Unjust laws is not the problem. The problem is the presidency, and members of Congress who act like the president of their party is a corporate CEO and they are his executives. Laws matter not when presidents can rule by executive orders and bureaucratic regulations. Don’t doubt me on this one. The result would have been the same had the Affordable Care Act contained no more than these 5 words —— Everybody Must Have Health Coverage.
Congress should have stood up to the president before the country morphed into a monarchy where the monarch is elected by the media. The transformation has been in progress for more than a century:
The president still reigns, and the media still governs; more so than in Wilde’s lifetime thanks to television.
Incidentally, the XXII Amendment (term limits on the president) did nothing to diminish the power of the presidency. Based on everything I’ve seen since 1951 Congress concluded that the less time a monarch has on the throne the more power he needs. Imagine how much power Congress would have given to the presidency had the XXII Amendment limited a president to one term?
And let’s not forget that the term ‘imperial president’ gained widespread popularity under President Nixon. In truth, Mr. Nixon was a wild-eyed anarchist compared to Bill Clinton and Barack Taqiyya.
Distance makes the heart grow fonder
Notice that the media is distancing itself from the current monarch’s lies, while it abhors the prospect of reducing the monarchy to the powers enumerated in the Constitution and no more. Media so loves the monarchy it operates on the theory that future presidents will always be better than the guy who happens to occupy the throne at any given time; ergo, future presidents will need all of the powers past presidents enjoyed.
Bill Clinton and Barack Taqiyya indicate that future presidents will always be worse. The days of the occasional great president like Ronald Reagan getting in-between the bad ones appear to be over. Proof: No decent president would have signed the ACA. More proof: Look at media candidates for the presidential race in 2016. You’ll play hell trying to spot a Calvin Coolidge among them:
The media will see to it that no president who puts the country before a bad law will ever again get elected. That also makes the chance of Congress repealing the ACA anaemic at best. Repeal requires two-thirds in both chambers —— 67 in the Senate and 290 in the House.
Veto everything anyway
The criterion for picking a presidential candidate should be what he or she will veto —— not what he or she stands for. It’s too easy to lie about what a candidate stands for as ACA enhancement proved. It started out as a promise to insure the uninsured. Between the time the ACA was being debated, and the time Congress passed a bill nobody read, the ACA evolved into death panels, prohibitive costs, reduced patient care, a government-run HMO, an affirmative action program, millions of government jobs, and a well-armed well-funded civilian pari-military force to mention just a few enhancements.
It’s not so easy to lie about what you will veto. Example: I will veto every bill that grows the government in any way.
Do not look to the High Court for relief
The SCOTUS overturning the ACA with one of the cases heading its way is even more anaemic than Congress repealing it as well as being naive. No Supreme Court decision will ever reduce, limit, or disallow government revenue.
Finally, how come the Congressional Black Caucus is not screaming about an unjust law? They piss and moan about everything else. Could their silence have something to do with access to the public trough! Indeed, I doubt if Martin “I Have A Dream” King would be arousing the conscience of the community over the ACA:
Last edited:
