SnakeRiverLib

 A companion piece to the Podcast. This started during the Presidential Debate on the 29th of September.  They were arguing about health insurance coverage, and VP Biden mentioned that Trump wanted to take away the health care of 20 million by getting rid of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) .  If there was a fact check simply on that, it would be  MOSTLY FALSE .  as while the President did want to repeal the ACA, he also wanted something to replace it, and stated so from the beginning, specifically to protect those with pre-existing conditions.  Of course if POLITIFACT did the fact check it would have ruled it as: MOSTLY TRUE .  So I posed the research that I did as part of my Political Science Capstone Class (emphasis Healthcare).  I went to Healthcare.gov, and followed step by step.  I used my new income as a federal retiree, so as to make sure that if I were eligible for subsidies to lower the cost, they would be applied. (I wasn't)  Her...

The Lib podcast will be returning soon for season 2.  For now, enjoy the written word. If you mention separate but equal , most people would point out that segregation is against the law.  Period.  Today that is supposedly true, but it hasn't always been that way.  In fact the doctrine of Separate but Equal has its roots in a time when it was the government enforcing it on the public, with businesses fighting it.  During my Civil Liberties Class this past semester, we studied two Supreme Court precedents that are linked together, as the second canceled the first. To understand how to move forward, one needs to know from whence they have come.  History teaches us that.  Of course, history is subjective, and as many say, is written by the victors.  In 1984, George Orwell wrote that there were whole groups of people dedicated to doing nothing but rewriting history so that it matched with the current theme.  They also narrowed the language, ...

Whenever government tries to fix something, it usually just makes things worse.  That is pretty much the case for the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, Health Care, the Middle East, Afghanistan, and so on.  When will we learn?  But I was doing some research on an essay that I had to turn in for my Civil Liberties class.  The class started with the Courts, in particular the Supreme Court, and how it has evolved over the 230 years of the government's existence. I found an article which will have a link at the bottom of my essay, regarding why the Court went so heavy on Judicial Review in the 20th Century.  It isn't a surprise to me, as I have long argued against this abomination to the Supreme Court.  Except now here is a peer reviewed article explaining the Court's attempt to make up a shortfall created by one of the capstone amendments of the early progressive era.  If you know me, you know what it is. The Seventeenth Amendment. For those that do...

A rare post on the Lib. For those that prefer reading, I apologize.  I am not sure why I went to the podcast route, and am rethinking just the one venue, as so few listen, and a few more at least, read the blog.  I am posting my paper for one of my classes  this past semester as it is very timely, and demonstrates the futility of the sane budgetary process in this nation.  Neither party cares about fiscal responsibility, all while a major newspaper of record reports a whistleblower who is leaving The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and giving his opinion of what he thinks is wrong, in that the Church has stored up a fund for adverse times, and that they were illegally dodging taxes.  No doubt there will be an accounting of that, but what is more prudent, spending recklessly in times of plenty?  Or putting aside for times of trouble ahead?  Only you can make that call within yourself, but likely you know the answer.  The only resol...

As I was finishing my podcast I had an epiphany of sorts.   I was speaking regarding how Madam Secretary, or I mean Comrad Speaker Pelosi was handling the impeachment of the President.  Actually to call it an impeachment is wrong.  Why? Until they vote to begin an Impeachment Inquiry, and allow Due Process for the President, everyone on the President's side, and that means the President, White House staff, members of Congress, and media that are unbiased, or biased towards Trump, should call this what it is: A POLITICAL LYNCHING!  Strong words?  Yes, and they are intentional.  It is an illegal trial right out of Stalin's play book, and of not that, then the Klan's.  They are subpoenaing witnesses, bringing them in to testify behind closed doors.  They then piece together a testimony that fits their narrative, and release it to their PR firm the press.   The idea of a "whistle blower" is ridiculous on its face.  This p...