Wednesday, January 25, 2012

The fine line

I grew up during the assassination of JFK, the Viet Nam War. The sexual revolution, drugs etc. Personally I was a small town boy that did not get involved. I have never been drunk or high. Never felt the need to escape. Perhaps it is because my mother used to show me clippings in the paper of drunk drivers killing someone, people high on drugs murdering someone. These presentations made me think. They made me realize at a young age how my one mistake could change my life forever.

Here we are in the year 2012. One thing that always sticks with me is how important real truth is. I am reminded of a movie called "A time to Kill". In the trial a Psychologist gives his expert opinion on the mental condition of the defendant.

Later the prosecutors bring up a conviction on the Psychologists record to try and discredit his testimony. The charge that he had been convicted of was statutory rape. He had to admit that that was true.

But the real truth is that he had went to another state and married his wife who was 17 at the time. When they came back to their state he was charged. It didn't matter they were still married to this day. Perception is everything.

I personally believe in "come let us reason". Let us get the facts before us and determine real truth within the context of what happened.

This year we have the election that will define America. The last election was one of Rhetoric with no basis of actual ability or any successes. It was the epitome of farce and projected abilities with no record to prove it. Barrack Obama is the most unqualified and unaccomplished President in the History of the United States. The state of our Country is a prime example of his incapability and inexperience.

I have been told that just mere appearance of a candidate goes a long way. I used to laugh that off. But it is true. America was mad when Obama appealed to their emotions. They did not bother to look into the empty suit that he is.

There is an old saying that if you do not learn from history, it has a funny way of repeating itself. Back in 2008 the media convinced America that the only person that could beat Hillary Clinton who was the DNP leader at the time was John McCain. Well we all know how that turned out. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.....


Right now we have a less than a John McCain being shoved down our throats. Newt Gingrich uses the Rhetoric just as Barrack Obama does. He speaks all of the conservative buzz words which in turn makes many people believe he is something he is not... a conservative. I could show you one of his contracts with Freddie Mac to lobby for them. I could show you how he has long been for federal mandates and is for Obama care, cap and trade legislation. How he has favored many of the Socialist policies of our current President. But I am not going to.

I have done my research. You can do your own. Be responsible. I have had some friends who I have decided to cut out of my life for the very reason. They can not look at truth. Being honest is everything.Its' easy to be dishonest... just ask Barrack Obama and Newt Gingrich. They think you are stupid.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Gingrich's Lies in the Florida Debate and just who he is...Can you deal with it?

Newts lies in just the Florida Debate and other exposing of who he is.

Newt's lies:



1. He did no lobbying. We now have republicans on the record saying he indeed lobbied for Medicare part D.

2. He was paid as a "historian." Insulting he would think we would believe that one.

3. He lied about the manner in which he resigned as Speaker. Ron Paul was there to set the record straight. He resigned in disgrace.

4. He lied about having supported Barry Goldwater. In his own words we know that he supported Rockefeller against Goldwater.

5.GINGRICH: "When I was speaker, we had four consecutive balanced budgets." THE FACTS: Actually, two. The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001. Gingrich left Congress in 1999, so he only had a hand in surpluses for his last two years. The budget ran deficits for his first two years as speaker." - AP

Gingrich feigns outrage by this claim that He was a lobbyist, but the ruling from Political Fact says otherwise.
“Our ruling:
Romney said Newt Gingrich’s contract was with "the lobbyists at Freddie Mac." Gingrich provided strategic advice, a way of wielding political influence without having to register as a lobbyist. The primary point of contact on the contract was one of Freddie’s lobbyists.
We rate Romney’s statement True.”


http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jan/24/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-newt-gingrichs-contract-was-fredd/


Here is a copy of one of the actual Contract between Newt and Freddy Mac
http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2012/01/23/gingrich-contract-with-freddie-mac/

Newt calls FDR greatest President of the 20th Century 
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/13/gingrich-on-numerous-past-occasions-fdr-was-the-greatest-president-of-the-20th-century/

Newt longtime supporter of federal health care
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/05/13/newt-gingrich-long-time-supporter-of-health-insurance-mandates/

Information on Newts ethics violations:
http://news.yahoo.com/those-ethics-violations-whats-hide-100110076--abc-news.html

Newt is for Cap and Trade:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-05/fact-check-gingrich-climate-change/51661486/1

image
By Aaron Klein

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has recently offered seemingly contradictory views on “climate change,” claiming to oppose climate taxation while partnering with a group that promotes such legislation.


The former House speaker earlier this week called his partnering with Nancy Pelosi on an environmental mission a “mistake.” However, last year he not only defended the move but said he would have done it again.

In a Fox News interview with Bill OReilly earlier this week, Gringrich was asked about a 2008 commercial starring himself and Pelosi in which the duo urged “action” to address “climate change.”

“We do agree, our country must take action to address climate change,” says Gingrich in the commercial, sitting on a coach next to Pelosi.
“We need cleaner forms of energy and we need them fast,” Pelosi chimes in.
“If enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation we need,” continues Gingrich.
Speaking to O’Reilly, Gingrich called the 31-second spot the “one of the dumbest things I’ve done in recent years.”
“It was an effort in my part to say that conservatives are concerned about the environment…But the commercial is just a mistake,” he told O’Reilly.
However, in a video interview with Human Events magazine in May 2010, the former speaker not only defended his commercial with Pelosi, but he said he would do it again even after the 2009 e-mail hacking scandal raised serious questions about the science behind so-called global warming.
“If they offer the chance to, then sure,” Gingrich replied, when asked if he would film the commercial another time despite the climate science controversy.
“I would do a commercial with Al Gore,” he further stated.
Actually, the Pelosi commercial was for a Gore initiative. It promoted the Gore-founded website and project, We Can Solve It.org.
In the 2008 ad, Pelosi states alongside Gingrich, “Go to We Can Solve It dot org. Together we can do this.”
In both his Human Events and O’Reilly interviews, Gingrich stated he was against “climate change” legislation.
“I actively opposed cap and trade. I testified against it the same day Al Gore testified for it,” he told O’Reilly.
Speaking to Human Events, Gingrich stated, “I deeply oppose giant tax increases. I oppose centralized burocracy.”
However, Gore’s We Can Solve It project that Gingrich promoted hawked carbon taxation and other U.S. and global climate legislation.
The group’s mission statement read, “The goal is to build a movement that creates the political will to solve the climate crisis — in part through repowering America with 100 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources within 10 years.”
The list of actions from We Can Solve It’s website in 2008 included: “Signing the petition for a global treaty on climate change. Urging the press to ask about global warming. Asking lenders to consider climate impact when funding new coal plants.”
We Can Solve It changed it name to The Climate Reality Project, a group still directed by Gore.  The group states on its website it seeks to oppose “manmade climate change.”
Just like We Can Solve It, Gore’s Reality Project is partnered with Earth Day.org, which promotes climate change legislation. It boasts how it helped create the environment for the passage of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and many other environmental laws.
Just last month, the Reality Project hailed the Australian Senate’s passage a carbon tax for the country’s largest polluters.
Maggie L. Fox, President and CEO of The Climate Reality Project, issued the following statement when the tax was approved:
“With this legislation, Australia will reduce carbon pollution, produce more energy from renewable sources, and stand up to the reality of climate change. Today, Australia joined leading countries around the world that recognize climate change is real, humans are causing it and we must act now.”
Gingrich’s own writings and activism, meanwhile, evidence environmental activism.
At a 2007 debate with John Kerry, Gingrich dubbed himself a “green conservative,” saying Republicans shouldn’t argue that global warming is a myth but should offer market-based solutions to the problem.
Gingrich co-authored the 2008 book, “A Contract with the Earth,” in which he expressed his view of favoring reducing carbon in the atmosphere, developing new technologies, and creating incentives and rewards for “green” companies.
The theme of the book was that conservative views are compatible with environmentalism.
In a 2008 piece in Issues in Science and Technology Magazine, Gingrich called for “a new, bipartisan environmental movement” meant to “create pathways for every American, indeed every nation, to cooperate and collaborate on achievable solutions to restore, revitalize, and renew the Earth.”
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

I could go on forever with his atrocities against Conservatism.

Who is Newt:

04/02/1987 – He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine
10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.
03/—/1993 – He Voted for sending $1.6 Billion in foreign aid to Russia.
11/19/1993 – He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.
11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
08/27/1995 – He suggests that drug smuggling should carry a death sentence.
04/25/1996 – Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion)
04/10/1995 – He supported Federal taxdollars being spent on abortions.
06/01/1996 – He helped a Democrat switch parties in an attempt to defeat constitutionali st Ron Paul in the 1996 election.
09/25/1996 – Introduced H.R. 4170, demanded life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.
01/22/1997 – Congress gave him a record-setting $300,000 fine for ethical wrongdoing.
11/29/2006 – He said that free speech should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. Wants to stop terrorists from using the internet. Called for a “serious debate about the 1st Amendment.”
11/29/2006 – He called for a “Geneva Convention for terrorists” so it would be clear who the Constitution need not apply to.
02/15/2007 – He supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.
09/28/2008 – Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.
10/01/2008 – Says in an article that TARP was a “workout, not a bailout.”
12/08/2008 – He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.
03/31/2009 – Says we should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans.
07/30/2010 – Says that Iraq was just step one in defeating the “Axis of Evil”..
08/16/2010 – Opposes property rights of the mosque owner in NYC.
11/15/2010 – He defended Romneycare... now he attacks it
12/05/2010 – He said that a website owner should be considered an enemy combatant, hunted down and executed, for publishing leaked government memos.
01/30/2011 – He lobbied for ethanol subsidies.
01/30/2011 – He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans.
02/13/2011 – He criticized Obama for sending less U.S. taxdollars to Egypt.
02/15/2011 – His book said that he believes man-made climate-change and advocated creating “a new endowment for conservation and the environment.”
03/09/2011 – He blames his infidelity to multiple wives on his passion for the country.
03/15/2011 – Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.
03/19/2011 – He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now $7.2T unfunded liability)
03/23/2011 – He completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention in 16 days.
03/25/2011 – He plans to sign as many as 200 executive orders on his first day as president.
04/25/2011 – He’s a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies.
05/12/2011 – He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney, who's mandates Romney actually vetoed..and was vetoed back.
06/09/2011 – His own campaign staff resigned en masse.
07/15/2011 – His poorly managed campaign is over $1 Million in debt.
08/01/2011 – He hired a company to create fake Twitter to appear as if he had a following.
10/07/2011 – He said he’d ignore the Supreme Court if need be.e order and bypass the constitution and congress (as if they wouldn't go along anyway) then read the voting record and charge list.








There is no way Newt Gingrich is a Conservative or even a moderate. He is as I have shown for federal Health Care. He is also for Cap and Trade. He also was in agreement with Cash for Clunkers... It makes sense though...Newt is as big of a Clunker and Barrack Obama. Nuff Said.

Check out who his buddies were: http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=69

Friday, January 20, 2012

Nine basic differences between Obama Care and RomneyCare

Nine Basic Differences Between
RomneyCare & ObamaCare
by Matt Moody, Ph.D.  
Although the Massachusetts Healthcare Law is nicknamed "RomneyCare," to be fair to Mitt Romney, the law was not shaped entirely according to his recommendations.
For example, Governor Romney vetoed eight portions of RomneyCare to include an Employer Mandate, which were eventually all overridden by the a Democrat-dominant State Legislature. Also, from the day it was established in 2006, what has become of mandatory healthcare in Massachusetts is a function of what the present Governor and Legislature have made of it.
Nine Differences Between ObamaCare and RomneyCare
1) The bill called "ObamaCare" is 2700 pages long, and RomneyCare was only 70 pages in 2006. So there are 2,630 more pages of differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare.
2) RomneyCare was uniquely designed for Massachusetts, but ObamaCare is a one-size-fits-all mandate imposed upon all states, regardless of each state's needs and economic conditions.
3) ObamaCare expands the size and power of federal government beyond the "few and defined" powers delegated by the Constitution, thus diminishing State powers; in comparison, RomneyCare invokes "numerous and indefinite" powers to mandate that citizens be insured, thus preventing some from "gaming the system" — where free-riders were formerly getting government to pay for medical bills when they could afford to buy insurance in the first place.
4) One Trillion dollars is needed to fund ObamaCare — 500 Billion in higher taxes & 500 Billion borrowed from Medicare. In contrast, taxes were not increased to fund RomneyCare, nor were funds borrowed from Medicare.
5) RomneyCare was enacted only after Mitt Romney balanced the state budget; whereas, ObamaCare was enacted during a time when Barack Obama and a Democrat-dominant Congress didn't even try to balance a budget and didn't even propose a budget, but engaged in massive federal spending, unprecedented in the history of the United States.
6) RomneyCare is constitutional by virtue of the "numerous and indefinite" powers reserved to the States via the 10th Amendment to the Constitution; ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it overreaches the limited federal powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
7) In a June 2011 GOP Presidential Debate sponsored by CNN, Mitt Romney said that "if people don't like it in our state, they can change it." In contrast, Barack Obama has consistently resisted the repeal of his healthcare bill, even when the majority of Americans want to repeal ObamaCare.
8) Mitt Romney passed Massachusetts Healthcare with bipartisan input and support; in comparison, Barack Obama imposed ObamaCare upon Fifty States using a partisan approach that largely excluded input from Republican Senators and Congressmen — and continues to exclude input from "We the People."
9) While the majority of Americans don't want Obama-Care, the majority of citizens in Massachusetts support RomneyCare. According to a 2011 survey by Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe, 63% of Massachusetts residents support the 2006 health law, while 21% say they oppose it.
The Massachusetts Health Care Plan is in place because the citizens of Massachusetts wanted it in 2006, and still want it in 2011. Mitt Romney applied business solutions to make it happen without raising taxes. While a clear majority like the law, nevertheless, any citizen of Massachusetts who doesn't like RomneyCare has 49 other options to break free of the Massachusetts healthcare mandate.
Federalism
For the 21% of Massachusetts citizens who don't prefer RomneyCare, moving to another State to escape perceived government oppression only works when 49 other States have constitutional power to create their own unique "experiments" in governance. Thus, when a limited Federal Government steadily morphs into a dominating Central Government, constitutionally-defined Federalism slowly erodes. James Madison succinctly described the principle of Federalism with these words:
The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.
Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
The opposite of Federalism occurs when Americans have an overreaching central government that, in the words of Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, "seeks to plan and control virtually every aspect of our lives and our economy, from health care, to energy, to automobile manufacturing, to banking and insurance." When "We the People" look to central government to take care of every problem, the power and importance State governance is diminished — which is the opposite of Federalism.
Here's how Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis described Federalism:
It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system
that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose,
serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic
experiments without risk to the rest of the country.
In Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), Justice Brandeis wrote the opinion for a 6-2 majority; Brandeis ruled that there is no such thing as a "federal general common law" in cases involving diversity jurisdiction (interstate lawsuits). This Supreme Court decision overturned Swift v. Tyson (1842) — precedent law which had been in place for 96 years.
This landmark ruling meant that federal courts must apply the law of the State where the legal injury occurred. This High Court decision strengthened the sovereignty of States, and reversed a trend toward centralizing government power.
As established by the Founding Fathers through the United States Constitution, federal government was intended to be limited with "few and defined" powers. But in direct defiance of Original Intent, ever since the New Deal, federal government has gradually grown larger and larger, gaining more and more power — that's not Federalism, that's not what the Founding Fathers put in place.
Why RomneyCare Is Constitutional and ObamaCare is Unconstitutional
Some pundits write about Governor Romney's "magic act" — where Romney campaigns against an ObamaCare bill that is supposedly identical to the law in Massachusetts. PolitiFact.com reports that the two bills have strong similarities, but the biggest difference is being ignored! — the Constitutional Difference.
Mitt said in March 2010 interview, “People often compare Obama's plan to the Massachusetts plan. They’re as different as night and day.” Romney's right! Especially when one deems a Constitutional Bill as "day" and an Unconstitutional Bill as "night."
At the level of legislation, RomneyCare and ObamaCare could be identical to the "t," and still ObamaCare would be Unconstitutional because Article 1, Section 8 does not empower federal government to install a HealthCare Mandate for all 50 States; in contrast, the 10th Amendment does empower State governments to do virtually anything that a majority of State citizens want, and will vote for.
One reason why many Americans perceive RomneyCare to be a problem for Mitt Romney in the 2012 Presidential Election is because they may not understand the meaning of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, State Police Powers, and Federalism.
Sweeping aside second-hand spin from ideologues, name-callers, and haters, the question of Constitutionality for RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare is best answered by . . . surprise . . . the very words of the Constitution, augmented by other wise words from the Founding Fathers.
So, what is a mandate (noun), and what does it mean to mandate (verb)?
          Mandate (n.) from Latin mandatum "commission, order," and within the context of elections,           mandate is "implicit approval of a policy as conferred by voters to winners of an election."
          Mandate (v.) from Latin mandare "to order, commit to one's charge," from manus "hand"
          (as in manual) + dare "to give" — literally "to give into one's hand."
The word "mandate," shares the same etymological root as the words "command" and "mandatory." So a mandate is a required rule, regulation, or law that people must follow or face consequences — for if there were no consequences attached, a mandate would have no "teeth" to cause people to conform to a mandatory rule, regulation, or law.
All laws that carry consequences for failure to obey ARE "mandates." The United States is a nation of laws. American citizens are required to obey laws, and if they choose not to obey those laws, then Governments mandate (require) consequences — legal constraints that make those laws mandatory.
Mandates are mandatory commands via laws legislated by authority, and enforced by consequences.
Every State is swimming in mandates: States mandate that children and teenagers must attend school. States mandate that those who drive cars must purchase liability insurance. States mandate that people can't rob banks, steal cars, or commit murder without facing mandatory consequences.
WHY do States establish mandates?
Some Libertarians view most mandates as infringements upon Liberty. In most cases, a mandate will protect a higher Liberty in exchange for giving up a lower Liberty. For Example: Governments mandate speed limits along the roads we travel, and such speed limits increase our Liberty to travel safely. Governments mandate that you and I cannot steal from a neighbor, and such mandates increase our Liberty to own property and enjoy our property, and NOT have it stolen.
Mandates are NOT made to oppress the People, but to protect Higher Liberties. Further, every Mandate is established by the approval of the People, else that Mandate will ultimately be changed via Voting and Elections.
Why is it Constitutional for States to enact such broad mandates? To answer this question, we must examine the words of the Constitution and of our Founding Fathers.
James Madison, principle author of the Constitution, said this of Government Powers:
The powers delegated by the Constitution
to the federal government are few and defined.
Those which are to remain in the State governments
are numerous and indefinite.
The Constitution delegates to the federal government "few and defined" powers — also called enumerated powers — as set forth in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The federal government can legislate mandates, but can only do so constitutionally within the constraints of the "few and defined" powers that have been "delegated" by the Constitution.
In contrast to the federal governments limited powers, the Constitution of the United States has explicitly delegated "numerous and indefinite" powers to the States through the 10th Amendment. With State governments having numerous and indefinite powers beyond the federal government's enumerated powers, who then, will check State governments from abusing such broad powers?
ANSWER: We the People possess the power to check governments from abusing and usurping power.
For the People to "secure" inalienable rights of life, liberty & happiness, the Declaration of Independence affirms that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed."
It's the People who empower governments, and it's the people who change governments:
"That whenever any form of government is destructive of these ends [Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."
We the people possess the power to check abuses of government. Thomas Jefferson said:
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Why is RomneyCare Constitutional? By virtue of powers delegated by the Constitution, the 50 States have numerous and indefinite powers to legislate mandates to secure inalienable rights. And any time citizens of Massachusetts don't want RomneyCare, they can institute new Government to change it.
Articles claiming that RomneyCare is an "albatross around Mitt Romney's neck," focus on similarities between ObamaCare and RomneyCare at the level of legislation, and skip the Constitutional question. The faulty logic goes like this: If ObamaCare is bad, then RomneyCare is bad too — because they are essentially the same (in terms of the individual mandate and other legislative details).
As to sameness, please reread the Nine Differences listed previously, and then realize the bottom line: RomneyCare is Constitutional because States have "numerous and indefinite" powers; whereas, ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it overreaches the limited federal powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
Why the ObamaCare Mandate is Unconstitutional
ObamaCare is Unconstitutional because the 2,700 page bill is not just about Affordable Health Care for all Americans; instead, ObamaCare is an enormous usurpation of power that pushes far beyond the limited, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.
To justify ObamaCare, the federal government must find authority to do so in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution — wherein the federal government is delegated enumerated powers that are, as James Madison described, "few and defined" in contrast to State powers that are "numerous and indefinite."
In both the Virginia and Florida Lawsuits against Obama-Care, the federal government has tried to find justification for the Obama-Care Mandate in three clauses from Article 1 Section 8 — the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.
Here's why each of these clauses fail to justify the ObamaCare Mandate.
Commerce Clause
The Federal Government has tried to justify ObamaCare through the "Commerce Clause." Here's how the United States Constitution describes that power:
The Congress shall have Power — To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Here is why invoking the Commerce Clause fails: It is clear that "doing nothing" is NOT an act of commerce. Thus "doing nothing" cannot be regulated by the Federal Government via the Commerce Clause. In contrast, if the act of "doing nothing" on the part of some citizens, impacts Life, Liberty, and Happiness with a State, that State can legislate Mandates for the benefit of all State residents.
But the federal issue is not that easy: One Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich, raised a question of "undercutting" in regard to regulating Interstate Commerce. Hence the question arises: Will an American citizen's choice to NOT purchase a good or service (health insurance) have an effect upon Interstate Commerce that "undercuts" a broader regulatory scheme of Interstate Commerce?
But this question jumps the gun! The "act of non-commerce" that is alleged to undercut a broader regulatory scheme, is a commerce question originated/created by the ObamaCare Mandate, in the first place. This means, that the Federal Government is both attempting to originate/create a situation of commerce by law (mandating everyone to buy insurance), and then turning around and declaring: "we must now regulate the commerce we have originated/created."
In other words, the constitutional regulation of "Commerce . . . among the several States" is Commerce that the States originate/create; thereafter, the Federal Government has constitutional power to regulate that State-Initiated Commerce.
So even if "doing nothing" does have an effect upon the regulation of Interstate Commerce, this legal logic leap frogs over the prior question, a question that the Supreme Court has never ruled on: Does the Federal Government have the constitutional power in the first place, to require individual citizens to purchase a product or service — can the Fed force citizens to buy health insurance?
According to the Federal Judges who have ruled in the Virginia and Florida Lawsuits against Obama-Care, the answer is "no!" — the Commerce Clause does not justify the regulation of non-commerce among the States — acts of non-commerce originated/created by the ObamaCare Mandate in the first place.
Necessary & Proper Clause
The Federal Government has tried to justify Obama-Care through the Constitution's "Necessary and Proper Clause," which grants Congressional powers that are not necessarily enumerated powers but always directly buttress an enumerated power. In an 1819 Supreme Court decision, Justice John Marshall wrote that Congressional Authority via the Necessary and Proper Clause, while broad, "its authority is not unbridled." Thus Congress has only power to enact laws that are "within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." The Necessary and Proper Clause states:
The Congress shall have Power — To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution
in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Notice that Congress is empowered to make "necessary and proper" Laws specifically to carry "into Execution the foregoing Powers" — referring to the limited, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. In other words, mandating that a person must buy health insurance needs to be justified, in the first place, by the few and defined powers listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. So the Necessary and Proper Clause can only be invoked as one of the enumerated powers is also invoked. That is why Judge Henry Hudson ruled as he did in the Virginia Lawsuit against Obama-Care.
Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the Obama-Care mandate “is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.” (p. 24) "If a person's decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such a provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution." (p. 19)
General Welfare Clause
The Federal Government has tried to justify the Obama-Care mandate via the "General Welfare Clause," a clause that is embedded within Congressional Taxation Power. But to invoke the General Welfare Clause, the Government must first establish that the "penalty" for not buying Health Insurance — the very "penalty" spoken of in the 2700 pages behemoth called Obama-Care — is really a tax, and not a penalty.
While the Federal Government does have taxation power via Article 1 Section 8, here's the problem:
In the effort to pass ObamaCare through Congress, President Obama and the authors of Obama-Care played politics with words; trying to distance themselves from the perception of higher "taxes," the President, the Obama-Care authors, and Democrat Senators and Congressmen all called the monetary assessment for failure to purchase health insurance a penalty — and not a tax!
This is precisely why Judge Henry Hudson pointed to the historical record of "pre-enactment representations," where both the "Executive and Legislative branches" consistently called the "penalty" for failure to purchase healthcare insurance, a "penalty" and not a "tax." Thus, Federal Judge ruled that the General Welfare Clause has no force.
NEVERTHELESS, even if the penalty were deemed a tax, there is still a huge Constitutional problem this virtually impossible to overcome: All federal taxes, save income taxes, must be assessed proportionally according to State populations — this is called a "Capitation" Tax.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Mitt a flip flopper? Not so fast there...

Fact-Checkers Blast Bret Baier and Democrats – The Charge of Romney’s “Flip-Flopping” is Greatly Exaggerated

by Ben 

Last week Governor Romney was interviewed by Bret Baier of Fox News. In the interview, Baier said, “You have been on both sides of some issues. . . .There is video of you changing your position on a whole host of issues from climate change to immigration to abortion to gay rights to health care.” Romney replied “Well Bret, your list is just not accurate. So, one, we are going to have to be better informed about my views on issues and, two, it’s good to see the ads from the Democrats are being seen here at Fox.”

This testy exchange drew a lot of news coverage last week and so the “fact-checkers” at FactCheck.org, Politifact, and the Washington Post decided to do some research to find out who was right and who was wrong. For those who may not know, fact-checkers are organizations that are not affiliated with any political party or candidate. The goal of these fact-checkers is to provide the public with unbiased, independent research on claims being thrown around in the media.

Well, the fact-checkers did their analysis of this interview and, even though I generally like Bret Baier, there is no other way to describe it but as a huge embarrassment for Mr. Baier

The fact-checkers found that Romney has been very consistent on the topics Baier listed. Lets look at the topics mentioned by Baier one by one and see what the fact-checkers concluded.

1) Climate Change - After the Democrats ran an ad last month showing a supposed change in Romney’s position on the cause of global warming, the fact-checkers at the Washington Post concluded there was “No Flip Flop” saying:

The statements in question were made just months apart, and as far as we can tell, Romney’s policies on global warming did not change. A Romney spokesman said immediately following the speech in question that “Governor Romney’s view on climate change has not changed. He believes it’s occurring, and that human activity contributes to it, but he doesn’t know to what extent.”
We try not to play gotcha. Given that his spokeswoman immediately restated the position that Romney originally expressed, we are inclined to believe he did not change his position, especially since his book “No Apology” (page 227) also made clear that he believed that “human activity is a contributing factor.”
* he is also against cap and trade

2) Immigration – The people at FactCheck.org concluded that there was “No Flip Flop” in Romney’s position on immigration. Here is their analysis:
“The DNC ad claims that Romney flip-flopped on immigration, showing clips from the presidential debate on Oct. 18 in Las Vegas. The ad shows Romney saying, “I don’t think I’ve ever hired an illegal in my life,” followed by another clip from the same debate in which Romney says, “We hired a lawn company to mow our lawn, and they had illegal immigrants that were working there.” The ad omits the next sentence from Romney’s debate response, in which he says, “And when that was pointed out to us, we let them go.”
It was an embarrassment for Romney, but not a flip-flop.
As we wrote when the debate first aired, there is no evidence that Romney knowingly hired illegal immigrants.
3) Gay Rights – FactCheck.org also concluded “No Flip Flop.” Here is the analysis done by the folks at FactCheck:
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy since has been overturned. When Romney was asked about it in a Republican presidential debate on June 13, he said, “I believe that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ should have been kept in place until conflict was over.”
Are those comments in direct conflict with what Romney said his 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Club? Not really. He said in 1994 that he “ultimately” would like to see gays and lesbians “being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.” And we see no evidence that he’s retreated from that carefully hedged position, much as his recent comments may have disappointed gay-rights advocates. Currently Romney is saying the timing was still not right to change the policy, while the nation was at war. That’s less forceful language than he used in his letter to the Log Cabin Club, but to qualify as a flip-flop he would have to say he no longer favors seeing gays serve openly at any time.
4) Health Care Reform – Did Romney want RomneyCare to be a “model for the nation?” – All three fact-check organizations looked into this claim and all three found that Romney has not flip-flopped in regard to this claim. The conclusion from Politifact is here, the FactCheck summary is here, and the Washington Post article is here. It is very clear to those who have taken the time to investigate this issue that Romney has never changed his position in regard to health care reform. For those in the press to continue repeating this falsehood shows a true lack of journalistic integrity. Romney has always spoken in favor of state-led initiatives where the each state is free to adopt whatever policies will work best for that particular state.

5) Abortion – Romney freely acknowledged all the way back in 2007 during his first presidential run that he changed his position with regard to the government’s role on abortion. As Romney said during the interview, many other leaders of the pro-life movement such as Ronald Reagan also changed their position on abortion during their careers. The story of Romney’s conversion to the pro-life movement can be read here.
As I have said before, the press (including Mr. Baier) has gotten lazy in regard to Romney. All too often they claim “flip-flop” when in fact there is none. No wonder Romney got testy during the interview and expressed afterwords that he was dissatisfied with the direction of the interview. I think Bret Baier owes Romney an apology for misstating Romney’s views. As the fact-checkers show, Bret Baier was clearly incorrect when he said Romney had changed his position on a “whole host of issues” from climate change to immigration to abortion to gay rights to health care.
Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday has an interview scheduled with Romney on Dec. 18. Let’s hope that Wallace does a better job than Baier of researching the facts before he starts asking questions.
Any comments on some of the misconceptions you have seen in the press? What do you think is the most common misconception people have about Romney

The Story

 

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Ronald Reagan was not for the Brady Gun Bill!!! Was He??

Before I begin, I want to say that I love Ronald Reagan. He was the best President by far of the 1900's. Probably the best until you go back to Thomas Jefferson. He was indeed that good for this country. A great man. People will try and say he was this big spender etc. However all you need to know is the Democrats owned 2/3rds of the vote. He could only veto, but he could be over ridden. Same thing Mitt Romney had to deal with as a Governor. As a Governor, Reagan had the same situation to deal with.

Yesterday there was a conversation with a well meaning man. Its odd how when we place someone such as Ronald Reagan as a standard bearer for something like a conservative movement how things get lost. Its like JFK. What did he really do? He chickened out of the Bay of Pigs. He moved us out of Turkey to appease the Russians, so they would remove the Missiles in Cuba. There was no great stance he took. They knew he was weak when they met prior in a World Summit. That is when Russia decided to advance to begin with. Yet somehow Kennedy was remembered as great, with no accomplishments to speak of.

Well the person was Anti-Romney and came out and stated Romney was for the Brady Gun Bill. Another person stated that Ronald Reagan was too. Well that got shot down, no Ronald Reagan was never for that. Oh yeah?


Why I am for the Brady Bill 
by Ronald Reagan (written in 1991)

"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.

It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.

I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.

Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.

Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981.
Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty.
Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.
This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981.
Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.

Here is the online URL Click Here.



My point is this. We place people on standards. Yet we do not closely and honestly look at the why people do and support things. Usually people have a good reason. Ronald Reagan gave you his reason and Mitt Romney would give you his too if you were so inclined to really want to know. President Reagan did not have a lobbyist twisting his arm to come to his conclusion. I am sure Mitt Romney does not either.