The strategy to repeal Obamacare by winning serial elections is not even a Hail Mary pass.
In considering the Republican retreat that ended the partial government shutdown, funded Obamacare, and unconditionally extended more credit on Uncle Sam’s tapped-out credit card, my friend Jonah Goldberg argues that we should be more understanding of Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell’s predicament. Politics, Jonah aptly observes, is the art of the possible, and McConnell had “no good options” when he led the GOP cave-in to all of President Obama’s demands — a decision that, McConnell insists, was not in any way influenced by the tidy $3 billion earmark thrown in for one of his pet Kentucky boondoggles.
I agree that we must be realistic about what was achievable in the Obamacare battle. What I don’t get, though, is why our sympathetic cast of mind must be from the GOP-establishment perspective alone. Aren’t we also obliged to be realistic about the options available to the Republicans who took seriously their campaign promises to do everything within their power — which includes their constitutional power of the purse — to stop Obamacare? Continue reading at: nationalreview.com.
By now most people have heard about all the problems with Healthcare.Gov, the website that people must use when enrolling in the Obamacare exchanges online. It’s been said that the Obama Regime spent around six hundred thirty four million taxpayer dollars for a computer system that should have cost only a fraction of that amount. I’ve heard that only one company bid on the job. But I guess the worst part is that it’s just not working. Is it fatally flawed? Well don’t quote me on this, but I may have accidentally stumbled upon the lead programmer of this albatross:
Disclaimer: The above is satire
Recently, a leader of a major tea party organization received the following email from a well meaning liberal. The point of his message was that in his opinion, our Constitution was a great work at the time it was written, but that it was outdated and irrelevant today. Below is the text of his email:
I have a question regarding the Tea Party’s emphasis on protecting the Constitution. The Constitution was a revolutionary work with novel new ideas that our founders invented. Most of the ideas were largely unseen in the world up until that time. Since then many countries have formed similar constitutions drawing from many of the democratic principles found in ours. But our Constitution is over two hundred years old. Society has changed incredibly since it was written. Our forefathers were smart, but even they couldn’t have seen this far into the future. Nor do I think they would have wanted the Constitution to remain forever in its original form, despite drastic changes in the world at large. Our forefathers supported changing the status quo. They would not have wanted to make themselves into superhumans, their word dictating our country indefinitely into the future. Don’t you think we ought to consider what is best for out society before considering what is most Constitutional?
Fortunately, there are still Patriots who know that our Constitution is brilliant and timeless and that it’s not a living document that should change with the current mood. The following counterpoint to the above email was penned by Orlando conservative activist, talk radio host and and tea party American, Jason W. Hoyt:
Admitting that our founder’s work was “revolutionary” with “novel new ideas” was an important admission on your part. You also reference, however, the fact that “society has changed” and that the document was written 200+ years ago. I get it, “society has changed”, we’ve progressed and there’s no way our founder’s could have foreseen such advances in technology and our constitution must change with the times, right?
Tell me what, exactly, needs to change:
- Should we still have freedom of speech, or should the government tell us what can be said and by whom?
- Should we still have freedom to worship as we see fit or should the government tell us when and where and if we may worship?
- Should we have the right to defend ourselves and especially protect ourselves against a tyrannical government or not?
- Should we still have the right to a trial or should we just let a few people in government determine our fate when accused of a crime?
- Should we still spread power amongst several branches of government with different responsibilities and have each branch check and balance the others or should we just have a simple centrally planned government where only a few determine what’s best for the many?
It’s very important that you answer each of those questions. Do you believe we are free or do you believe the government should take a larger role in our lives?
Plainly spoken: There is nothing outdated in the US Constitution. Yes, if the 2nd Amendment that guarantees us the right to bear arms began to list the type of weaponry we’re allowed to use and if it said muskets and 2-wheeled cannons pulled by horses, then yes, I’d admit the Constitution is outdated. If the Constitution told Congress they shall make no law limiting our right to free speech on parchment paper and only when standing on a stump in town square, then yes, I’d suggest we update the document.
The founders, in fact, were brilliant because they purposefully knew society would change. Free speech is free speech no matter where and in what form. Defending ourselves against tyranny is our right no matter the weaponry of the time.
The US Constitutions is timeless, my friend.
Moreover, the US Constitution is the document that protects these rights and many more. The Constitution is a document that tells the government what it can and can’t do. It’s not a document that lists our rights because our rights come from God, they are Naturally ours. No document should list our rights.
And THAT is the reason I would suggest that the US Constitution is THE most Progressive and advanced governing document ever written. In the history of the world, what is revolutionary about the US Constitution and our form of government is that we recognized for the first time that our rights come from God, they are naturally ours, and that We The People wish to rule ourselves in a representative constitutional Republic. We recognized in the Declaration of Independence that the proper role of government is “to secure these rights governments are instituted among men”. That’s it. We’re FREE. We have Liberty, and we formed a government that’s sole purpose is merely to secure our rights, not dictate to us what those rights are. Moreover, the Constitution was written to limit how the government can interact with the people while securing our rights. Do you understand how significant that is??
And lastly, I would suggest that any form of government or government program suggested by Progressives today or for the last 150+ years is not progressive at all. Progressives are in fact regressive as they wish to take a giant leap back in time and rule over people. They wish to go back to a medieval way of thinking with central planners that tell the people what they can and can’t do. They wish to plan our lives, tell us where to live, what to eat and they will steal and redistribute wealth to achieve their goals because the end justifies the means. They wish to set up rules and mandates and to guarantee equal outcomes for all the commoners. Our founders studied history, they’d seen all that before and they founded a country that was different, that was advanced and respected the individual like no other country had nor has since.
Amen! Here’s the link to Jason Hoyt’s Facebook page: www.Facebook.com/JasonWHoyt.
By: John Hayward | October 3rd, 2013 at 04:39 PM
Every true “independent” voter in the United States should be clamoring for the full and immediate repeal of ObamaCare after watching a few days of Barack Obama’s Shutdown Theater. Do you really think the man who vandalized the World War II Memorial with barricades to make elderly veterans suffer will hesitate a microsecond to use your health care as leverage against you, the next time you defy his commands? You’re not “independent” in any meaningful sense whatsoever if you’re comfortable with what’s going on here.
This was always a top goal of ObamaCare. Dependency is control. The Ruling Class does not fear people who rely upon it for food and medicine. Until now, the first nickel of every proposed “spending cut” – even using the ludicrous Washington definition of the term, which really means “reduction in the rate of spending growth” – has come from teachers, police, and firefighters. For the rest of history, if ObamaCare is allowed to stand, that first nickel will be coming out of health care. If Sequester Theater wasn’t enough to convince you this was coming, its big-budget Shutdown Theater sequel should have removed all doubt. Read more at redstate.com.
Think the Affordable Care Act is good for America? Think again.
Jackson & Coker
Survey: Physician Opinions of the American Medical Association (2011)
“Doctors and AMA split over Contentious Issue of Obamacare” by Sally Pipes (Sept. 2011)
The New York Times
“White Coast in the Rose Garden, as Obama Rallies Doctors on Health Overhaul” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg (Oct. 5, 2009)
Doctors For America
White House Rose Garden Ceremony – Press Release (Oct. 5, 2009)
Congressional Budget Office Report
Effects of the Affordable Care Act (March 2010)
Congressional Budget Office Report
Effects of the Affordable Care Act (May 2013)
House Energy & Commerce Committee Report (May 2013)
Survey of Small Business Owners (May 2013)
US Chamber of Commerce
Small Business Outlook Study (July 2013)
Supreme Court Decision on the Affordable Care Act
US Dept. of HHS
Federal Poverty Guidelines (2013)
House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
“IRS: Enforcing Obamacare’s New Rules and Taxes”
“IRS employee union: We don’t want Obamacare” by Joel Gehrke
Kaiser Family Foundation
ACA Subsidy Calculator
Office of Personnel and Management – Salaries (April 2013)
Pew Research Center
“Baby Boomers Retire” (Dec. 29, 2010)
American Association of Medical Colleges
“Physician Shortages to Worsen Without Increases In Residency Training” (2010)
American Association of Medical Colleges
“Recent Studies and Reports on Physician Shortages in the US” (Oct. 2012)
National Association of Community Health Centers
“Access Denied: A Look At America’s Medically Disenfranchised” (2007)
American Association of Medical Colleges
State Physician Workforce Data Book (2011)
Merritt Hawkins & Associates
Survey of Physician Appointment Wait Times (2009)
Wall Street Journal
“The Affordable Care Act’s Rate Setting Won’t Work” by Howard Dean. (July 28, 2013)
“Unpublished CRS Memo: Obama Administration Has Missed Half Of Obamacare’s Legally Imposed Implementation Deadlines” by Avik Roy
At a hearing at the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on June 28th, Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC) lists nine assertions made by Lois Lerner after invoking her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. That constitutes waiving those rights! He also cites U.S. Supreme Court case law to substantiate his claims. Photo at left refers to the May 22nd hearing where Ms. Lerner made her assertions on innocence and then refused to answer questions.
Our Grassroots activist friend, Anita Moncrief appears on this video. She was in Houston this week working with True the Vote, and had the chance to do a segment on NBC 13 regarding the Voting Rights Act and the SCOTUS decision.
Congress passed the Voting Rights Act during the height of the civil rights movement
Click the graphic to watch the video
The Supreme Court has struck down Arizona’s voter ID law in a victory for the Obama Regime and for voter fraud.
From Fox News:
The Supreme Court says states cannot require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.
The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration law.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which doesn’t require such documentation, trumps Arizona’s Proposition 200 passed in 2004. Arizona officials say their law is needed to stop non-Americans from voting in elections, while opponents see it as an attack on minorities, immigrants and the elderly.
Voter ID laws are not an attack on minorities and the only immigrants it hurts are those who are not citizens and therefore not allowed to vote.
The real problem is the Motor Voter Law that was passed under the Clinton Administration with the help of RINO’s who sold out. All Motor Voter did was make it easier for Democrats and other leftists to engage in voter fraud.
How problematic is this?
From the South Bend Tribune:
In a 7-2 vote, the court said the voter registration provision of the 2004 state law, known as Proposition 200, was trumped by a federal law, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.
The federal law requires prospective voters to provide one of several possible forms of identification, such as a driver’s license or a passport, but no proof of citizenship is needed. Would-be voters simply sign a statement saying they are citizens.
Have you ever wondered why the left was so eager to give illegal aliens driver’s licenses? The simple truth is that with a valid driver’s license, the odds of that illegal being able to register and vote are overwhelming.
Joseph Stalin once said, “It’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes.” As long as the left can stuff ballot boxes with votes from those who are not eligible to vote, we will continue to lose and the left will continue to destroy America.
Please see related post: Senator Ted Cruz Files Amendment to Immigration Reform Bill; Co-sponsored by Sen. Vitter
Contact: email@example.com / (202) 228-7561
Monday, June 17, 2013
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) today filed an amendment to S. 744, the Senate Immigration Reform Bill, to close a loophole in the federal “Motor Voter” law that preempts states from enforcing requirements that would ensure those registered to vote are U.S. citizens. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is a co-sponsor.
“The right to vote is a fundamental building block of our nation’s democratic process and it is crucial that we have the measures in place to uphold the integrity of our elections,” said Sen. Cruz. “This amendment ensures that states can enforce the commonsense requirement that those registered to vote must actually be U.S. citizens.”
The Cruz-Vitter amendment states: “Nothing in subsection (a) [42 U.S.C. §1973gg-4(a)] shall be construed to preempt any State law requiring evidence of citizenship in order to complete any requirement to register to vote in elections for Federal office.” This measure simply amends an existing federal statute; it does not require states to adopt certain voting requirements, respecting the interests of federalism.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. that the federal “Motor Voter” law (the National Voter Registration Act of 1993) preempted Arizona’s commonsense requirement that a person must present concrete evidence of citizenship before they are allowed to register to vote.
“Justice Alito said in his dissent, ‘I do not think that this is what Congress intended’ and I agree with him,” the Senator said. “The Court’s ruling leaves a hole in federal law that allows non-citizens to register by using the promulgated federal form without showing proof of citizenship. This encourages voter fraud and we must ensure that our elections are fair and accurately reflect the will of our citizens.”
Click here to see the amendment.
Please see related post: Outrage: Arizona Voter ID Law Struck Down
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. pledged Thursday to take concrete steps to address concerns that the Justice Department has overreached in its leak investigations and said officials would seek procedural and possibly legislative changes to protect journalists’ First Amendment rights. Holder’s commitment came at a private meeting with news executives after criticism that the Justice Department had infringed on the news media in several high-profile leak investigations. Participants said he told them officials would revise guidelines for issuing subpoenas to obtain reporters’ phone records. The 90-minute meeting was attended by a small group of journalists after several news organizations objected to the Justice Department’s insistence that it be held off the record. The participants, however, reached an agreement with the Justice Department under which they could describe what occurred during the meeting in general terms…
Eric Holder pledged to take “concrete steps” to address the actions of Eric Holder — up to and (possibly) including backing legislative action that would curtail Eric Holder’s ability to abuse Eric Holder’s power. What a guy. Direct quotes would be priceless here, but those weren’t allowed, of course. Instead, the DOJ very magnanimously permitted reporters to offer “general” accounts of what was discussed. There’s more at: Townhall.com.
This information was forwarded to me by fellow Florida Alliance member, Kimberly Kelley (Tampa Vote Fair). I had the pleasure of having lunch with Kim at the Florida Summit in Orlando earlier this month. Kim has been working tirelessly fighting election fraud throughout Florida and keeping supervisors of elections accountable. ADB
“Congress is to make the laws, and the executive branch carries them out, not the other way around.”
Everyone who takes an oath of office, whether it be for Congress, the judicial branch or the presidency, vows to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Because of this oath, the American people rightfully expect their public officials to do their job. In Congress, that includes passing a budget.
Members of the House of Representatives recently cast their votes for the No Budget, No Pay Act. Although I supported the concept behind the No Budget, No Pay bill, the 27th Amendment to our Constitution specifically says, “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect” until after an intervening election. The language is clear and unambiguous. All members take their own oath of fidelity to the Constitution, and I respect the view of my colleagues who disagree. However, the No Budget, No Pay Act does not meet constitutional standards. Therefore, my only choice was to vote no.