Sep 23, 2011 Political
During last night’s debate Governor Perry attacked former Masachusetts Governor Romney for a change in his position on Massachusetts’ health care as it would apply to the nation. Perry pointed out that a line was changed when Romney’s book was published in paperback.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said during the Florida debate that Romney took out the single line that suggested the Massachusetts health reform law could be applied to the country. The line that is removed in the paperback version reads, “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.”
Romney denied there was a change but after the debate one of his people noted that there was a change and indicated that this was a common practice when books are printed in paperback and new information is available.
The problem is that the new information available, Obamacare, did not necessitate the change in the book except that Obamacare is widely disliked and Romney wants to be president.
If this were the only thing that Romney had changed one could argue that he had time to evaluate what took place in Massachusetts and what took place in the country and came to a different conclusion. The problem is, Romney has a history of changing positions. It appears as if Romney will change his positions depending on political winds.
There is no doubt that Romney has the economic and business experience but he has changed positions on abortion and the Second Amendment, to name a few, and those changes smack of political expediency.
Will a president Romney change positions or compromise his principles should he be faced with a Congress in control of the other party? We already have a guy occupying the White House who was one thing during the campaign and is totally different now that he is in office and he, of course, is not the only one. We need leadership that is principled and a leader who will not change positions on core values and beliefs for political expediency.
Make no mistake about it, Romney would be a better leader than Obama as would anyone who was on the stage last night. But we do not need someone who is, at best, better than Obama. We need a principled leader who will follow his beliefs and do what he said he would do.
All candidates from all parties have their faults. They are human beings and there are problems with all of them (though Obama supporters think differently of their messiah) but a problem with consistency is an issue that deserves a closer look.
Never surrender, never submit.
Aug 13, 2011 Political
When will the politicians in DC learn about the Constitution? The individual mandate of Obamacare has been shot down by several courts as unconstitutional but the regime is pressing on with implementation. It argues that some courts have found it Constitutional and that it will press on. All sides know this will make it to the Supreme Court. The regime wants that process to take as long as possible so it can claim that trillions of dollars have already been spent so why go back?
The law should have been stopped when it was ruled unconstitutional. There are disagreements among the courts so the law should be on hold until the SCOTUS reviews it and rules. The regime cannot have this because stopping now would take away its plan to have it implemented before a ruling takes place.
The government simply cannot force people to buy a product. The argument that people without insurance cost all of us because we pick up the tab for their health care is not a reason to force us to buy insurance. While it is true that we do end up paying it is because people decide not to pay their bills. People do not need insurance to get health care. They can go to the doctor and pay out of pocket. If they paid their bills we would not have an issue. But government has enslaved so many people and told them they have a right to something for nothing that we now have people who do not pay and who expect to get what they want for free.
Would it make sense for the government to require us all to buy and eat healthy food because those who do not make the rest of us pick up the tab for their unhealthy ways? If government can force healthy choices, then why does the government continue to allow the sale of tobacco? It impacts health care and the rest of us pay for the costs (even if we have insurance). Maybe it is because Obama needs his smokes…
The White House claims that the latest ruling from an appeals court will not stand because failure to have insurance impacts us all and therefore is authorized under the Commerce Clause.
The individual responsibility provision – the main part of the law at issue in these cases – is constitutional. Those who claim this provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce are incorrect. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us – when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab. White House
Notice how it is an individual responsibility provision instead of a mandate? The pinheads in DC should know that you cannot legislate responsibility. If someone forces you to do something that is not the definition of taking responsibility.
The bigger issue is that we end up picking up the tab regardless. If people without insurance get health care services and don’t pay then the cost is passed on to us. Under the government plan the government pays for people who can’t afford health insurance. While Democrats have a hard time understanding this, when government pays for something it is really the taxpayer who ends up paying for it. Therefore, we end up picking up the tab either way.
The Supreme Court will end up ruling on this and will decide that the individual mandate (not the nicely named responsibility provision) is unconstitutional. I expect the liberals on the court will decide that it is OK to force people to buy a product but their anti Constitutional views will go down in flames by those on the Court that follow the Constitution.
If they can force us to buy health insurance what will stop them from forcing us to buy a Chevy Volt. It is our responsibility to buy green energy using cars and everyone, at one time or another, will end up in a vehicle. Plus the taxpayer owns part of GM so it is our duty to buy from them to get our money back.
How would a liberal who believes it is OK to force people to purchase a product feel if a bill were introduced that required all Americans to buy a gun? Crime impacts everyone and when a person engages in crime it affects commerce. The cost of criminal activity is passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices and more police officers so, since it affects everyone and it affects commerce, we all need to buy a gun.
The liberals, including those judges who have ruled in favor of Obamacare (and those on the SCOTUS who will) would go nuts and declare that the government cannot force people to buy a product.
The big difference is there is a Constitutional provision that allows all citizens to own and carry a firearm without permission of government (though government routinely violates that provision – see Maryland) and there is no provision to provide health care to everyone. I do not think that government can force people to buy guns any more than it can force them to buy health care but if the SCOTUS decides that government can force us to buy a product then it can force us to buy guns and the Constitution says we can carry them. You know how liberals would act, now don’t you?
This is going to be interesting.
The liberals are going to push us until they get push back they do not like.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 19, 2011 Political
The claim from the left has always been that there are 45 million people in this country who do not have health insurance. This number is an inflated number that counts illegal aliens and those who can afford or are offered health insurance but choose not to buy it. The real number is probably less than 20 million.
We had this health care takeover in order to accommodate these people and there will still be quite a few uninsured while we are spending trillions of dollars on an unsustainable program (refer to UK). But that is a discussion for another time.
The Democrats are not happy the GOP is going to hold a vote on repeal. They have been claiming that this is a waste of time and that the Republicans should be working on the economy and job creation instead. After two years of ignoring jobs and the economy in favor of the progressive socialist agenda, these people are now saying we need to focus on jobs and the economy.
Since the health care takeover is a job killer (yes I wrote killer) then repealing it will help with the job situation. It will also cut unnecessary and wasteful spending.
While Democrats are squawking about focusing on jobs they are also indicating that repealing the takeover will cost us money. Only in their twisted world can cutting a program that spends trillions be adding to the deficit.
The latest ploy is for the Democrats to claim that between 50 and 120 million non-elderly people will be uninsured in a few years due to preexisting conditions if the takeover is repealed. I am having a bit of trouble with this math.
Where did all these people come from? How does the regime know that this many people will have conditions that will cause the denial of health insurance? If we accept the grossly inflated number of uninsured as 45 million (or even 30 million as has been the case in some discussions) how did we get to 50-120 million?
Surely these people are here now and are insured. Since we are not getting 50-120 million people dropped every three years how can we now claim that this will be the case. There is no history to support this and since there are, according to the regime, 30-45 million uninsured, how on Earth do that many more people suddenly end up uninsured?
This is another scare tactic using information from some regime friendly report (that might have been produced by the regime) in order to scare people into opposing the repeal. This is why Democrat friendly media outlets are producing polls that over sample Democrats when asking about the repeal issue. They want to give the appearance that the folks are OK with the takeover.
The people are against this monstrosity and want it repealed. This has been shown time and again in accurate polls and it is part of the reason the Democrats suffered a historic defeat last November.
Now they are working to spin anything they can to keep the vote from taking place.
Though this will not be repealed as long as Democrats control the Senate and the White House the vote is important because the Republicans promised they would do it.
Imagine that, politicians keeping their word.
Unless the repeal is attached to the bill raising the debt ceiling there is little chance of it being repealed but we can make sure it is not funded.
Regardless of how all this takes place there is no way in hell that there will be 50-120 million people dropped from insurance due to preexisting conditions.
The Democrats lied about the takeover bill, lied about what was in it, lied about how things would take place, lied about it funding abortion and lied about death panels.
Now they expect us to believe them when they make an obviously outrageous claim about the number of people who will be uninsured.
Never trust a progressive/Socialist/liberal/Democrat.
They lie whenever they speak and they are only interested in controlling people.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 4, 2011 Political
The Republicans are set to introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare and its takeover of health care in this country. The measure will pass in the House but will not pass in the Senate but Republicans there plan on a roll call vote to get everyone on the record. Considering how voting for Obamacare ended the careers of many long time Democrats, some have to be worried about the vote (which might explain why so many Democrats and their allies in the media are saying how bad taking up repeal would be).
One of the things in the law that people oppose is the individual mandate which requires everyone to buy health care insurance. The Democrats have twisted and abused the Commerce Clause in order to force people to buy a product. This is unconstitutional and against what the Commerce Clause was intended for. I think the law will die in the courts as this mandate is ruled unconstitutional.
Without the money from those required to buy health care, the entire law unravels.
Democrats are lining up to tell us, once again, that it is perfectly legal for the government to force someone to buy something. I wonder though, how they would react if a future Congress and president enacted a law requiring everyone to buy a handgun.
I might have written about this before but I think it is worth mentioning again. Everyone is impacted by crime and people can be the targets of crime at anytime. Additionally, crime impacts commerce in this country as it costs us billions of dollars each year. The Constitution absolutely affirms our individual right to keep and bear arms. What would happen if a future Congress said that people were required to buy a handgun because deterring crime impacts commerce?
Can you imagine how the very Democrats who say it is perfectly legal to require people to buy health care insurance would react?
I know that many of them would be screaming about how it is unconstitutional and that the government does not have the right to force people to buy things, particularly a gun.
The government does not have the power to force anyone to buy anything.
And Democrats would soon realize that if people were required to buy handguns.
**This issue involves the federal government. At least one local jurisdiction has enacted a law requiring a gun to be kept in every house. Also, when we were founded all males between certain ages were required to have a firearm and ammunition in case the need to call the militia to service arose.
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 18, 2010 Political
Julian Assange broke the law by publishing classified and other sensitive US documents that were illegally obtained. While many hail him as a hero, he is a criminal who broke US law. Ann Coulter displays one of the laws in her latest column:
Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:
“Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, … (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) …
“Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
So there is no doubt that Assange broke the law.
One of his supporters is Michael Moore who offered to pay the bond for the release of Assange. Moore believes in what Assange did and wants to help him out. It is Moore’s money and he can do what he wants with it.
However, one of the leaked documents shows that Moore’s film Sicko was banned in Cuba because the hospital that was shown as the model of Socialist medicine is not available to the general population and the Cuban authorities were worried that if the public saw the film it would create an uproar.
Moore was trying to discredit the US health care system when he made his movie but it looks like he was giving it more credit when compared to a country where the only way to get into the elite hospital is to be someone of importance or to pay bribes. It was evident to anyone with a brain that Cuba’s health system was not all that Moore cracked it up to be but that did not stop Moore from creating and releasing Sicko. The problem is, he is now discredited. If Cuban medicine was so wonderful then the film would not have been banned out of fear that people would get upset at the care they do not have access to.
And if that care was so wonderful then Fidel Castro would not have had to fly in doctors to treat his illness.
Additionally, if the system was so wonderful, Moore would not have had to use one elite hospital to make his point while ignoring the substandard care that people in most of the country receive, if they receive it at all. Moore made his case through deception by using the one elite hospital in Cuba as a model for the rest of the country.
Moore claims that his movie was not banned and it played for the entire country. He claims the released communications were designed to recreate reality:
The film-maker said on his blog that the diplomatic cable, dated 31 January 2008, was “a stunning look at the Orwellian nature of how bureaucrats for the state spin their lies and try to recreate reality (I assume to placate their bosses and tell them what they want to hear)”. Guardian UK
Moore’s response is a spot on description of his films. He spins lies to recreate reality (like using one elite hospital to represent all others that are much less impressive).
Who do we believe, the diplomats or Moore? While I do not trust diplomats I can’t figure why they would spin a lie when the communications were not meant for the public. What good would it do to point out what Moore did if the information was not released to the American public?
Besides that, Moore supports Assange and what he has done to expose our government’s secrets and bring transparency to the world.
Given that, Moore has to accept all the truths no matter how ugly they are to him.
And since Moore is a liar and has been exposed as one, who are we to believe?
I do not agree with what Assange did and I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law but if there is a bright spot to the whole ordeal it is that Moore’s lies have been exposed.
Before all you Moore toadies jump in, ask yourself this; if a cable indicated that George Bush invaded Iraq for oil and he (Bush) said that it was a “spin” to recreate reality, who would you believe?
Never surrender, never submit.