Fox News will host a GOP candidate debate this Thursday, August 6, 2015. The hype is no less than that of a heavy weight boxing match on pay-per-view. According to the spin, Donald Trump leads the field of contenders. Why? Is he that 'refreshing' that the public sees him as a serious Presidential hopeful? Allow me to elaborate why he cannot win.
In all of the polls it seems that most Republicans favor Trump over the rest of the field. Well the Republican voter will not decide the vote against the Democratic candidate. That was demonstrated in 2008 and again in 2012. It will be the Independent Voter who will decide the next President.
In the early part of the year, the talking heads were saying that the GOP nominee should be a governor, because a governor has 'executive' experience. Then it was military experience that was needed to combat the terrorism threat against Americans.
For me the choice comes down to one thing: The Constitution. Freedom from government intervention in every aspect of my life. Adhering to the First Amendment and not forcing the will of government on religious beliefs. Obeying the Second Amendment instead of making excuses as to why the government must pass 'common sense' gun control laws. The latter is an oxymoron and only a moron uses that lame excuse to attempt to take rights of the People.
The (un) Affordable Care Act demonstrates how inept government involvement is. Most candidates want to 'fix' it, but that is not really possible. The real push is for complete control by the government. Donald Trump has been for 'universal health care' for decades, believes that abortion is about women's choice, and thinks that bully tactics against China will somehow fix the economic issues we face today.
Karl Rove (who should have been charged with high crimes and misdemeanors) said it best when he stated that this 'debate' is more like a campaign speech limited to about 8 minutes per candidate.
The panel of 'inquisitors' from Fox News will ask questions, some of which will be questions submitted by viewers. So far, none of the questions ask how they will accomplish anything, only what they will do if elected. Each will thump about Iran, immigration, abortion, blah, blah, blah.
The exceptions are the senators, Cruz, Paul, and Rubio. Each of them have voted for or against these issues, so we know where they stand. Each has demonstrated by their voting record where they stand. In the blog post Last Stand: Freedom or Serfdom I pointed out how only Rand Paul has voted along constitutional lines even when the majority succumbed to popular opinion. There really isn't more than can be said. America stands to lose its sovereignty unless we elect a President who will follow the Constitution. Rand Paul does just that, always.
"The unveiling of the dictatorial debacle that is Obama care absolutely flabbergasts me. It is stunning on so many levels, but the most shocking aspect of it for me is watching millions of free Americans stand idly by while this man, his minions in Congress, and his cheerleaders in the press systematically dismantle our Constitution, steal our money, and crush our freedoms.
The President, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (with no small help from Justice John Roberts) take away our health care, and we allow it. They take away our insurance, and we allow it. They take away our doctors, and we allow it. They charge us thousands of dollars more a year, and we allow it. They make legal products illegal, and we allow it. They cripple our businesses, and we allow it. They announce by fiat that we must ignore our most deeply held beliefs – and we allow it.
Where is your spine, America?
Yes, I know people are complaining. I read the news on the internet. I read blogs. I have a Twitter feed. So what? People in the Soviet Union complained. People in Cuba complain. People in China complain (quietly). Complaining isn’t the same thing as doing anything about it. In fact, much of the complaining that we hear sounds like resignation: Wow. This sucks. Oh well, this is the way things are. Too bad.
Perhaps you need reminding of a few important facts. Here goes:
1. The President is not a king. Barack Obama does not behave like a President, an elected official, someone who realizes that he works for us. He behaves like a king, a dictator – someone who believes that his own pronouncements have the force of law, and who thinks he can dispense with the law’s enforcement when he deigns to do so. And those of us who object? How dare we? Racists!
And while he moves steadily “forward” with his plans to “fundamentally transform” the greatest country in human history, he distracts people with cheap, meaningless trivialities, like “free birth control pills”! (In fact, let’s face it: this administration’s odd obsession with sex in general – Birth control! Abortion! Sterilization! Gay guys who play basketball! — is just plain weird. Since when did the leader of the free world care so much about how people have sex, who they have it with, and what meds they use when they have it? Does he have nothing more important to concern himself with?)
2. It isn’t just a failed software program; it is a failed philosophy. People are marveling that Healthcare.gov was such a spectacular failure. Well, if one is only interested in it as a product launch, I’ve explained some of the reasons for that here. But the larger point is that it isn’t a software failure, or even a product failure; it is a philosophy failure.
I have said this before: Obama is not a centrist; he is a central planner. And this – all of it: the disastrous computer program, the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted, the lies, the manipulation of public opinion, the theft of the public’s money and property, and freedom (read insurance, and premiums, and doctors) — IS what central planning looks like.
The central premise of central planning is that a handful of wunderkinds with your best interests at heart (yeah, right) know better than you what’s good for you. The failure of such a premise and the misery it causes have been clear from the dawn of humanity. Kings and congressmen, dictators and Dear Leaders, potentates, princes and presidents can all fall prey to the same imperial impulses: “we know what is good the ‘the people.’ And they are always wrong.
There is a reason that the only times communism has really been tried have been after wars, revolutions, or coups d’état. You have to have complete chaos for people to be willing to accept the garbage that centralized planning produces. Take the Soviet Union, for example. After two wars, famine, and the collapse of the Romanov dynasty, why wouldn’t people wait in line for hours to buy size 10 shoes? Or settle for the gray matter that passed for meat in the grocery stores? But communism’s watered-down cousin, socialism, isn’t much better. Ask the Venezuelans who cannot get toilet paper. Toilet paper. ¡Viva la Revolución!
Contrary to what so many who believe in a “living Constitution” say, the Founding Fathers absolutely understood this. That is why the Constitution was set up to limit government power. (Memo to the President: the drafters of the Constitution deliberately didn’t say “what government had to do on your behalf.”) They understood that that was the path to folly, fear, and famine.)
3. Obama is deceitful. Just as the collapse of the computer program should not surprise anyone, neither should we be shocked that the President lied about his healthcare plan. Have any of you been paying attention over the past few years? Obama has made no secret of his motivations or his methods. The philosophies which inspire him espouse deceit and other vicious tactics. (Don’t take my word for it: read Saul Alinsky.) Obama infamously told reporter Richard Wolffe, “You know, I actually believe my own bullshit.” He has refused to be forthcoming about his past (where are his academic records?). His own pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, told author Ed Klein, that Obama said to him, “You know what your problem is? You have to tell the truth.”
Did Obama lie when he said dozens of times, “If you like you plan, you can keep it. Period!”? Of course he did. That’s what he does.
4. The media is responsible. And had the media been doing their jobs, we would have known a lot of this much, much earlier. The press is charged with the sacred responsibility of protecting the people from the excesses of government. Our press has been complicit, incompetent, or corrupt. Had they vetted this man in 2008, as they would have a Republican candidate, we would have known far more about him than we do, even now. Had they pressed for more details about Obamacare, Congress’ feet would have been held to the fire. Had they done their jobs about Eric Holder, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, NSA spying – or any of the other myriad betrayals of the public trust that this administration has committed, Obama would likely have lost his 2012 reelection campaign. (A fact that even The Washington Post has tacitly acknowledged. Well done, fellas! Happy now?)
Instead, they turned a blind eye, even when they knew he was lying, abusing power, disregarding the limits of the Constitution. It was only when he began to spy on them, and when the lies were so blatant that the lowest of low-information voters could figure it out that they realized they had to report on it. (Even in the face of blatant, deliberate and repeated lies, The New York Times has the audacity to tell us that the President “misspoke.”) They have betrayed us, abandoned us, and deceived us.
5. Ted Cruz was right. So was Sarah Palin. The computer program is a disaster. The insurance exchanges are a disaster. What’s left? The healthcare system itself. And this, of necessity, will be a disaster, too. Millions of people have lost their individual insurance plans. In 2015, millions more will lose their employer-provided coverage (a fact which the Obama administration also knew, and admitted elsewhere). The exorbitant additional costs that Obamacare has foisted on unsuspecting Americans are all part of a plan of wealth confiscation and redistribution. That is bad enough. But it will not end there.
When the numbers of people into the system and the corresponding demand for care vastly exceed the cost projections (and they will, make no mistake), then the rationing will start. Not only choice at that point, but quality and care itself will go down the tubes. And then will come the decisions made by the Independent Payment Advisory Board about what care will be covered (read “paid for”) and what will not.
That’s just a death panel, put politely. In fact, progressives are already greasing the wheels for acceptance of that miserable reality as well. They’re spreading the lie that it will be about the ability of the dying to refuse unwanted or unhelpful care. Don’t fall for that one, either. It will be about the deaths that inevitably result from decisions made by people other than the patients, their families, and their physicians. (Perhaps it’s helpful to think of their assurances this way: “If you like your end-of-life care, you can keep your end-of-life-care.”)
6. We are not SUBJECTS. (or, Nice Try, the Tea Party Isn’t Going Away). We have tolerated these incursions into our lives and livelihoods too long already. There is no end to the insatiable demand “progressives” have to remake us in their image. Today it is our insurance, our businesses, our doctors, our health care. Tomorrow some new crusade will be announced that enables them to take over other aspects of our formerly free lives.
I will say it again: WE ARE NOT SUBJECTS. Not only is the Tea Party right on the fiscal issues, but it appears that they are more relevant than ever. We fought a war once to prove we did not want to be the subjects of a king, and the Boston Tea Party was just a taste of the larger conflict to come. If some people missed that lesson in history class, we can give them a refresher."
Well the blame game is just getting under way. First we have the Benghazi murders that neither the White House nor the State Department wants to talk about. First they blamed the attack on a video and then on spontaneous protests. And there are survivors who will testify before Congress on Wednesday, several under alleged threats from the government. Next we have the Boston Marathon bombings where one dead brother is being refused a burial site and the other is being Mirandized to clam up. Neither the White House nor the Justice Department will say who gave the order for that. Guess they must know all they need to know from the friends of bombers also, as one at least has been released to his mother's custody with a GPS bracelet on his ankle. Then there is the trial of murderess, Jodi Arias that has taken up more air time than the entire NBA regular season, while a butcher of infants in Philadelphia gets ignored by the privately-owned major media. The former is a sick woman that needs to be found guilty because she destroyed the life of a young man in his prime, and the latter the death penalty for the countless murders he committed in the name of unwanted pregnancies. With all that is going on, I still managed to place a small wager on Orb in the Kentucky Derby and be rewarded a winning ticket. And that is the only certainty to report on this day. Lot's of questions and very few answers. Tell me again why I should believe what is reported as news?
With all of the hype in the media lately regarding abortions, guns, health care, and immigration, Americans as a whole are being duped by the people we trusted to protect our rights and our borders. First, abortion is not a choice. Having sex is a choice and doing so with responsibility is what needs to be taught and not legislated. As a teenager, my parents spoke with me at length about sex and how it will be my responsibility to take care of a child that I father. Neighbors with daughters also taught them that having sex was not just about feeling good, as it is a reproductive process that will produce a child. Abortion was never considered as an option to carelessness and disregard for the sex act itself.
Second, regarding all of the media propaganda and the power grab by government to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights, it is the duty and the right of We the People to oppose this tyranny. It is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment. It was written to insure that a government duly elected as representatives of the citizens, could not use force in order to take our rights from us. The safety of our persons and of our family is not the responsibility of government; it is our responsibility to protect our person and property. Law enforcement was never meant to replace personal responsibility rather it was to enhance it. Contrary to popular social ideology, health care is not a human right or a right of an American citizen. Medicine as it is practiced today is an extension of the pharmaceutical industry, and it does nothing to further cures or to maintain good health. Sure, diet and exercise are both stressed as important factors in health care today, but it is drugs that are relied upon to accommodate those with unhealthy lifestyles. And now with the unconstitutional implementation of the Affordable Patient Protection Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, the decisions regarding your own health are being handled through government bureaucrats who will decide whether or not you are worth the treatments you require. In other words, even your doctor has little to say in regards to your personal health. Finally, we are now faced with proposed new legislation to make it easy for immigrants to gain legal status and a path toward citizenship, even though they have been breaking the laws of immigration for many years. While I am writing this, I am also listening to the President speaking about this issue. He wants to make new laws when he and his administration has refused to enforce the laws already there. He wants us Americans to believe that we will benefit from immigration laws being changed. Obama wants to punish businesses that take advantage of illegal workers by having them work long hours and with less that minimum wage pay. Most of these workers are supposedly doing labor that Americans will not perform for these low wages. But if these businesses were able to afford to hire American workers at living wages, don’t you think more Americans would take those jobs? Perhaps the underlying problem is the value of our money and not greedy employers. It’s greed of the banking cartel that must be addressed, and by We the People not just by the politicians we elected to protect us from them. When my ancestors arrived here from Europe, they did not receive benefits. They worked and saved, educated their children to strive for a better life here. Many succeeded in businesses and professional careers, paid their taxes and contributed to charity to benefit their community. They did not have any government programs that entitled them to benefits from taxpayers. They themselves were taxpayers. And whatever laws on immigration and naturalization there were at the time were obeyed and eventually they became citizens. Why do we need to change a system that worked so well? What is needed is enforcement of the laws currently in place. There is always the cry for being humanitarian and allow these illegal immigrants to stay here. But look at other nations around the world and you will see that we are the most lenient on the planet when it comes to illegal immigration. We cannot continue to subsidize those who break our laws and reform the laws so that they will go unpunished for their crimes.
“So will there be some [programs] that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.”
— Mitt Romney
“I actually have a[n immigration] plan in mind, I haven’t unveiled it. ”
— Mitt Romney
“Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues…”
— Tax Policy Center
WASHINGTON, DC – Admittedly afraid of how voters will react to his ideas, Mitt Romney has a bad habit of teasing his policy proposals before refusing to show voters the details. First, Romney told told the Washington Examiner that he had an immigration plan that he hadn’t unveiled — that was over 100 days ago. Next, he gave a highly publicized “major” policy address at Ford Field in Detroit to unveil his new tax plan, but he failed to actually release the details of the plan in question. And finally, while speaking with the Weekly Standard, Romney flat-out admitted he was keeping secrets from voters because he was afraid his ideas would be unpopular. The Standard wrote: “But Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to get specific about the programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications.”
“Mitt Romney’s refusal to release his plans before the election shows he’s fully aware that his ideas are out of touch with American values. The only thing more cynical than Romney’s outdated policies that make the rich richer is his willingness to keep the details secret from voters."
— Rodell Mollineau, American Bridge president
Americans expect presidential campaigns to be worthy of the office they’re seeking — for candidates to offer competing visions for the future, instead of defaulting on the promises that got them there. Romney has yet to prove to anyone he has what it takes. In fact, in the sixty months since Mitt Romney began his quest for the White House, the most noteworthy thing he’s done is outspend Rick Santorum in a couple of states. He has failed to realize it’ll take more than that to reach the White House.
Romney promised to eliminate cabinet agencies and government programs, but refused to specify which, out of a fear of the plans being politically unpopular. According to The Weekly Standard, “Mitt Romney wants to eliminate government programs and shutter cabinet agencies. Doing so, he says, is ‘the critical thing’ that needs to be done in order to bring government books back into balance and to begin restoring the promise of America.' ‘Actually eliminating programs is the most important way to keep Congress from stuffing the money back into them,’ he revealed in a 30-minute interview on March 21. It’s a smart answer in that it actually says nothing and is a deeply politically correct one.
Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to be specific about any programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications. ‘One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education,’ Romney recalled. ‘So I think it’s important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So for instance, I anticipate that housing vouchers will be turned over to the states rather than be administered at the federal level, and so at this point I think of the programs to be eliminated or to be returned to the states, and we’ll see what consolidation opportunities exist as a result of those program eliminations. So will there be some that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.’
[The Weekly Standard, 04/02/12]
December 7, 2011: Romney admits he had an illegal immigration plan, but refused to unveil it.
In a Washington Examiner editorial board meeting, Romney was asked, “Have you not said enough to encourage that… simply by saying, ‘Well, once we’ve secured the border, we can do something?’" Romney responded, “I actually have a plan in mind, I haven’t unveiled it. There are other people I’d like to sit down with and review it with me. I went down to Florida and met with Jeb Bush six, seven months ago, laid out what I thought would be a complete plan to deal with permanent immigration policies with regards to our legal system to simplify it. Number two, how to deal with those who are here illegally today. And then number three, how to secure the border. And every piece of advice I've received from people who talk about this topic say get the first job done first, because if you talk about the other jobs you get highly confused with whether you are going to create incentives for people to come here illegally to take advantage of whatever program you might describe.”
[The Washington Examiner Editorial Board, 12/7/11]
Romney promised to eliminate tax deductions to pay for his tax plan, but did not specify which deductions, making it impossible to accurately evaluate his proposal. According to the Tax Policy Center, “In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in 2010’s health reform legislation. …
The plan would recoup the revenue loss caused by those changes by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks, thereby making more income subject to tax. Gov. Romney says that the reductions in tax breaks, in combination with moderately faster economic growth brought about by lower tax rates, will make the individual income tax changes revenue neutral compared with simply extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He also promises that low- and middle-income households will pay no larger shares of federal taxes than they do now… Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden.”
[Tax Policy Center]
Mitt Romney Platform:
What is the platform of Mitt Romney? Is Mitt Romney's 2012 platform truly conservative? And most importantly, can Mitt Romney be trusted to stand by his platform?
Mitt Romney's 2012 candidacy platform is contrasted below with the platform Mitt Romney maintained before and during his governorship of Massachusetts, and the previous article. Why is Mitt Romney running for President on a platform that has been so drastically altered?
Obviously, the 2012 Mitt Romney platform plays to the conservatives to win the Republican nomination, while Mitt Romney's earlier platform played to the liberals in Massachusetts to try to unseat Senator Edward Kennedy. In fact, Mitt Romney's earlier platform was actually more liberal than Kennedy's liberal platform.
Mitt Romney on Gay Marriage:
1994: "As we seek to establish full equality [for gays], I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent, [Edward Kennedy]."
2011: "I believe we should have a federal amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman."
Mitt Romney on Abortion:
1994: "Abortion should be safe and legal in this country."
2002: "Let me make this very clear, I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose."
2011: "I believe people understand that I'm firmly pro-life."
Mitt Romney on Homosexuality in the Military:
1994: "[I support] gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly."
2007: "‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has worked well... We’re in the middle of a conflict. Now is not the time for a change in that regard, and I don’t have a policy posture as to allowing gays in the military to serve there openly."
Mitt Romney on Health Care:
2007: “I’m proud of what we’ve done... If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.”
2011: "What works in one state may not be the answer for another."
Mitt Romney on Immigration:
2006: "[I am against] rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country."
2008: "I disagree fundamentally that the 12 million people who come here illegally should be allowed to stay here permanently. I think that is a form of amnesty and that it's not appropriate."
Mitt Romney on Campaign Finance Reform:
1994: "I would like to have campaign spending limits."
2007: "The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations."
Platform 2012?
Abortion: pro-life
Capital punishment: against
Censorship: against the Fairness Doctrine
Child protection: "would propose a "One-Strike, You're Ours" law for child sex offenders convicted of using the Internet to prey on children."
Education: supports No Child Left Behind
Abstinence education: supports this in public schools
Prayer in schools: He was against this in 1994, but in 2007 said, "We ought to allow ceremonies, graduation ceremonies and public events that we have the ability to recognize the Creator."
Gas crisis: Wishes to become independent of foreign oil by using alternative fuels as well as domestic reserves of petroleum.
Environment\Global warming: Pro-environment; regulation of greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary measures.
Family life: Mitt Romney has said, "That strong families are one of his three pillars, along with military and economy, for a strong America."
Gun control: Romney has "flip-flopped" on this issue, once stating that he supported, "the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution." and at another date saying he supported gun control and a ban on assault weapons.
Health Care: supports the right of states to form their own health care plans for their respective state citizens.
Same-Sex Marriage/Civil Unions: Romney has avidly supported same-sex marriage in the past, saying, "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern." However, in his 2008 campaign, Romney stated that, "I oppose same-sex marriage and I also oppose civil unions."
Medical Marijuana: Stated, "I am not in favor of legalizing medical marijuana."
Stem Cell Research: Believes it is ethical, but opposes research involving cloned embryos and opposes federal funding for it.
Free Trade: Supports
Minimum Wage: Supports predictable, steady "changes" in the minimum wage. Up or down... Who knows?
Taxation: Has pledged to not produce any new taxes or increase any existing taxes; advocated for the elimination of the estate tax.
Immigration: Supports legal immigration and decreased illegal immigration. Opposes amnesty for illegal aliens, but supports a path to citizenship for them, without any special treatment over legal immigrants, as well as the requirement to pay taxes and register with the government.
Iran: Believes the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran if the latter country threatens to use nuclear weapons is an option.
Iraq War: Romney has stated, "So long as there is a reasonable prospect of success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population." Is willing to withdraw from Iraq if the surge proves unsuccessful, which Romney believes is too early to tell.
Pakistan: Wishes to aid this country in military, informational, and governmental ways through the Special Partnership Force."
What... if anything does the previous information actually mean? You could corner Willard Mittington Romney in a closed room and sweat it out of him... but he might not know.
The upcoming decision and ruling to be handed down by the supreme court sometime this summer will determine whether or not you will be able to find and receive proper health care. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,if upheld as constitutional, will be administered by non-medically trained people. The underlying intent of the PPACA is uniquely political in its philosophic construction and has little to do with health care or medicine and has everything to do with further weakening the legislative and judicial branches while at the same time centralizing power and control in the executive branch of our government. Little Barry is setting up the presidency as a totalitarian rulership, and with NDRP IN FORCE it can not get better it can only get worse.
"CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER HAS READ THE ENTIRE BILL
A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed healthcare bill. Read his conclusions and pass this on as you wish.
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide...
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control. I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights...
Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.
If I was a member of Congress, I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable. For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us."
by Michael Connelly Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor, Carrollton, Texas
I never really gave a thought about the term birth control until quite recently. But while listening to some of the discussion and debates on the issue that has become the recent diversion from what is really wrong, it occurred to me that "birth control" sounds ominous. When I hear the term mentioned it brings up horrible images of government control over who may have children.
The issue is really not about contraception, or abortion, or religious freedom. It is only about the individual's right to exercise the right of choice. This right is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution and no government has any right to claim authority in the matter. This current person occupying the Presidency has done more to erode liberties than any other since Franklin Delano Roosevelt when he gave us all up to the Federal Reserve and the international banks behind it.
The Truth behind popular American History is easily uncovered. A fair researcher with the tools available to him at any public library and that has read this, will easily find all the true data required to form their own opinions about what is really going on and what is really at stake. I think most Americans do not realize that they are an election away from losing most of their liberties and rights. After all, they already lost their homes, savings, and the earnings of their grandchildren to the same people that want freedoms and rights for themselves and no one else.
Is there nothing that can be done? Will America cease to be a free and sovereign nation? Will it become just another part of another banker-backed corporate State like the ones in the European Union? The Bilderberg Group has stated our country will be a part of the North American Union and the new currency has already been printed and is called the Amero. Nothing really will change except there will be no more Constitution, in its place will be a set of rules and permissions that will define what a citizen is and what he can do. You will no longer be a free individual. You will be a number, like the ones on any of the cards you carry in your wallet, or the one they use to tax you and follow all of your banking transactions. But under the new system, you do not earn a wage or salary with a chance of making more by working harder or longer hours. You will be given what "they" feel is enough to live on and no more.
Perhaps, you will get a day off when you turn in one of your fellow workers for talking about something that the government doesn't like or has made a crime. Won't that be fun?
This upcoming election is your opportunity to make the choice to elect Dr. Ron Paul as your 45th President of the United States of America and after his election all that has happened in the past will be a bad dream. Dr. Paul has plans that have been presented to the public. Of course, you will have to also elect a House and Senate that will uphold their oaths of office to defend the U.S. Constitution, and will work with Dr. Paul to repair the damage that already has happened. Then it will up us in the future, to elect a President and Congress that will keep our country and its' citizens safe and insure our freedom!
The alternative isn't ominous, it's the end of liberty and freedom.
After months of speculation over how much effort Mitt Romney will put into participating in the Iowa caucus, the answer appears to lie elsewhere.
Romney is in New Hampshire; however, regardless of where Romney spends his time over the next few days, a steady and continuing increase in interest in the polices and ideas of Dr. Paul has sparked a reawakening of patriotism and pride in the nation's original concepts. State Senator Kent Sorenson, state campaign chairman for Ms. Bachmann, quit her efforts to join with the advocates for Dr. Paul when he announced his support for the Texas gentlemen at an evening rally. Dr. Ron Paul remains the only candidate to have followed the same convictions and principles through out his career.
To say Romney is "all in" in Iowa suggests a desperate attempt to sway the state. Likewise, Gingrich, whose campaign promises and concepts change depending on who he talks to, is now fading dramatically in the prediction markets and Yahoo's Signal, where he was never the front runner. The Real Clear Politics Involved seem to revolve around replenishing his war chest and worrying that a bad loss may be financially devastating.
Perry has shifted, once again, to an extreme position on abortion; he now states that abortion is not justified even in cases concerning rape, incest, or death of the pregnant mother. His campaign is directed at any psychological positions which might get traction in Iowa, where social engineering may sway conservatives who dominate the caucuses, but there's no question that his positions will change with his appeal outside Iowa to the general electorate, if he gets through Iowa.
Gambling is about demonstrating confidence in potential wins and losses. Romney is making an investment with a potential upside and huge potential cost. For Gingrich and Perry a poor showing in Iowa followed by a beating in New Hampshire would leave both limping and bleeding heading into South Carolina; they have serious costs if their bets do not succeed.
Dr. Paul does not believe in gambling with the Nation's Future. He is not concerned with upside, downside, showing, or potential. He is very concerned with actions based on concepts which will bring the Citizens of America back on to their feet in support of freedom, liberty, rights and prosperity for all.
