He hopes that it will “smoke out the resistance”.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/14/smoke-out-resistance/
Between this and Ann Coulter digging in, who knows.
I think if it keeps going on, the polls will not matter at all, because the Democratic Party hacks and power players will blink first, because they really really depend on expanding government forever.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Notice, nothing there about the Speaker of the House deciding when this “State of the Union” address is given.
It’s a runaway rogue state now, it’s not Deep, it’s on the surface.
Time to shut down the five cabinet level departments Ron Paul talked about in 2012, End the Fed, bring the far-flung troops home from the 150 countries they’re in.
Having them everywhere and membership in NATO is harmful to National Security. So is having a National Security State.
About the current impasse on the so-called “government shutdown”…
Presidential candidate Ron Paul supported to really shut down five cabinet-level departments as soon as he would take office. Non-essential departments? Yep.
We as Americans were a lot smarter and knowledgeable overall before there was an Education Department.
Businesses paid for their own promotion domestically and abroad, successfully, before there was a Commerce Department.
How about this for consideration? The Democratic Party, and other statists in power, they want more government, not less. The longer this “partial shutdown” goes on, the more people not in power will have to fend for themselves.
In Chicago decades ago teachers did a very very long strike. They finally (sort of) capitulated, mostly, some of the union bosses started freaking out because parents were discovering that they loved being with their kids and teaching them themselves.
I get amused sometimes at the tortured logic invoked in defending prenatal infanticide.
In ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE, libertarian logical conclusions from the Non-Aggression Principle based on any theoretical situation proposed, “causal responsibility” for material harm, for example, requires also “material liability”.
If Mr Smith cause a situation that results in Mr. Jones being totally helpless, then Mr. Smith is liable for all of Mr. Jones needs. Exactly how much liability and exactly to what extent of need is required from Mr. Smith is a matter not specifically covered by the NAP. However, a corollary can be deduced that if Mr. Smith is 100 percent responsible for Mr. Jones’ condition of total helplessness, total dependency, then the absolute minimum of “liability” taken on by Mr. Smith is the basic minimum needs of Mr. Jones for life at a minimum. That is, whatever would be expected by an all-else-being equal case.
The prenatal infant in the womb has the same libertarian rights to be free of murder as the father or mother. To the restitution required by the ones who cause his condition.
Over thousands of years of human history, there have been plenty of cultures where infanticide was –and is– totally accepted. There have also been cultures where it is considered abhorrent. The Hippocratic Oath includes a pledge to never prescribe potions that cause intentional abortions of pregnancy, for which reason many medical schools have eliminated the Oath as a requirement. So there go promises to “Do No Harm” along with it, down the same anti-freedom path Google has taken.
Enforcement in a completely libertarian society would be difficult to say the least in most cases. Protecting the rights of infants in a mother’s womb against coercion to kill them by its father, for example, or the mother, and protection against lies about it, or corruption-inducing propaganda in favor of infant sacrifice, would be very difficult. But the truth is the truth, science is science.
So defenders of babies in the womb mostly must count on simply repeating the truth and provide an antidote to the prenatal infanticide holocaust by calling it out for what it is. Convincing. Truth weaponized for good, so to speak.
And in helping the women who find themselves “unintentionally” pregnant.
We all know that sex involves a “risk” of pregnancy, even when contraceptives are used. You break it, you own it. You caused it, you owe it. This is a bedrock libertarian principle, it is a direct consequence of the NAP.
This is one reason that in almost all cases, women go through post-abortion trauma, and often men too.
It’s not hard. People stop smoking. Many alcoholics go totally abstinent, I’ve known them.
Obama said he didn’t want his daughters “punished” with a baby. just as utilitarian results are caused by following the moral, ethnic, basic principle of respecting freedom from aggression, it helps to realize that babies are NOT punishments, they are a blessing.
Trutherator's Weblog 