Senator Coburn recently remarked that the recent order by Obama, ordering all employers to offer health insurance that covers birth control, sterilizations and abortion pills, regardless of any religious objections….is not that big a deal:

“This is blown out of proportion,” he said. “It is an important point in terms of religious liberty, but it’s a consequence of having too big of a government.”

I don’t agree that it’s blown out of proportion but I do agree on the reasons why no one should be surprised.

This was what ObamaCare was about in the first place. To place every American under the power of the federal government. To rule every aspect of your life. It’s just another power grab by the federal government, and this Administration, at the expense of the States and the individual.

Daniel Henninger:

The Catholic Church has stumbled into the central battle of the 2012 presidential campaign: What are the limits to Barack Obama’s transformative presidency? The Catholic left has just learned one answer: When Mr. Obama says, “Everyone plays by the same set of rules,” it means they conform to his rules. What else could it mean?

This battle is to repeal ObamaCare, plain and simple.

Oh wait, Romney is going to be our nominee…

Nevermind.

Exit quote:

“We are all familiar with an individual mandate that was authorized by the U.S. Congress and notoriously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court: the affirmative duty of persons of Japanese descent to report to a Civil Control Station. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1943). The distinction between mere prohibition and command played a large role in the internment cases. . . . Korematsu is a perfectly fine precedent: it has never been overruled. Moreover, it is the feds’ best and only precedent. So why don’t they cite it?”

There is no way anyone can argue that the ObamaCare waiver process isn’t benefiting Obama’s crony’s and supporters:

Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation since June 17, 2011.

By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.

So it looks like most of the liberals who support Obama don’t want anything to do with ObamaCare.

Shocker!

So lets ask a few questions. If ObamaCare is so awesome, is so helpful and affordable, why are so many businesses, state and local governments, and labor unions seeking exemptions from it? And why did Obama grant the exemptions.

But with the newly released report from the Department of Health and Human Services revealing such a heavy tilting of waivers toward Big Labor, the Obama Administration’s move will give further ammunition to Republican presidential candidates like Gov. Mitt Romney who have labeled Mr. Obama a “crony capitalist.”

Hopefully the Supreme Court will issue us all waivers later this year

Click here to view the embedded video.

Two weeks ago the Supreme Court agreed to decide the constitutionality of President Obama’s signature piece of legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

In a surprising act of courage, the Court agreed to decide the divisive case in the midst of what will certainly be one of the most viscerally contentious elections in a century. To their credit, when they could have easily kicked the can down the road and waited until after the election to take the case, they did not. Not only did they accept the case, but they allotted an unprecedented 5 ½ hours of oral argument for it. They fully recognize that their decision will have significant political implications. Not in the sense that it will sway voters one way or another (which it will certainly do) but in that it gives voters the opportunity to take into account the consequences of their 2008 votes when they walk into the booth in November.

However the Court decides, the consequences of that election will be laid bare. It’s not often that voters get such a clear, definitive beginning, middle and potentially end of such a consequential piece of legislation – at least from a legal perspective – within one election cycle.

The central question in the case is a relatively straightforward one: Does the federal government, under the Commerce Clause, have the power to force Americans to purchase health insurance?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3

(Congress shall have Power) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

The foundation for the administration’s argument that it does indeed have that power lay in a case handed down by the Supreme Court in 1942, Wickard v. Filburn. That case gave the stamp of approval to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which allowed the federal government to regulate economic activity:

In 1940 an Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn grew more wheat than the government allotment allowed. They fined him. He sued, stating that his wheat was for his own use on his farm and therefore was beyond Congressional reach. In a legal gerrymander that would put any politician to shame, the Court decided that as Filburn’s exceeding his quotas would result in him buying less wheat in the local markets, which in turn led to less wheat traded in those markets, he was impacting interstate commerce; therefore Congress did indeed have the power to limit his production.

Twisting Fillburn’s already tortured logic, the Obama administration has decided that now it can force all Americans to purchase healthcare. The why is that society has to pick up the tab when uninsured people go to the emergency room. The how is where Filburn comes in. By virtue of the fact that the money people spend on healthcare for the uninsured (through higher taxes and higher insurance premiums) cannot be spent to purchase goods and services they might otherwise purchase, healthcare therefore impacts interstate commerce. As such, Congress has the power to regulate healthcare and can compel people to purchase health insurance.

That is the logic the Democrats used as they force fed Obamacare down the throats of the American people.

If this logic is acceptable, the question becomes, is there literally anything the government cannot do? For example, perhaps a future Congress might want to ban premarital sex? What? No way! Really? How? Here’s how: The United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year capturing, trying and keeping criminals locked up. Seventy percent of prisoners come from households without fathers. Given that the single biggest contributor of kids growing up without a father is out of wedlock births, the most straightforward way to ameliorate that problem is simply banning premarital sex. As the progeny of premarital sex drive expenses in the criminal justice system, which in turn reduces the amount that can be spent on airline tickets or pencils or hotel rooms, or bingo games, Congress can legislate it.

Click here to view the embedded video.

**Content warning**

Interviewer: How can we fix this ecoonomy

OWS Protestor: I say abolish money. We don’t need money in order to establish a good living like there is enough food and supplies to go around for everybody except its fu*ked up how we have to pay to live. If we would all just ration sh*t out so no one has like more then each other. I guess my ideals, I like to live life as more like Commie Socialist so its like, it’s fu*ked up how we have to slave in order to live.

Brilliant!

RINOs Are Herd Animals

How convenient it was for Christie to keep his rather large posterior blocking the view of Republican candidates, while he played his voters and supporters for chumps with his mincing indecision on whether to finally admit he didn’t want to run for the presidency. But for what purpose, the casual observer may ask in bewilderment.

Oh, but the answer is easy and was exposed today: Christie admitted, it was an “easy decision” to endorse Romney. It was an easy decision because it was his intention all along to endorse his fellow RINO.

A candidate who teases the public while playing the coy overly cherubic nymph, who can’t make up her mind to go skinny dipping in the pool of public opinion, will hold the public’s interest much longer than the intellectually honest one who says she is absolutely not swimming in her birthday suit. Thus the indecisive nymph holds the public’s attention with promises of promiscuous and salacious behavior, while she offers glimpses of her abundant fat rolls to entice and keep the libido of the crowd at a fevered pitch.

Alas, she is but a tease, the pachyderm nymph can dance only so long and must walk off stage before boredom begins to set in and the crowd loses interest, but wait the roly-poly nymph has a final offer of advice for those who enjoy being teased and tempted. The nymph stands to announce an endorsement for Romney!

Well dog my cats, who could have seen that one coming. A RINO throwing his considerable weight behind another RINO, what an original concept.

An old political parable says, “Politics makes for strange bedfellows.” I will try to keep from imagining that one, but it is not hard to imagine the AGW, amnesty, and Socialized Healthcare boys throwing themselves in together in showers and on large mattresses. Like in your most vivid imagination, it is not the act itself, but the manner in which it was done; that is what is found to be the most offensive.

Christie had the nerve to say it was “completely intellectually dishonest” to compare Romneycare to Obamacare; actually, it was completely intellectually dishonest for him to lead his supporters along about the possibility of a run, when his intent was too hold the public’s attention for as long as possible, so that Christy’s endorsement of Romney would have the greatest bang for the buck. Like most plans hatched by a literate devious mind that has an inflated opinion of its effectiveness, these well laid plans often reach up and take a bite from the posterior of the perpetrator.

No, Chris Christie, you accomplished nothing with your coyness, except perhaps injury to your own reputation as being a fickle and indecisive politician. You managed only to steal attention from the honest efforts of the real candidates, who are willing to stand in front of the nation and debate the issues and expose their philosophies. These candidates have the courage of their convictions and they are honest in their desire to run for the presidency. You on the other hand have displayed a duplicitous personality and a lack of ethics, along with a healthy measure of this intellectual dishonesty you so disingenuously mentioned. While I have an aversion to the thought of voting for a RINO, I will say that our leading candidates seem to all have ethics, a welcome change from the present administration. It is the lack of ethics that will defeat Obama and I doubt that your dubious endorsement will have a measurable effect on Romney’s poll numbers or on the election; especially, since it is precisely this dishonest approach to politics that has Americans so upset with politicians and particularly, the Obama Administration.

The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Sc. I
I am a tainted wether of the flock,
Meetest for death: the weakest kind of fruit
Drops earliest to the ground.

True Love Often Overlooks Previous Indiscretions,

Conservatives traditionally resist government intrusion into the home and personal lives of American citizens: Liberals tend to welcome the guiding hand of government into every facet of modern life. This is one of the fundamental differences between Liberalism and Conservatism. During the GOP Debate, Rep. Bachman called Governor Perry on his issuance of an executive order in 2007, requiring all girls in Texas to receive Gardasil, unless a waiver was signed by her parents. Gardasil by Merck, prevents infection of the more common strains of human papilloma virus. These particular viruses, once established, can initiate genital warts, as well as cervical, anal, vulvar, and vaginal cancers. The vaccine Gardasil prevents the infection and consequently prevents the associated diseases.

Texas lawmakers blocked the EO, arguing that the vaccine was too new to be considered safe, others argued that the order preempted parental rights and that the vaccine would encourage young girls to become sexually promiscuous at an early because of a false sense of security provided by the Gardasil.

The Flirtatious and Promiscuous Scarlet Has A Difficult Time Choosing From Her Many Suitors

Michelle Bachman provided an example of personal anecdotal evidence to stress the risk of injecting the vaccine into young girls. Apparently a young mother told her that her daughter suffered mental retardation after being injected with the vaccine. Thus this is more than enough proof for Bachman to refute the scientific studies of over 20,000 women and girls who were injected with the vaccine prior to FDA approval.

The studies concluded that the vaccine was 100% effective, an almost unprecedented result. The most serious side effect was redness, soreness, and swelling of the injection site.

Gardasil may be considered one of the most extraordinary risk-benefit ratios of all pharmaceuticals.

We have government intrusion in our lives; we are now required to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets. People accept the fact that seat belts make crashes more survivable, as do motorcycle helmets, but the helmets interfere with the image of a bad ass on a motorcycle. Therein lies part of the conflict; much of our choice of transportation is based on an image. An image that we subscribe to and emulate within our own psyche and an image that we want to cultivate in the minds of those who view us. Yet the motorcycle road racer would never consider running down the track at speeds approaching two hundred miles an hour without a helmet, but if helmets save lives in motorcycle wrecks by lessening head trauma, how many lives could be saved if drivers and passengers of cars and trucks were required to wear a helmet. Surely head trauma is a major cause of death on the highway.

Since nearly all people engage in sexual activity, all of us are exposed to the papilloma virus. A rarely discussed fact is that certain men are carriers of the infection. Although they suffer no ill-effects, if they have multiple partners, they can spread the infection to many others, bringing misery and death as an unseemly gift of their sexual prowess.

The public would be enraged, Conservatives particularly, if these carriers of this often lethal infection were identified on the internet so that potential partners could have a choice in avoiding the infection of Don Juan types intent on serial infection of vulnerable maidens. Consequently, we allow carriers to continue to spread untold misery and death among females as a cost of our Constitutional freedoms.

A woman may only have one partner in her sexual life, but if that partner is a carrier of the infection, she will more than likely suffer through one or more of the associated diseases and death as a result.

Will we Conservatives be able to face our daughters and granddaughters if they have contracted one of the dreaded diseases and tell them that it is only collateral damage and a cost of our freedom; she may die secure in the knowledge that she contracted the disease as a free woman and she may now die a free woman, she can also take solace in the fact that the man who infected her will be free to infect many more women and their other partners as well, all in the name of freedom.

We may all rest assured that scientific minds like Michelle Bachman’s can recognize a potential problem when a woman complains that her twelve year old daughter suffered mental retardation after being injected with Gardasil.

As a Conservative, I realize that strict adherence to any ideology leads to fanaticism; common sense must be injected into the mix to keep the ideas and goals viable, but interposing uninformed personal opinions and ignorance into any situation is counter productive and nearly as offensive as falsifying data under the premise of science.

Hypnos and Thanatos (God of death) carrying dead Sarpedon, while Hermes watches.

There is an old proverb in the country that is used to describe a man who wastes time and can’t get any thing done. It is said, “He runs around like a man in a silo looking for a corner to piss in.” Our president often reminds me of such a man; although it can be argued he flaunts our traditional system by making the EPA regulations into his own form of tyranny.

President Obama has just sent an email to his supporters, a group growing smaller and consequently requiring less cyber ink with the passage of time.

Obama claims to have a plan to get America back to work and he is asking for a joint session of congress to explain the plan.

He explains that it is ultimately up to congress to implement his plan and do what they were elected to do; apparently, in his opinion they were elected to be his rubber stamp.

Friend –

Today I asked for a joint session of Congress where I will lay out a clear plan to get Americans back to work.

Next week, I will deliver the details of the plan and call on lawmakers to pass it. Whether they will do the job they were elected to do is ultimately up to them.

But both you and I can pressure them to do the right thing. We can send the message that the American people are playing by the rules and meeting their responsibilities—and it’s time for our leaders in Congress to meet theirs. And we must hold them accountable if they don’t.

So I’m asking you to stand with me in calling on Congress to step up and take action on jobs:

http://my.barackobama.com/Time-To-Act

No matter how things go in the weeks and months ahead, this will be an important challenge for our organization.

It’s been a long time since Congress was focused on what the American people need them to be focused on. I know that you’re frustrated by that. I am, too. That’s why I’m putting forward a set of bipartisan proposals to help grow the economy and create jobs—that means strengthening our small businesses, giving needed breaks to middle-class families, while taking responsible steps to bring down our deficit. I’m asking lawmakers to look past short-term politics and take action on that plan. But we’ve got to do this together.

I will deliver this message to Congress next week, but I’m asking you to stand alongside me today:

http://my.barackobama.com/Time-To-Act

More to come,

Barack

I am sure the witless hordes are waiting breathlessly for marching orders from Dear Reader and I am sure they are impressed with the personal message that was written by one of his erudite saps he keeps around for the trivial and mundane tasks, like writing a note that people can read and understand.

He is on the ropes. He wasted two years with a health care plan that is a debacle and will hopefully be rewritten or thrown down the outhouse hole, and while he tied his useless and fiscally ruinous dream around the neck of the American public, he ignored the job crisis. Now he takes a public relations nightmare of an elitist vacation in a $50,000 a week resort, expecting America to pick up the tab and with total arrogance he and his wife fly out on separate jets spaced three hours apart, but in all fairness, he was concentrating on a plan to put America to work and his golf game. After giving our Affirmative Action President the benefit of the doubt for two years, it is time to unload on this dilettante who lives the life of luxury while unemployment edges closer to double digits.

He is blaming congress for his own inability to do something constructive, after he had control of both houses for two years.

He can run in circles for the next 14 months, but there are no magic corners in that silo of stupidity and arrogance.

With throngs of K-Street lobbyists, special interest groups and even local governments pushing for more spending, it is hard enough to limit the size and scope of government without taxpayer resources being used to push trillion dollar-spending schemes. But we now know that taxpayer resources were used to lobby Congress to enact ObamaCare, thanks to an investigation by Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch has discovered that that from October 2010 through February 2011, the Obama administration spent $1,435,009 on an online advertising campaign to promote ObamaCare, including campaigns with Google and Yahoo, at almost $300,000 per month. Documents obtained by Judicial Watch suggest the campaign’s budget could reach as high as $200 million.

“The Obama administration is using taxpayer dollars to manipulate public opinion regarding his socialist healthcare overhaul while also trying to get a leg up in the 2012 presidential campaign,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The American people should be disturbed that the Obama administration is using taxpayer funds to try to brainwash people simply searching the Internet for information on health care. This Big Brother campaign is underhanded, potentially unlawful, and it must be stopped. As the congressional ‘super-committee’ begins negotiations to cut the deficit, this wasteful ObamaCare propaganda campaign is the first place they should look.”

[link]

It’s not the first time that the Administration has used taxpayer resources to try to change public opinion on ObamaCare. In November 2010, Judicial Watch obtained documents from HHS regarding a series of three Medicare TV ads featuring actor Andy Griffith. The Obama Administration spent $3,184,000 in taxpayer funds to produce and air the ads on national television in September and October 2010 to educate “Medicare beneficiaries, caregivers, and family members about forthcoming changes to Medicare as a result of the Affordable Care Act.” However, according to FactCheck.org, a project of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, the ads intentionally misinformed the American people.

But there is another layer to this waste of resources. It is well known that Google is a major contributor to the White House. They invested heavily in Barack Obama’s campaign for president, raising over a million dollars for is campaign and lending staff to help build the campaign’s online fundraising presence. Since his election to president, Obama and his team has rewarded Google ten times over for their support doling out contracts from federal agencies to the Silicon Valley giant and not handing taxpayer dollars to the company to push ObamaCare. One can assume that if the Bush White House was rewarding taxpayer dollars to major contributors there would be outrage from the New York Times but thus far, the love award and the contracts to Google keep flowing without a hitch.

Government should never spend taxpayer dollars to try to shape taxpayer opinion and the certainly should not do so while rewarding their political benefactors in the process.

The 11th Circuit has struck down the individual mandate of ObamaCare: [PDF]

We first conclude that the Act’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional. Existing Supreme Court precedent does not establish that Congress’s inducements are unconstitutionally coercive, especially when the federal government will bear nearly all the costs of the program’s amplified enrollments.

Next, the individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The mandate is denominated as a penalty in the Act itself, and the legislative history and relevant case law confirm this reading of its function.

Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives. We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers. “Uniqueness” is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision. The individual mandate also finds no refuge in the aggregation doctrine, for decisions to abstain from the purchase of a product or service, whatever their cumulative effect, lack a sufficient nexus to commerce. [fn omitted]

The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the Act’s myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional system. The Act’s other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate’s excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the presumption of severability has not been met.

This is the case that involves 26 States and it appears they affirmed the lower court in some parts but also stated the individual mandate can be cut out of the act.

On to the Supreme Court

It’s perplexing. When unemployment is high, and the rich are getting richer, you would think that voters of average means would flock to progressives, who are supposed to have their interests in mind — and who historically have delivered for them.

…Just a quarter of the country is optimistic about our system of government — the lowest since polls by ABC and others began asking this question in 1974. But a crisis of government legitimacy is a crisis of liberalism. It doesn’t hurt Republicans. If government is seen as useless, what is the point of electing Democrats who aim to use government to advance some public end?

So how does he propose to fix this problem?

The Democrats have to start detoxifying politics by proposing to severely limit or bar individual and corporate campaign contributions, which would mean a fight with the Supreme Court. They must make the case for public financing of campaigns and force the broadcast and cable networks to provide free time for candidate ads. And they must become the strongest advocates for transparency in campaign donations and in the lobbying of elected officials.

Can’t argue with the transparency angle but as for the rest…you have to be kidding me.

His fix to a world in which unicorns and candy canes abound is to get the same government bureaucrats that the public distrusts to write laws to limit campaign contributions.

W…T…F

Walter Russell Meade tears this apart in short order, with a lot of words:

In any case, any new campaign finance laws would have to be written by legislators who got their seats under the old system. Wouldn’t the same vested interests who, Greenberg tells us, control the way Congress writes laws also control drafting of new the campaign finance laws? If all the other bureaucracies have been perverted into special interest fiefdoms and incumbent protection agencies why wouldn’t a campaign finance regulatory system be equally if not more perverse and corrupt? Or will the special interests be so stupid and obliging as not to notice that its bought and paid for legislators are plotting to kill their power?

Greenberg is telling voters who deeply distrust the nexus of power and money swirling around Washington to give that nexus even more power: power to regulate and control the process of competition for office. They would be fools to take him up on it; I don’t think they are that stupid and forty years of well funded efforts to get effective campaign finance reform have abysmally failed.

The campaign finance system Greenberg envisions has to come about by immaculate conception: born without taint even though its parents were mired in corruption and sin. The Catholic Church teaches that this is what happened to the Virgin Mary; few would suggest that the possibility is open to an Act of Congress. The election law and the election regulatory system will be written under the same crummy conditions that Greenberg believes are responsible for the comprehensive crisis of liberalism.

Meade doesn’t agree with Greenberg’s assertion that it’s the “special interests”, as Greenberg defines them, that are killing the progressive agenda…no, he explains, it’s because the public sees “the professional classes who staff the bureaucracies, foundations and policy institutes in and around government are themselves a special interest.” And they don’t trust them. I don’t blame them:

It is not that evil plutocrats control innocent bureaucrats; many voters believe that the progressive administrative class is a social order that has its own special interests. Bureaucrats, think these voters, are like oil companies and Enron executives: they act only to protect their turf and fatten their purses.

The problem goes even deeper than hostility toward perceived featherbedding and life tenure for government workers. The professionals and administrators who make up the progressive state are seen as a hostile power with an agenda of their own that they seek to impose on the nation.

This perception, also, is rooted in truth. The progressive state has never seen its job as simply to check the excesses of the rich. It has also sought to correct the vices of the poor and to uplift the masses. From the Prohibition and eugenics movements of the early twentieth century to various improvement and uplift projects in our own day, well educated people have seen it as their simple duty to use the powers of government to make the people do what is right: to express the correct racial ideas, to eschew bad child rearing technique like corporal punishment, to eat nutritionally appropriate foods, to quit smoking, to use the right light bulbs and so on and so on.

Progressives want and need to believe that the voters are tuning them out because they aren’t progressive enough. But it’s impossible to grasp the crisis of the progressive enterprise unless one grasps the degree to which voters resent the condescension and arrogance of know-it-all progressive intellectuals and administrators. They don’t just distrust and fear the bureaucratic state because of its failure to live up to progressive ideals (thanks to the power of corporate special interests); they fear and resent upper middle class ideology. Progressives scare off many voters most precisely when they are least restrained by special interests. Many voters feel that special interests can be a healthy restraint on the idealism and will to power of the upper middle class.

The progressive ideal of administrative cadres leading the masses toward the light has its roots in a time when many Americans had an eighth grade education or less. It always had its down side, and the arrogance and tin-eared obtuseness of self assured American liberal progressives has infuriated generations of Americans and foreigners who for one reason or another have the misfortune to fall under the power of a class still in the grip of a secularized version of the Puritan ideal.

The progressive belief that Government can solve all the ills of the world is one that was always doomed to fail, because at some point that government will have to grow so large, so all-encompassing, so overbearing, that no one will trust it and people will rebel.

But still the progressive believes if we just add more regulations, more boards staffed with more bureaucrats, somehow someway people will trust them again.

I’ll say it again….

W…T…F

Ace is in one of those WTF moods too:

You can ask your average person: Do you wish people would exercise more? Take more of an interest in their health? Stop eating too much? Stop smoking? Stop drinking so much? Stop gambling away their kids’ college funds?

Of course the answer is “yes” to all of these (for most respondents).

But again that’s just the sales pitch, not the actual offer.

Give them the actual offer and most will say No. Because the actual offer is:

Do you wish to empower a cadre of busybody bureaucrats, who frankly are largely mediocrities at best, but believe themselves to be chosen for greatness, to boss you around your whole life, in order to make sure some other people aren’t eating french fries and having a cigarette?

The real answer is “NO!,” because the real answer is, “Look, sure I want other people to live better lives, but frankly, I don’t care very much about that and I’m sure not paying for my own personal censor to scold me for making “bad” choices.”

See, that’s the cost. And if you ignore the cost, you’re not talking about business, or sales, or politics, or anything.

You’re just talking about fantasy wish-lists with no connection to any physical reality.

No connection to any physical reality describes progressives to a T. They want to FORCE people to become a perfect human being, and THEY get to decide how to force you.