Loved this book as a kid! So glad to see it on my feed!
I’m kind of obsessed with this!
Let me try to rephrase and explain. It’s not like I sit here and cheer on the destruction of families, and the hypocrisy of our government, and if I could have it my way it wouldn’t work that way… But what I’m trying to convey is that breaking a law, regardless on whether or not I agree with it goes against my personal moral code. I don’t fault the authority figures who must do their job because that is the law. I do however fault the law makers who haven’t fixed this problem. I don’t know if that makes it anymore clear…
This Is What Deportation Looks Like
Last week, ICE agents arrested Edi Arma in front of his three children as they were getting ready to go to school. Now his 11-year-old son is sharing his family’s story. Read more here.
So seeing the pain and anguish in this young boy saddened me, and yet I don’t think that he should be allowed to remain in the United States illegally.
It’s not a personal choice to me. It’s not about what I think is okay, it’s about the law. And unless the law is changed I fully support the deportation of illegal immigrants. It’s not what I believe in and I hope it changes.
Saw this on Facebook last night. Best. Thing. Ever.
Major step towards equality or huge mistake?
Please include why you feel this way.
David Mamet writes this week’s cover story on GUNS. Here’s an excerpt:
Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.
For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”
All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.
Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.
As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.
President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”
But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?
It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm†, Newsweek
Love how I met your mother!