©2012 Ross Williams
Headline: Gay Cruise Turned Away by Morocco
Article Synopsis: A Holland America cruise sailing the Mediterranean, chartered by gays and lesbians, was turned away by Moroccan authorities in Casablanca; it sailed to Spain instead. Moroccan tourist officials insisted it was not prevented from docking. “We don’t ban cruise ships here,” the Tourism Minister said. He then said future ships would be welcome.
Reaping the Crops Sown in Arab Spring: Morocco is one of many Arab and Arab-like nations to undergo one form or another of revolution during the fantastically-named “Arab Spring” where idiot American neophytes, who universally equate populism and democracy to the political equivalent of woodland faeries and water sprites petting their rainbow-hued unicorns in fields of heather, but the reality is that when the majority of a nation’s people are comfortable with dictatorship ... they’ll elect dictators.
The odd thing is that Morocco already had a dictator – a king. But he ruled with the wrong iron fist; his hand was fairly westernized, but the majority of Moroccans are islamists where homosexuality is a crime punishable by mere jail if the chief islamist is lenient. It’s death, otherwise. I realize that many of the most benighted American neophytes will quibble with that because – they will claim – being muslim does not equal being islamist.
Yet when asked to explain the reason why the Arab Spring elections universally elected islamists and in Egypt, the most liberal and westernized Arab Spring nation, by a rate of at least 4:1, they have no answer except to call their interrogator a racist. This is what happens when you leave some people to their own devices: they sell themselves into slavery.
Conclusion: There are three requisites for islamism to acquire power democratically:
1] islamist politicians to run for office;
2] islamist voters to cast votes for the islamist candidates
3] non-islamist leaders to be goaded or guilted or manipulated into allowing elections where the outcome is assured: transfer of dictatorship.
Headline: White House Declares Health Care Debate Over
Article Synopsis: White House spokesman Jack Lew insisted that the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare was the final word for it, and the subject now becomes jobs and the economy. He also declared that contrary to what the Supreme Court decided, it still isn’t a tax, it’s only a penalty.
End of Discussion! ...or not: There are two [inappropriate] ways of justifying Congress making laws they are not properly authorized to make:
1] the Interstate Commerce Clause
2] the Tax and Spend Clause.
If ANY milk is sold across state lines, then Congress has the authority to control how ALL milk must be handled and processed ... and they do. It doesn’t matter if you buy your milk from the farm next door. It is by the courts lumping all commerce together this way that has given Congress the latitude to control virtually all commerce in the nation.
One major exception has been insurance. Insurance, for over a century, has been ruled to be a state issue only. Health insurance included. Insurance cannot be sold across state lines; the argument used in front of the Supreme Court was that by virtue of being a nationwide reality, it was effectively an example of interstate commerce.
Most of the High Nine, during arguments, asked repeatedly if the fee was a tax. Obamacare loyyers said no it was not.
The ruling last week shot the interstate commerce argument to ribbons and declared that Obamacare was acceptable only because it was a tax, not the “penalty” it was claimed to be. It had to be one or the other: either a legitimate instance of interstate commerce, or a tax that Congress could spend how it wanted.
Its supporters touted a losing argument, denied the winning argument was valid, and the idiot High Nine gave it to them anyway.
Conclusion: And they’re still upset? They won [so far, in much the same way segregationists won with Plessy, I figure]; why are they quibbling about how? It couldn’t be that they’ll now have to explain the one-point-seven trillion dollar middle-class tax in an election year, could it?
Headline: Death Row Inmate Planned Suicide by Oyster
Article Synopsis: A Connecticut man sentenced to death for the grisly murders of a woman and her two teen-aged daughters began a letter-writing campaign admitting to killing more than a dozen others. He had hoped to be able to parlay information on those other murders for food, oysters specifically, to which he is deathly allergic.
The Postman Always Rings Twice: He had hoped to cheat the hangman. Or the electrician. Or the phlebotomist. Connecticut uses one of them.
At any rate, his failed attempt to manipulate his way to suicide he is attributing to the will of god keeping him alive so he can continue to think about what he did.
Conclusion: Where is separation of church and state when you need it? God has no place using the state to deny him oysters. Keep god out of our prisons: give the guy oysters.