Socialism & Strangers

[Flanders]

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:

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]​

Elane-Photography - Alliance Defending Freedom

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.

 

[Katzndogz]

We have a totalitarian government that will exercise it's power over the smallest of individuals. If you stick your ass out there, the government is going to slap it. The answer is, don't stick your ass out there. Stop offering making wedding cakes to the general public and the whole incident would never have happened. Wedding cakes and wedding photographers should follow the path of the speakeasies during prohibition. You better know someone's cousin and be prepared to say "Joe sent me".

 

[Truthmatters]

Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


this guy wrote a book too?

why didn't you believe him?

 

[Flanders]

be prepared to say "Joe sent me".

To Katzndogz: Good one. Reminds me of:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aLOuvRT9wA&feature=player_detailpage]Jim Lowe - Green Door (with lyrics) (1956) [HIGH QUALITY COVER VERSION] - YouTube[/ame]​

Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this guy wrote a book too?

why didn't you believe him?

To Truthmatters: You don’t know what I believe about Richard A. Clark. Suffice it to say he tried to lay the attacks on 9-11-2001 on Bush, but never mentioned that when he was working in the Clinton White House Bill Clinton could have taken out bin Laden on numerous occasions but failed to do so:

Bill Clinton refused to order a strike on Osama bin Laden after the bombing of the American destroyer Cole even though the al-Qa'eda leader's whereabouts were known, according to a book to be published this week.

In early leaks from Losing bin Laden, Richard Miniter, an investigative journalist, claims that Mr Clinton allowed the September 11 attacks to happen by squandering more than a dozen opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden. In two cases the terrorist leader's exact location was known, the book says.

Parenthetically, by refusing to strike bin Laden after the attack on the US Cole the Clinton Administration handcuffed America’s retaliatory option with non-existent International law:

Janet Reno, then the attorney general, said an attack would break international law. Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state, is quoted as saying that "bombing Muslims wouldn't be helpful at this time".

Clinton 'missed chance to get rid of bin Laden'
By David Rennie in Washington
12:01AM BST 02 Sep 2003

Clinton 'missed chance to get rid of bin Laden' - Telegraph​

Nor did Richard A. Clark ever bring out the role Jamie Gorelick’s 1995 memo played in the success of the attacks on 9-11. This brief article is stunning:

The Gorelick Memo
Cliff Kincaid — May 5, 2004

The Gorelick Memo

Whatever Clark said or did not say pales beside the damage he and his kind did in their 9/11 Commission testimonies; i.e., the creation of the Department Homeland Security, and a National Director of Intelligence.

 

[Flanders]

First it was judges telling Americans who they must work for. I knew that would not be the end of it:

Following the incident, the American Civil Liberties Union then filed a lawsuit against Masterpiece Cakeshop. On May 30, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld a December ruling by Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer that Phillips had discriminated against the couple “because of their sexual orientation.”

The commission’s order requires Phillips to design wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies in violation of his beliefs, institute re-education classes for his staff on the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act and send quarterly “compliance” reports to the commission for two years.

Phillips claims in his appeal that under the First Amendment, the government cannot compel him to convey a message with which he does not agree.

Baker Who Won’t Make Cakes for Same-Sex Weddings Appeals Mandatory Re-Education Order
Leslie Ford / July 31, 2014

Baker Who Won?t Make Cakes for Same-Sex Weddings Appeals Mandatory Re-Education Order​

 

[Flanders]

Here’s another example of forced labor. All of the crap about for-profit is an excuse for city and state governments to tell Americans what to do:

. . . the chapel is also a for-profit business and city officials said that means the owners must comply with the local nondiscrimination ordinance.

City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings
By Todd Starnes

City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings Todd Starnes​

It matters not if a business is for profit. Nobody should be forced to work for people they disagree with. That’s what happened in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba and so on. To me there is no difference between being forced to work for Communists and being forced to work for homosexuals.

One expects such things from the scum in the federal government. One can also expect the federal courts to rule against freedom if they rule at all.

Thanks to Steny Hoyer telling Americans what they must purchase the inevitable next step tells them who they must work for:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
October 21, 2009
By Matt COVER

Hoyer Says Constitution s General Welfare Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance CNS News​

Incidentally, Hoyer will be probably be reelected next month. I would like to know how many people in his district believe that the government should tell them what to purchase and who they must work for? You can bet that he never campaigned on those beliefs.

 

[Flanders]

The Fountainhead Ayn Rand - Howard Roark Speech - YouTube

Now they are after the florists:

​

Great-Grandma Florist Could Lose Livelihood for Saying No to This Wedding
Kelsey Harkness / December 28, 2014

Granny Florist Could Lose All for Saying No to This Wedding