only people who really care about them are … passionate partisan Inside the Beltway Democrats and their adherents.

This a perfect distillation of how the Democrats have gone from the Party of Destiny to the Party of Density. They are constantly railing about side issues that no one cares about, constantly glomming onto some issue that they think will propel them to victory. They do this because when it comes to the most important issue right now — the economy — they haven’t the faintest foggiest fucking clue as to what to do about it.

If the Democrats think they’re going to ride Koch hatred to victory, they are deeply mistaken. But then again, they’re mistaken about almost everything.

What!! No Pickles?

Doing a Google search the other day I was reminded that March is Women’s History Month, thank God we have Google to remind us of our social obligations as penance for our past sins. But clearly more delineation is needed, turf needs to be carved out, demarcated for emphasis. For instance, the first week of March could be Man Hating Lesbian Week, the next Fat Chick Week, and the next could be for progressive white females, who’s two votes for Obama did not alleviate the white guilt and require additional diversity props to anesthetize their shame. Other variances can be considered, “I had an abortion” week, “I filed a bogus sexual harassment suit and now am set for life” week, even “I tricked a man into getting me pregnant and now he is on the hook for 18 years (plus college) of child support” week.

In keeping with this theme, local universities are providing seminars to remind women of their special distinction, “XX” power;

“Fat Justice and Feminism” seminar sponsored by Swarthmore College blamed Ronald Reagan for the suffering of fat people and accused the Body mass index (BMI) of having “direct links to a white supremacist.”

The workshop, taught by feminist activist Cora Segal and self-identified “angry, man-hating lesbian,” Nicole Sullivan, took place Thursday and sought to “address the ongoing exploitation and oppression of fat people.”

The Swarthmore Independent reports that Segal and Sullivan took aim at a variety of subjects including President Ronald Reagan, who they claimed “f*cked everything up” for fat people—though the Independent drily reports that “[n]o specific evidence about Reagan’s perverse policies or animosity toward obese people was offered.”

We could run in several directions with this; the lunacy of academia, progressives touting more of that victim mentality crap, the supremacy of self esteem to the detriment of everything else, take your pick.

Segal and Sullivan also argued in favor of “communism and socialism as viable alternatives to capitalism and exploitation” and against oppressive healthy eating and exercise programs. The two reportedly went so far as to claim that “every physician is bought off by lobbyists and the diet industry.”

Well, there you go, everything you knew about diet, exercise, and a healthy living style is wrong, pass the Cheetos.

I imagine that in a communist society obesity is probably rare, but so is abundance of anything, that’s the point, equality of everything including calories.

I did learn one thing about this article, you can get a degree in “Gender and Sexuality Studies”, any wall would feel blessed to have that sheepskin hanging on it.

The Captive Child

The Atlantic has a long but must-read article by Hannah Rosin on the overprotected child. In it, she documents how children today, despite increased safety and lower crime rates, have far less freedom to explore and be kids than previous generations did. We’ve harped on this before, but Rosin cites example after example of how little freedom we allow our children and how much of what makes childhood fun (and important) is being taken away.

There are too many good part to quote selectively. But here’s a key one:

I used to puzzle over a particular statistic that routinely comes up in articles about time use: even though women work vastly more hours now than they did in the 1970s, mothers—and fathers—of all income levels spend much more time with their children than they used to. This seemed impossible to me until recently, when I began to think about my own life. My mother didn’t work all that much when I was younger, but she didn’t spend vast amounts of time with me, either. She didn’t arrange my playdates or drive me to swimming lessons or introduce me to cool music she liked. On weekdays after school she just expected me to show up for dinner; on weekends I barely saw her at all. I, on the other hand, might easily spend every waking Saturday hour with one if not all three of my children, taking one to a soccer game, the second to a theater program, the third to a friend’s house, or just hanging out with them at home. When my daughter was about 10, my husband suddenly realized that in her whole life, she had probably not spent more than 10 minutes unsupervised by an adult. Not 10 minutes in 10 years.

It’s hard to absorb how much childhood norms have shifted in just one generation. Actions that would have been considered paranoid in the ’70s—walking third-graders to school, forbidding your kid to play ball in the street, going down the slide with your child in your lap—are now routine. In fact, they are the markers of good, responsible parenting. One very thorough study of “children’s independent mobility,” conducted in urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods in the U.K., shows that in 1971, 80 percent of third-graders walked to school alone. By 1990, that measure had dropped to 9 percent, and now it’s even lower. When you ask parents why they are more protective than their parents were, they might answer that the world is more dangerous than it was when they were growing up. But this isn’t true, or at least not in the way that we think. For example, parents now routinely tell their children never to talk to strangers, even though all available evidence suggests that children have about the same (very slim) chance of being abducted by a stranger as they did a generation ago. Maybe the real question is, how did these fears come to have such a hold over us? And what have our children lost—and gained—as we’ve succumbed to them?

As an academic, I see the impact of this on young adults. We seem to be getting more and more “adults” who simply can’t function with mom and dad or some equivalent. They not only don’t object to parents calling professors about grades or coming to job interviews with them, they expect it. They expect their professors to hold their hands and cater to their every whim like their parents did.

But, ironically, given their first taste of even moderate freedom, many engage in dumb risky behavior. Only whereas previous generations’ risky behavior involved forts and creeks, these involve alcohol. That’s not a good tradeoff. Everyone has to take risks in life to realize where the boundaries are and when there fears are reasonable. Aren’t they better off taking those risks on the playground than the dorm room?

Not all college students are like this, of course. Not even a majority. But every professor or researcher I know has a recent tale of a kid who can’t cut the apron strings or who can’t function like an adult. Maybe they’ll grow up at some point. But wouldn’t it better for them to grow up a little as kids instead of trying to compress it all into four years of college?

I fear we’re fighting a losing battle on the Free Range Kids front. Our legal system massively favors over-parenting — in divorce fights, the kids are almost always given to the more overbearing parent. But there are still a few glimmers of hope that we can rescue childhood from the iron triangle of politicians, lawyers and media hysterics that have taken it away.

More proof the left is a bunch of economic illiterates.

This past weekend Matt Drudge of the famous Drudge Report website started a firestorm that had all the usual credentialed LSM idiots thinking they had scored a huge hit against a man they have hated for being instrumental in showing the LSM’s hypocritical status as nothing but a DNC propaganda machine. The controversy started with a tweet from Drudge about having paid what he labeled a “Liberty tax” in the case of the Obamacare penalty.
The credentialed fucking economic illiterate douchebags of course immediately accused Drudge of telling a lie
, and went after him something fierce. One after another DNC propagandist stuck out their neck to call Drudge out on his “lie”, stating that people paying taxes right now are doing that for the year 2013, and thus, with Obamacare’s penal-tax only going into effect in 2014, there was no way Drudge could be telling the truth. They were having a ball, thinking themselves the superior intellects, but the facts speak differently.

See Drudge is a self-employed small business owner, and as such, is required by the IRS to file his estimated taxes quarterly, in lieu of employer withholdings:

Estimated tax is the method used to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes and income tax, because you do not have an employer withholding these taxes for you. Form 1040-ES, Estimated Tax for Individuals (PDF), is used to figure these taxes. Form 1040-ES contains a worksheet that is similar to Form 1040. You will need your prior year’s annual tax return in order to fill out Form 1040-ES.

So when Drudge filed these withholdings, he filed them for the first quarter of 2014, which means he is required to pay that Obamacare penalty tax if he didn’t purchase health insurance, as every American now is forced through, under penalty of law and with the full coercive power of the federal government to punish him or her otherwise, or risk retaliation from the tyrants running the country these days. Tyrants, I should remind you, that have shown they are quite willing to bend/ignore/abuse the law to get their political enemies, and Matt Drudge is one of the top dogs on the WH list of enemies, and make them pay for defying the will of the new Emperor.

The problem here was that the credentialed douchebags in the LSM are economic illiterate turds, more interested in protecting the emperor with no clothes on, than in getting the facts right, and they literally have no clue how the complex and idiotic tax system, especially related to Obamacare, really works. If anything, this shitstorm of stupid shows, yet again, that these idiots, like most leftards, don’t know how small businesses or self-employed people pay taxes. Why would anyone trust them when they just parrot bullshit from their masters in the DNC is something I never get.

This abortion of a bill, one that we were told had to be passed so we could find out what was in it, rammed through the donkey controlled political machine, on a purely partisan vote that required all sorts of sweetheart deals – deals that cost the US tax payers billions – to get enough votes for it to be passed, is an epic disaster. It is so toxic that the WH, in a craven display of disregard for the constitutional separation of powers, has willy-nilly made changes to its implementation, in order to avoid getting creamed at the polls in the coming election. Americans are going to be fucked over royally by this bill.

The only people making out are the few extreme cases that either had pre-existing conditions or had bad plans to begin with due to other such extraneous factors. It wouldn’t surprise me that the number of these people is less than 1 or 2% of the total population impacted. The rest of us will be hammered, and hammered hard, by this shit bill. And to top that insult to injury off, we will see drastic reductions in access and quality of coverage as well, as this thing plays out. But we are not allowed to say that, because the DNC’s propaganda arm will throw a shitfit and try its best to defend the indefensible. Fuck you communist scumbags and you power grabbing schemes and scams.

The ACA will make healthcare less more expensive and harder to get for practically all of us, but the left has no desire to let you know that. This was not about helping us, but about cementing their power over us. Don’t let them pretend otherwise. These credentialed elite have no clue how things work anyway in the real world, as you can clearly tell from therir reaction right now.