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.

Source:
WLS 890

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

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.

Sources:
Politico
al-Reuters
Politico

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

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.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

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.

Related:
Two page repeal bill
Republicans move to repeal Obamacare
I am not the only one who had this thought

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

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?

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Barack Obama is supposed to be a great orator and communicator though anyone with a brain can see that when he does not have a teleprompter and a script he sounds like a stuttering fool. Obama blamed the beating his party took in the last election on his inability to communicate how good his agenda was and how good what they did was for the average schmo on the street. Yep, you folks are too dense to see what is good for you.

Truth be told, Obama spoke about his health care reform more than 50 times and his minions were out on the streets trying to explain it as well. The reality is that he communicated it quite well and the American public did not buy it. We did not buy his health care, cap and trade, his ramming things down our throats or the arm twisting and back room deals that took place.

“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”

We heard it and we understood it. It was not bad communication Barack, it was bad policy.

But maybe, just maybe, your minions and you would have been able to communicate the health care bill better if say, you all had read it.

Remember, while you were communicating it to us Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it to see what was in it.

That sounds like a recipe for disaster and you felt that disaster on election day.

Keep on believing that you did not communicate well enough and you will be in for another trouncing come 2012.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Barack Obama was in Maryland yesterday stumping for Moron OweMalley, the Democrat Governor (who endorsed Hillary Clinton). When he was not making the crowd ill, he used the same tired analogy he has used for the past few months. He told the crowd of sycophant Democrats that if you want to move a car forward you put it in D and if you want to move backwards you put it in R. He told them this was no coincidence (it actually is a coincidence but he is talking to Democrats).

If we were to carry Obama’s analogy further we would have to point out that the R on a car is an important feature. If your car was facing the edge of a cliff what would you put the gear selector in? I am willing to bet most folks would pick the R and get out of trouble. Then there would be those few who think it is a coincidence and drive on.

The country is on the edge of a cliff that, until Obama took office, we approached rather slowly. Once Obama took office he put it in D and kicked in the turbo chargers. We are now on that cliff and voters need to decide whether we select the D and drive off the cliff or if we pick the R and reverse course.

The Titanic was in D when it hit the iceberg…

We know that Obamanomics is not working. He has spent trillions of dollars and tripled the deficit that Bush left. Obama is the Bush spending agenda on steroids (great, now Congress will be investigating steroid use).

Obama spent a trillion dollars on stimulus and the only thing stimulated was the payoff to his supporters. There are no jobs being created (they overestimated last year by nearly a million jobs and we lost nearly 100k more in September) and the economy remains in the doldrums. Obama’s legislative agenda has been filled with Socialist wishes and lies. The Health Care takeover that would save money is estimated to cost trillions of dollars and will burden the country.

Remember, Obama says that government can do it better. It is your mommy and daddy and can care for you. This would be the same government that spent over 20 million dollars on stimulus checks that went to dead people and those in jail. Where was the government oversight in this relatively small program (when compared to the size and scope of health care)? If this government cannot avoid wasting millions of dollars on the dead and felons then how on Earth will it ever run a program the size of health care with any efficiency?

The answer is, it will not because it cannot.

And this is the so called forward progress that Obama discusses when he talks about putting the car in D.

It would do voters well to also note that Recovery begins with R…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

A year after Obamacare kicks in there will be about a 50% greater shortage of doctors than originally estimated. If anyone thinks that this will not mean rationed care then a lesson in supply and demand is needed. Fewer doctors will mean that fewer people get seen and some folks will be triaged away from health care. The elderly, the terminally ill, and those with costly and long term problems will be put on the back burner and probably never seen. If they do get seen it will be much too late for them to get meaningful care.

By 2015 — one year after the majority of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will have taken effect — the nation will be short 63,000 physicians, a figure that includes both primary care doctors and specialists. Previous estimates put the shortage at 39,600.

By 2020, there will be 45,000 too few primary care physicians, and 46,000 too few specialists, according to the AAMC. MedPage Today

This should not be surprising since those opposed to the health care takeover warned of just such problems. We warned of increasing rates, higher premiums and long term shortages of medical personnel. Our warnings were ignored as Obama and his sock puppets promised that we could keep our doctors, we could keep our health plans and that his plan would save money and result in lower premiums.

Of course, once the light was shed on this monstrosity, Obama backtracked and said that he never promised it would be free. He certainly gave many people the impression that they would pay nothing and that only a small number of people would have to pay more (those evil rich people). You can’t claim to save money while providing care to more people without implying that costs would go down and some would not pay.

Death Panels? Get real. Sarah Palin and others who mentioned this were pointed out as fear mongers who did not know what they were talking about. The bill provides for review panels and a shortage of doctors guarantees that people will not receive the care they want or need (those two are not always the same).

In addition, the whole ruse is beginning to unfold. Obama and his ilk made the health care bill so cumbersome and expensive that companies would find it cheaper to drop people and pay the fines. This would FORCE people into government health care. Obama’s goal all along was single payer and he worked up a con game to get everyone into single payer. He did it with regulations that would force companies to take hard decisions that eventually lead to dropping care.

McDonald’s announced that it might have to drop health care for 30,000 hourly employees because of the administrative burdens of the health care takeover. The company denies this and supporters of the takeover claim it is trumped up but the memo from McDonald’s makes it clear that unless it receives an exemption it might have to drop the coverage. I can’t blame them for backtracking. I am sure the company never intended for the memo to be made public and it cannot afford to have 30,000 upset employees. The best thing to do, from their point of view, was to downplay the memo.

Many other companies took huge hits because of the health care takeover and people are seeing their premiums rise.

This entire health care issue has been a mess and we will continue to find more problems as it gets implemented. Even though the citizenry was warned by people who actually know the health care system and even though the majority of Americans opposed it, the Democrats rammed it down our throats.

Nancy Pelosi said we would have to pass the bill to see what is in it. Now that it has passed and we are getting to see what it contains, we are not pleased and it is obvious that Americans will get screwed.

It is November or never folks.

Keep the OPTEMPO up and let’s boot these miserable pukes out of office once and for all.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

When Democrats were ramming the health care takeover down our throats they kept telling us how wonderful it was going to be and that we would love it. Despite the fact that the majority of the public opposed the plan the Democrats were hell bent on ramming it through. Many of them claimed to be proud of health care and voted for it. At the time they made a big show of support and the bill signing was a spectacle.

Now that the election is near and Democrats are expected to take a beating, many of them are running from health care. It is hard to find one who claims to have supported it and none seem to be running ads telling us how great it is and how proud they were of their vote.

No wonder they are running away from health care.

Don’t fall for it. Make them pay for their arrogance.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Democrats are running scared because they have a feeling of impending doom. The November midterm elections are just around the corner and it does not look like anything will go in favor of Democrats in time to save them from defeat. So many Democrats have resorted to insulting the intelligence of their constituents by pretending that they are not like those people in DC.

Joe Donnelly of Indiana is one such Democrat. Donnelly, by most measures, is a moderate Democrat. He is pro life and pro gun but holding those positions does not mean anything if one is willing to walk in lock step with party leadership. Donnelly has an ad out that shows Obama and Pelosi in an “unflattering” manner and his shtick is; I am not one of them, I am one of us.

Right Joe. You campaigned for Barack Obama and you supported his agenda. Certainly you had your moments where you opposed some of what was going on but when push came to shove you voted with the other Democrats to approve the Senate version of Obamacare. About 70% of the population opposes the mandate (the one Obama opposed as a candidate) and almost two-thirds oppose the health care reform as it was presented. You voted against those majorities and with your party.

On March 21, 2010, Joe Donnelly voted in favor of approving the Senate version of the Democrats’ health care reform bill. Wikipedia

You Joe, are not one of your constituents, you are one of the people in DC. Your problem now is that you come from a fairly conservative area and you are trying to convince people that you are the same moderate guy they elected and you are trying to fool people by pretending you oppose the DC leadership.

You are a liar Joe and one would hope your constituents are not stupid enough to fall for your blatant rewriting of history and your blatant attempt to deceive them.

And one other thing about this guy, and I hope you folks in his district are paying attention, he voted for the stimulus package. That’s right, he voted for the package that indebted our children and grandchildren to government.

That is not moderate and those votes come from a person who is not worthy of retention in office.

People of Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District take the opportunity to tell this guy, in the words of Donald Trump. “You’re fired!”

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.