Feb 11, 2013 Political
Anyone who paid attention during the Obamacare debate knows that we cannot add millions of people to the health care rolls with the same amount of health care providers and expect there to be enough providers. It is also common sense that waiting times will be longer and that people will be denied some care due to lack of resources (personnel and supplies).
California is indicating that there will not be enough physicians to cover all the people who will begin getting health care under Obamacare. The state is trying to take measures to allow physician’s assistants and nurse practitioners to do things that fall under the scope of a medical doctor. This will most certainly add to the cost of Obamacare.
Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it. That is at least partly true as new things, bad things, appear every day but some of this was evident from the start.
California will be hit with a double whammy as the government allows illegal aliens to receive health care (Joe Wilson was right when he said Obama lied) and further increases the patient to health care provider ratio. Californians will be in a world of hurt as untold numbers of people are unable to find a doctor for their free health care plan…
Not to worry though. It looks like Texas Governor Rick Perry is trying to help California reduce the number of people in the state who will be on the health care rolls. Perry is working hard to get companies in California to relocate to Texas where taxes are not as burdensome and the cost of living is lower. If he succeeds perhaps many workers will follow their companies to Texas and remove some of California’s burden.
Personally, I don’t really care how many people go without and I don’t care how many who thought their health care was free get sucked into paying huge amounts of money or huge fines.
They voted for it and the moron who gave it to us so let them live with that decision.
As for California, to hell with it.
Never surrender, never submit.
May 30, 2012 Political
New York has lost residents whose income amounts to almost 46 BILLION dollars as people vote with their feet to avoid taxes. New York has lost millions (if not billions) in tax revenue because people got tired of forking over their hard earned money to pay for ever increasing social programs and union payoffs.
New York saw a net outflow of about 1.3 million people, about half of whom moved to Florida. Yes, Florida has nicer weather but, more importantly, it has no state income tax and it has no estate or inheritance tax.
New York is not the only state that has seen a decrease in population as other heavily taxed states have lost citizens as well.
Additionally, Florida is not the only state that has seen an inflow of people. The states of Arizona and Texas, both low or no tax states, have seen an increase in residents particularly from California.
People who are able to move from high tax states do so. Those who will not move are either unable because of finances or their jobs or are on the welfare rolls.
From 2000-2010 the states of Texas and Florida have seen a net increase of nearly a million people each, many of whom left their high tax states for tax relief.
Yes, the people have figured that they can’t effect change at the ballot box so they must vote with their feet and move to where they get to keep more of the money they earn. You can only rob people so many times before they decide to pack up and go.
Maryland is seeing this kind of movement as it continues to raise taxes on everything possible. The Democrats in charge, led by Martin O’Moron, think the money belongs to them and that the people should be happy they get to keep some of it.
This will continue to happen until the states change their positions. Look at what Scott Walker is doing in Wisconsin. He brought them to fiscal sanity (and the liberals want to remove him and go back to the losing policies that caused their problems).
We can’t vote with our feet at the national level unless we give up citizenship and that is not an option, at least not for me. The change there must come at the ballot box and we must replace Obama, the liberals and the RINOs.
It is November or never.
Until then, look for Texas and Florida to keep gaining Congressional seats while New York and California continue to lose them.
Never surrender, never submit.
May 9, 2012 Political
Barack Obama is not well liked in West Virginia. His policies involving the coal industry, a major source of income for West Virginia, are unfriendly to the industry and people are not happy with him.
The criminal in the White House faced a rather unique challenger in the Democrat primary in West Virginia. A Texas inmate filed the necessary paperwork to be on the ballot in that state and was Obama’s challenger.
Keith Judd, who is serving time in a Texas jail, received 40% of the votes in the primary race.
That’s right, Barack Obama received 60% of the vote and an inmate received 40%.
The inmate gave the criminal a run for his money in a race that featured the equivalent of “no vote” for the incumbent. This is a pattern that has played out in a number of states only West Virginia is the first place where he ran against an inmate.
Incidentally, the inmate did better than people in other states who are running against Obama.
Obama lost West Virginia in the 2008 election to both Hillary Clinton in the primary and John McCain in the general election so it is very unlikely that he will take the state this November particularly with his stance on coal.
But it is a very embarrassing result for the Obama campaign and the headline splashed across Drudge draws more attention to it than the campaign would want.
This is even better than the picture of the empty seats Obama spoke to earlier this week.
Never surrender, never submit.
Mar 12, 2012 Political
Imagine you belong to a union and that union is voting on something (contract, leadership, etc). You arrive at the union hall which belongs to the union and its members. Before you are allowed to vote you must show an ID. Why? What are the odds that the people in the room are not part of the union? Could they really get so many non union folks in there to affect the outcome of the vote without someone noticing they don’t belong? If there is any place where the likelihood of voter fraud is low it is in a union hall (with regard to non members voting, all kinds of fraud takes place in unions) so why is an ID required?
Better yet, why do the same unions that require an ID to vote in its processes oppose voter ID laws with regard to our state political elections?
The unions oppose voter ID when the general population is voting in political elections even though the potential (and actual) fraud is much higher than could ever be expected in a union hall where ID is required.
The reason is pretty simple. The unions do not want voter ID laws because those laws would keep the unions from committing voter fraud. The unions are heavily vested in the Democrat Party and the unions do a lot of fraudulent things. They intimidate people who are campaigning, they intimidate people who vote, and they help the dead get to the polls while also ensuring there are an adequate number of “extra” votes for the people they want to win.
Democrats and unions are one in the same. The same philosophy, same criminal activity, and same voter fraud (ACORN anyone) found in unions are found in the Democrat Party. They work hand in hand because unions work to get Democrats elected and then Democrats work to transfer taxpayer money to the unions. The violation of law leading to investors being shafted while unions took ownership of auto companies was a payoff and this kind of stuff happens all the time.
Since Democrats and unions are the same it should come as no surprise that Democrats oppose voter ID. Eric “The Red” Holder and his Justice Department just put the nix on a Texas voter ID law because of the phony claim that it might disproportionately affect Hispanics. Evidently, all those Hispanics in Texas who have jobs do not have ID. Evidently, all the Hispanics in Texas who receive welfare or drive a car do not have a valid ID. I can’t imagine how so many people could be affected by this law but evidently in Texas they let people work, drive, or receive welfare without an ID.
Let me tell you the real concern of Holder and the Obama regime. They are worried that a voter ID law would keep illegals from voting in elections and those would be lost Democrat votes. Illegals are not allowed to vote and ID laws would prevent more of them from doing so and this is a non starter for the Obama regime. The regime needs the illegals and all the other votes it can get in Texas because it is a very red state that contains a lot of electoral votes.
I know Texas is under special scrutiny because of past discrimination as are a few other states. It always seemed arbitrary to me because there are states not subject to the scrutiny and they were as discriminatory as any on the list.
Be that as it may, the argument that the law is discriminatory to Hispanics does not hold water. The Supreme Court has already ruled that a similar law in another state is Constitutional.
But Holder has pressed on with his crusade against voter ID.
He knows that those laws will likely be upheld by the SCOTUS (because they already have) but the legal process takes time.
And Holder only needs to delay until after this November.
If we are lucky, he will be in jail by then…
Never surrender, never submit.
May 15, 2011 Political
The great State of Texas has passed a law that makes it illegal for security screeners to touch people on certain parts of their bodies. This is in response to the invasion of privacy that takes place when TSA officers conduct enhanced pat downs of air travelers. The TSA has struck back in a posting at the TSA blog that lists its response to Texas as; you can’t do that because the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says states can’t regulate the federal government.
That is very true but only in cases where the actions of the federal government are allowed by the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government is responsible for the traveling public. Let us assume though, that the federal government would be allowed to regulate our travel under the Commerce Clause (it is stretched for so many things that this is not out of the question). That still would not allow the federal government to claim supremacy when the act involves the violation of our Constitutional rights. The actions by the TSA are a violation of our Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure without probable cause and without a warrant.
No matter how supreme the federal government is, it cannot invoke supremacy on issues where it is violating the Constitution or where it has no Constitutional authority in the matter. The Tenth Amendment gives the states or the people the supremacy over any item NOT listed in the Constitution.
If the TSA wants to drag out the dusty, seldom used copy of the Constitution that the agency has then it must be willing to accept the limits placed on the federal government by that very document. The federal government has no enumerated power to search people as the TSA agents are doing. NONE, period.
It is obvious that the TSA thinks it, as part of the federal government, has supremacy in this issue but the reality is Texas has exerted its Tenth Amendment right to supremacy over an issue not Constitutionally enumerated to the federal government.
Let us also not forget that Texas did not pass a law that interferes with airline travel so even if one can claim supremacy under Commerce, the law in question does not involve that. The Texas law simply says that if a screener touches certain areas of people’s bodies without probable cause or a warrant then they have committed a crime.
Setting off an alarm in the metal detector is not probable cause to touch people in areas that would have one arrested if done on the street. Being a baby or a child is not probable cause to molest a child in hopes of finding a bomb. Refusing to go through the X-Ray machine is no more probable cause for an invasive search than is refusing to allow a police officer to search your vehicle during a traffic stop. If police officers started pulling people who refused searches out of their cars and subjected them to the pat down performed by the TSA then every civil rights group would be up in arms and the people would be rebelling against such invasion. However, the TSA does the same thing and then has the nerve to claim it can do so and has supremacy over the states that try to stop it.
I am not sure the TSA wants to open the can of worms involved in citing the Constitution to rebuke a state because that would lead to closer scrutiny involving the Constitutionality of what the TSA is doing, the role of the federal government in the process and the violation of our Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights.
For those who say it is moot because we do not have a right to travel, the federal government has codified travel as a right that will not be impeded (if one agrees that government can regulate travel under Commerce then this law has to be allowed as part of that regulation).
TSA impedes us unnecessarily in the name of security. Remember folks, no terrorist has been caught by the TSA and the TSA routinely fails screening tests where “harmful” items are sneaked through security.
Not to worry though, the TSA does ensure our genitals are in place prior to boarding a plane…
Where our genitals are is not the issue here. The issue is where the TSA is keeping its collective heads…
Never surrender, never submit.