The Robert Gates book knocked HillaryCare II out of the news. Let’s all hope it did not knock it out of the minds of voters. Gates’ book is fun stuff; repealing HillaryCare II is life and death —— literally.
When the horror of HillaryCare II comes roaring back to the top of the news, as it must, I’d like to see talking heads hook it up to the XIII Amendment, Section 1:
Forcing Americans to work for Socialism and strangers through the Affordable Care Act is surely as offensive and dehumanizing as is forcing a baker to bake a cake:
The XIII Amendment should be enough to hold judges in check. Apparently it does not. Question: Where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything?
Howard Roark in The Fountainhead defends against the very people trying to enslave through court-ordered forced labor in today’s world. Ayn Rand demolished collectivism as surely as Roark demolished his building. Rand was infinitely more dramatic than not baking a cake, but the principle is the same:
NOTE: The Elane Photography case is being fought on First Amendment grounds. That’s okay, but I think the XIII Amendment is the way to go because it protects every individual when religion is not involved.
I know that Socialists can only govern by telling everyone how to live their lives. Legislating love and dictating behavior are the foundations of Socialism/Communism. That is why the answer to the question of where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything? is so important in the fight for individual liberties and limited government.
Parenthetically, forced labor is preceded by forced associations. That is the major difference between slavery by the whip, and court-ordered labor. If you separate the two groups you’ll see that the Howard Roarks, the bakers, the photographers, and so on, do not force themselves on anyone, while the slave mentality in free societies insist the world is one big lonely hearts club in need of a group hug.
Evolution or planned incrementalism?
Socialist incrementalism to be sure, but evolution also appears to be at play in court-ordered labor; i.e., slaves freed by the Civil War did not insist on forcing themselves on anyone, while today’s “free” slaves of every color and persuasion believe they have the Right to force themselves on everyone. Judges are obviously ruling for the slaves and against the Howard Roarks.
Repeal, repeal, repeal
Repealing HillaryCare II is a must, but it does not address the insidious problem of judges ordering law-abiding Americans to work at jobs, and for people, they object to. The Supreme Court justifying forced labor for the benefit of Socialism and strangers by calling it a tax used the XVI Amendment to effectively abolish the First and XIII Amendments.
Finally, the very essence of America’s individual liberties is expressed by Eric Hoffer in the quote following my signature.
When the horror of HillaryCare II comes roaring back to the top of the news, as it must, I’d like to see talking heads hook it up to the XIII Amendment, Section 1:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Forcing Americans to work for Socialism and strangers through the Affordable Care Act is surely as offensive and dehumanizing as is forcing a baker to bake a cake:
The plaintiff in a recent wedding cake related suit, one David Mullins, is reported to have said:
Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop [the defendant] was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration.
While vigorously defending the plaintiffs' claims that they have a right not to be offended, the judge, the ACLU, and others in the LGBT community seem to be ignoring (in this particular case) the rights of the baker who chose not to fulfill the plaintiffs' request. Most people would immediately think of the 1st Amendment's protection of freedom of religion, but in truth that is not the most relevant part of the Constitution here. It is the 13th Amendment, Section 1, which should be the controlling part of the legal debate in this situation.
The XIII Amendment should be enough to hold judges in check. Apparently it does not. Question: Where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything?
. . . Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer has ordered Mr. Jack Phillips into a condition of involuntary servitude. Apparently Judge Spencer did not find Mr. Phillips guilty of a crime, as required in the 13th Amendment, yet ordered that he do work for the plaintiffs anyway.
In other words, the actual ruling requires the baker to bake the cake or face fines and potentially jail time. That sounds a lot like coercion to most people.
January 9, 2014
Does the Constitution Force Bakers to Bake?
By Jim Yardley
Articles: Does the Constitution Force Bakers to Bake?
Howard Roark in The Fountainhead defends against the very people trying to enslave through court-ordered forced labor in today’s world. Ayn Rand demolished collectivism as surely as Roark demolished his building. Rand was infinitely more dramatic than not baking a cake, but the principle is the same:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RXFU50BlzEA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RXFU50BlzEA[/ame]
NOTE: The Elane Photography case is being fought on First Amendment grounds. That’s okay, but I think the XIII Amendment is the way to go because it protects every individual when religion is not involved.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=980pznIPSIk]NM Court says photog discriminated against same sex couple | Jordan Lorence on the Fox News Channel - YouTube[/ame]
I know that Socialists can only govern by telling everyone how to live their lives. Legislating love and dictating behavior are the foundations of Socialism/Communism. That is why the answer to the question of where and when did judges get the authority to order law-abiding Americans to work at anything? is so important in the fight for individual liberties and limited government.
Parenthetically, forced labor is preceded by forced associations. That is the major difference between slavery by the whip, and court-ordered labor. If you separate the two groups you’ll see that the Howard Roarks, the bakers, the photographers, and so on, do not force themselves on anyone, while the slave mentality in free societies insist the world is one big lonely hearts club in need of a group hug.
Evolution or planned incrementalism?
Socialist incrementalism to be sure, but evolution also appears to be at play in court-ordered labor; i.e., slaves freed by the Civil War did not insist on forcing themselves on anyone, while today’s “free” slaves of every color and persuasion believe they have the Right to force themselves on everyone. Judges are obviously ruling for the slaves and against the Howard Roarks.
Repeal, repeal, repeal
Repealing HillaryCare II is a must, but it does not address the insidious problem of judges ordering law-abiding Americans to work at jobs, and for people, they object to. The Supreme Court justifying forced labor for the benefit of Socialism and strangers by calling it a tax used the XVI Amendment to effectively abolish the First and XIII Amendments.
Finally, the very essence of America’s individual liberties is expressed by Eric Hoffer in the quote following my signature.
Last edited: