CNSNews.com - Rep. Burgess: Government Can Force Us to Buy General Motors Products If Obamacare Mandate Upheld in Court

Rep. Burgess: Government Can Force Us to Buy General Motors Products If Obamacare Mandate Upheld in Court
Monday, March 29, 2010
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) – Representative Michael Burgess (R-Texas) told CNSNews.com that if the mandate in the health care law requiring individuals to purchase health insurance or be penalized is upheld by the courts, the federal government could mandate anything, such as requiring all Americans to purchase a General Motors car.

On Capitol Hill, CNSNews.com asked Representative Burgess, “The Congressional Budget Office has said that never before in the history of the United States has the federal government mandated that any one buy a specific good or service and, of course, the bill includes the individual mandate. Is there a part of the Constitution that you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”

Representative Burgess, himself a doctor, said, “No, I personally do not, and I think that is exactly right. Never before in the history of this country have we had the ability to coerce American citizens to purchase something and then invoke the Commerce clause after we coerce that purchase.”

“It just flies in the face of what a free society should be, so I’m perfectly comfortable with the attorneys general bringing suit against this bill,” said Burgess. “I think it’s the appropriate thing to do. Plus, you also have the equal-protection business of some states being more equal than others and, really, it should be equals among equals, not some states getting special deals to buy off a vote to get the bill passed.”

CNSNews.com also asked Burgess, “If the federal government mandates that you have to purchase health insurance, is there any legal commodity that the federal government cannot require individuals to purchase?”

“That’s the next step and what else?” said Burgess. “Could the federal government require all of us to purchase a General Motors product? And the answer is yes.”

“If this mandate is ruled, upheld by the courts, it opens the door for all kinds of mischief by the federal government,” he said. “We’ll be better off not opening this door or closing it very, very quickly.”

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told CNSNews.com that he “applauds” the states that are stepping up and taking legal action against the federal government. So far, 13 attorneys general have sued the federal government over the individual mandate in the health care law.

“I think the mandate is unconstitutional so I applaud the states [that] are going to step up and spend some resources and take this to the courts because I believe it’s unconstitutional,” said Chaffetz. “You have something like 37 states that are filing some sort of lawsuit or another, so, including Utah, and I applaud that.”

Chaffetz was also asked if he thinks there is a limit to what Congress can mandate individuals to do.

“Yeah, I think never before have we seen the federal government mandate that you have to actually purchase,” he said. “You know, I understand they need to tax, but to actually purchase something? I think that steps over the line and I hope the states are victorious in their suits.”

Chaffetz continued: “That’s the worry, that if they can get away with this, the federal government can get away with who knows what? And that’s where there’s got to be limits and balance on this, and clearly the Constitution, I don’t think, you know, allows this to happen. So I hope this country makes the right decision. I really do.”

On the other hand, Democratic Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.) said it is “not likely” the individual mandate will be overturned.

“I’m not a lawyer,” he told CNSNews.com. “I’m told by some pretty smart lawyers that the chances of states overturning this are not likely. The federal law will be pre-eminent but that’s why they make courts. We’ll have an opportunity to find out.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the federal government has never before mandated that Americans buy any good or service. In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the CBO studied the plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.

The CBO stated: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Albany, N.Y.: Timesunion.com - Print Story

White men shun Democrats

By DAVID PAUL KUHN
First published: Saturday, March 27, 2010

Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they'll take the midterms elections in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994.

For more than three decades before the 2008 election, no Democratic president had won a majority of the electorate. In part, that was because of low support -- never more than 38 percent -- among white male voters. Things changed with Obama, who not only won a majority of all people voting, but also pulled in 41 percent of white male voters.

Polling suggests that the shift was not because of Obama but because of the financial meltdown that preceded the election. It was only after the economic collapse that Obama's white male support climbed above the 38 percent ceiling. It was also at that point that Obama first sustained a clear majority among all registered voters, according to the Gallup tracking poll.

It looked for a moment as though Democrats had finally reached the men of Bruce Springsteen's music, bringing them around to the progressive values Springsteen himself has long endorsed. But liberal analysts failed to understand that these new Democrats were still firmly rooted in American moderation.

Pollsters regularly ask voters whether they would rather see a Democrat or Republican win their district. By February, support for Democrats among white people (male and female) was three percentage points lower than in February 1994, the year of the last Republican landslide.

Today, among whites, only 35 percent of men and 43 percent of women say they will back Democrats in the fall election. Women's preferences have remained steady since July 2009. But white men's support for a Democratic Congress has fallen eight percentage points, according to Gallup.

White men have moved away from Obama as well. The same proportion of white women approve of him -- 46 percent, according to Gallup -- as voted for him in 2008. But only 38 percent of white men approve of the President, which means that millions of white men who voted for Obama have now lost faith in him.

The migration of white men from the Democratic Party was evident in the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. His opponent, a white woman, won 52 percent of white women. But white men favored Brown by a 60 percent to 38 percent margin, according to Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates polling.

It's no accident that the flight of white males from the Democratic Party has come as the government has assumed a bigger role, including in banking and health care. Among whites, 71 percent of men and 56 percent of women favor a smaller government with fewer services over a larger government with more services, according to ABC/Washington Post polling.

Obama's brand of liberalism is exactly the sort likely to drive such voters away. More like LBJ's than FDR's, Obama-style liberalism favors benefits over relief, a safety net over direct job programs, health care and environmental reform over financial reform and a stimulus package that has focused more on social service jobs -- health care work, teaching and the like -- than on the areas where a majority of job losses occurred: construction, manufacturing and related sectors.

This recession remains disproportionately a "he-cession." Men account for at least seven of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Nearly half of the casualties are white men, who held 46 percent of all jobs lost.

In 1994, liberals tried to explain their thinning ranks by casting aspersions on the white men who were fleeing, and the media took up the cry. The term "angry white male" or "angry white men" was mentioned 37 times in English-language news media contained in the Nexis database between 1980 and the 1994 election. In the following year, the phrases appear 2,306 times.

Tarnishing their opponents as merely "angry" was poor politics for the Democrats. Liberals know what it's like to have their views -- most recently on the war in Iraq or George W. Bush -- caricatured as merely irrational anger. Most voters vote their interests. And many white men by the 1980s had decided the Democrats were no longer interested in them.

Think about the average working man. He has already seen financial bailouts for the rich folks above him. Now he sees a health care bailout for the poor folks below him. Big government represents lots of costs and little gain.

Meanwhile, like many women, these men are simply trying to push ahead without being pushed under. Some once believed in Obama. Now they feel forgotten.

Government can only do so much. But recall the Depression. FDR's focus on the economy was single-minded and relentless. Hard times continued, but men never doubted that FDR was trying to do right by them. Democrats should think about why they aren't given that same benefit of the doubt today.

David Paul Kuhn is chief political correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of "The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma." He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

Newsmax - Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare

Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare
Friday, 26 Mar 2010 06:32 PM
Article Font Size

By: David A. Patten

President Barack Obama is one of the worst presidents ever in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on government, and the states suing the federal government over healthcare reform "have a pretty strong case" and are likely to prevail, according to author and judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella, Napolitano says the president's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.

"The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments," Napolitano says. "Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.

"That's called commandeering the legislature," he says. "That's the Congress taking away the discretion of the legislature with respect to regulation, and spending taxpayer dollars. That's prohibited in a couple of Supreme Court cases. So on that argument, the attorneys general have a pretty strong case and I think they will prevail.”

Napolitano, author of his just-released “Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History” and a Fox News senior judicial analyst, is the youngest Superior Court judge ever to attain lifetime tenure in the state of New Jersey. He served on the bench from 1987 to 1995.

Napolitano tells Newsmax that the longstanding precedent of state regulation of the healthcare industry makes the new federal regulations that much more problematic.

"The Supreme Court has ruled that in areas of human behavior that are not delegated to the Congress in the Constitution, and that have been traditionally regulated by the states, the Congress can't simply move in there," Napolitano says. "And the states for 230 years have had near exclusive regulation over the delivery of healthcare. The states license hospitals. The states license medications. The states license healthcare providers whether they're doctors, nurses, or pharmacists. The feds have had nothing to do with it.

"The Congress can't simply wake up one day and decide that it wants to regulate this. I predict that the Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of what the president just signed into law…"

The judge also says he would rate President Obama as one of the worst presidents in terms of obedience to constitutional limitations.

"I believe we have a one party system in this country, called the big-government party," Napolitano says. "There is a Republican branch that likes war and deficits and assaulting civil liberties. There is a Democratic branch that likes welfare and taxes and assaulting commercial liberties.

"President Obama obviously is squarely within the Democratic branch. The president who had the least fidelity to the Constitution was Abraham Lincoln, who waged war on half the country, even though there's obviously no authority for that, a war that killed nearly 700,000 people. President Obama is close to that end of lacking fidelity to the Constitution. He wants to outdo his hero FDR."

For those who oppose healthcare, the Fox legal expert says, the bad news is that many of the legal challenges to healthcare reform will have to wait until 2014, when the changes become fully operational.

Until then, there would be no legal case that individuals had been actually harmed by the law. Moreover, Napolitano says it takes an average of four years for a case to work its way through the various federal courts the final hearing that's expected to come before the Supreme Court.

"You're talking about 2018, which is eight years from now, before it is likely the Supreme Court will hear this," he says.

Other issues that Napolitano addressed during the wide-ranging interview:

* He believes American is in danger of becoming "a fascist country," which he defines as "private ownership, but government control." He adds, "The government doesn't have the money to own anything. But it has the force and the threat of violence to control just about anything it wants. That will rapidly expand under President Obama, unless and until the midterm elections give us a midterm correction – which everyone seems to think, and I'm in that group, is about to come our way.
* Napolitano believes the federal government lacks the legal authority to order citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. The Congress [is] ordering human beings to purchase something that they might not want, might not need, might not be able to afford, and might not want -- that's never happened in our history before," Napolitano says. "My gut tells me that too is unconstitutional, because the Congress doesn't have that kind of power under the Constitution."
* The sweetheart deals in the healthcare reform bill used that persuaded Democrats to vote for it – the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, Gatorade Exception and others – create "a very unique and tricky constitutional problem" for Democrats, because they treat citizens differently based on which state they live in, running afoul of the Constitution's equal protection clause according to Napolitano. "So these bennies or bribes, whatever you want, or horse trading as it used to be called, clearly violate equal protection by forcing people in the other states to pay the bills of the states that don't have to pay what the rest of us do," Napolitano says.
* Exempting union members from the so-called "Cadillac tax" on expensive health insurance policies, while imposing that tax on other citizens, is outright discrimination according to Napolitano. "The government cannot draw a bright line, with fidelity to the Constitution and the law, on the one side of which everybody pays, and the other side of which some people pay. It can't say, 'Here's a tax, but we're only going to apply it to nonunion people. Here's a tax, and we're only going to apply it to graduates of Ivy League institutions.' The Constitution does not permit that type of discrimination."
* Politicians from both parties routinely disregard the Constitutional limits imposed on them by the nation's founding document, Napolitano says. "The problem with the Constitution is not any structural problem," says Napolitano. "The problem with the constitution is that those who take an oath to uphold it don't take their oath seriously. For example, just a month ago in interviewing Congressman Jim Clyburn, who's the No. 3 ranking Democrat in the House, I said to him, Congressman Clyburn, can you tell me where in the Constitution the Congress is authorized to regulate healthcare? He said, 'Judge, most of what we do down here,' referring to Washington, 'is not authorized by the Constitution. Can you tell me where in the Constitution we're prohibited from regulating healthcare.' Napolitano says that reflects a misunderstanding of what the Constitution actually is. "He's turning the Constitution on its head, because Congress is not a general legislature," he says. "It was not created in order to right every wrong. It exists only to legislate in the 17 specific, discrete, unique areas where the Constitution has given it power. All other areas of human area are reserved for the states."
* Napolitano says that members of Congress infringe on Constitutional rights because they fail to recognize its basis. "They reject Jefferson's argument, in the Declaration of Independence, that our rights come from our Creator, therefore they're natural rights, therefore they can't be legislated away," Napolitano says. "They think they can legislate on any activity, regulate any behavior, tax any person or thing, as long as the politics will let them survive. They're wrong, and with this healthcare legislation, they may be proven wrong, in a very direct and in-your-face way."

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

American capitalism gone with a whimper - Pravda.Ru

American capitalism gone with a whimper
27.04.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina

© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.

FOXNews.com - 7 Sickening Questions About Obamacare

7 Sickening Questions About Obamacare

By Jon Kraushar

- FOXNews.com

What government program has ever reduced the deficit? Why are some in the White House and Congress exempt from this plan? And those questions are just for starters...

A new CBS News poll finds that “nearly two in three Americans want Republicans in Congress to continue to challenge parts of the health care reform bill.” At this point, there will only be minor technical changes in the bill even with the new House vote required for final passage. But the battle over public opinion goes on. Here are seven sickening questions about Obamacare that all Americans must consider:

1. What big government entitlement program has ever:

• Reduced the deficit?
• Only cost what it says it will and lowered the costs of goods and services?
• Improved quality?
• Enhanced efficiency?
• Decreased delays?
• Fostered more choice and competition?
• Featured competent bureaucracy?
• Operated with honest accounting?
• Avoided fraud, abuse, waste, maddening red tape, and higher taxes?

Why should we trust that Obamacare will do all that? Obamacare’s deceptive budget cooking was described in one instance by Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) as "a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of."

2. Why does Obamacare exempt some in Congress and the White House from having to buy the same health care plans that the law forces other Americans to purchase: President Obama, Vice President Biden, Cabinet members, top White House staff, congressional committee staff and leadership staff, such as those who work for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)?

Republican Senators Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Tom Coburn (Oklahoma) tried to close this loophole, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wouldn’t even let it come up for a vote. As Grassley says, “It’s only fair and logical that top administration officials, who fought so hard for passage of this overhaul of America’s health care system, experience it themselves. If it’s as good as promised, they’ll know it first-hand. If there are problems, they’ll be able to really understand them, as they should.”

3. How will we deal with a doctor shortage caused by Obamacare, particularly when doctors are being asked to treat 32 million more Americans now insured by the new law?

The Medicus Firm a medical recruitment company, found in a survey that 46 percent of physicians said they’d quit or retire if Obamacare became law. According to the survey, "even if a much smaller percentage such as ten, 15, or 20 percent are pushed out of practice over several years at a time when the field needs to expand by over 20 percent, this would be severely detrimental to the quality of the health care system."

4. How will patients—particularly senior citizens—feel when their doctors and even hospitals tell them, “Sorry, but we’re only taking on non-Medicare patients who pay privately, in full”?

The New York Times (which championed Obamacare) wrote last year that “Some doctors—often internists but also gastroenterologists, gynecologists, psychiatrists and other specialists—are no longer accepting Medicare, either because they have opted out of the insurance system or they are not accepting new patients with Medicare coverage. The doctors’ reasons: reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle.” Under ObamaCare, physicians’ Medicare fees are supposed to be cut 21 percent and hospital reimbursements for Medicare patients chopped by $1.3-billion. How long can doctors and hospitals sustain those losses before they’re forced to pull the plug on treating Medicare patients (although some exceptions may be made in dire emergencies)? Count on Congress to use budget tricks like temporary “fixes” to defer those cuts until at least after the November elections.

5. How can President Obama claim that insurance premiums will go down when the very same nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office he quotes, selectively, has said that Obamacare will cause the average family’s premiums to go up by as much as 13 percent by 2016?

6. Remember the “jobs saved or created” canard regarding Obama’s economic stimulus?

The president is repeating that fantasy by applying it to Obamacare. However, the nonpartisan Lewin Group estimates that as many as 600,000 people will lose their jobs due to the onerous new employer health care mandates in Obamacare.

7. Do you realize that Obamacare turns Medicare into what should really be called "Medi-pare"?

Obamacare slices $528-billion from Medicare, including $136-billion carved out of Medicare Advantage. As The Washington Examiner’s Susan Ferrechio has reported, “The Medicare Advantage cuts will force 4.8 million seniors off the popular plan by 2019. An additional $23 billion in cuts to Medicare will come from a panel charged with slashing Medicare spending.”

Those are just some of the gut-wrenching questions about Obamacare that cry out for answers. But as the expression goes, “It’s what you don’t know that really hurts you.” Obamacare is so full of dubious assumptions that in future years we may rename it Obama’s box, as in Pandora’s box.

Communications consultant Jon Kraushar is at www.jonkraushar.net.

Investors.com - 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

By David HogbergPosted 03/23/2010 08:28 PM ET

If some reports are to be believed, the Democrats will pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today. Thus, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the bill is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin's adage, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employees' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a "Bronze plan," which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d)(1)(A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you'd like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can't do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don't want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It's not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients' care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a "Medicare provider agreement" by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn't have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)).

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can't (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed "unreasonable" by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).


16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

O's ego booster shot - NYPOST.com

O's ego booster shot

By MICHAEL GOODWIN

Last Updated: 5:46 AM, March 24, 2010

Posted: 4:07 AM, March 24, 2010

Truth delayed is truth denied. Or at least truth was denied until yesterday, when the fig leaf of "health-care reform" was shredded. Finally exposed was the Holy Grail of the ruthless quest.

It was so our Narcissist-In-Chief could claim another notch on history's belt.

Don't think for a second the whole last year was about reducing the deficit or bending the cost curve. Nor was it ever really about helping Americans who need better medical care. A handful of those poor souls were there again yesterday, human props for his show.

As he smugly read the roster of predecessors who tried and failed, from T.R. to Bill and Hillary, there was no pretense of modesty. This was about him.

The imperial trappings of coronation -- of all things, a rock-star introduction of the president at a signing ceremony! The giddy celebration of self and party, the hailing of bureaucrats and congressional hacks as heroes and more odes to the Kennedy clan were as welcome as fingernails on a blackboard.

Yet it was also predictable. A presidency dedicated to the pursuit of glory is a presidency squandered on ceremony.

"You're the reason we're here," Vice President Joe Biden said obsequiously to his boss. Never has a phrase been more pregnant with double meaning.

Yes, Obama is the reason the Democrats were celebrating -- and the reason not a single Republican was with them. Not all Democrats were there, for at least opponents were bipartisan.

Obama is also the reason more than half the country could feel uninvited to the party in the people's house. They made clear every chance they had -- from elections to polls to demonstrations -- that they were voting no.

For their trouble, they were ignored and often demonized. Their government does not represent them.

It represents itself and its advocate acolytes. The party-in-a-hot house is what the Dems have become under Obama.

Their disconnect from the people who pay for their imperial courts is now complete. They acted like children at a birthday party, oblivious to the pain in a nation where perhaps 15 million are out of work.

Obama's the reason they are unbothered. He has reduced the jobless to a statistical annoyance.

A president is elected to lead, and Obama is leading America into a dead end. He could have gone for honest reform by agreeing to important changes that enjoy broad public support.

The chief aim should have been to arrest rising costs. The savings could have been used to expand coverage and ensure health care and the economy were on a stable course.

Instead, he opted for a misguided takeover of 17 percent of the nation's product on the backs of a rented slice of Congress. The new entitlement will create a gusher of red ink and there is a very good chance the world's finest health system will be diminished by longer waits, shoddy care and higher costs.

This is Obamaism. It is sold with claims so false they are odious.

Glib lies repeated daily are means to the end in which the state assumes more power, more money, more control. When he says "we," he means "we the party, we the government."

Sunday night, after the House acted, he crowed that "this is what change looks like."

Indeed it does, at least the change he brings. Washington is now a one-party town, determined to work its will on a nation increasingly united against it.

It is not the change Americans want.

If we are smart and brave, the good change, the change that will rescue the nation, comes in November. Oh, hurry.

CLONE THIS ONE BRAVE CITY POL

STOP! Thief! That's what Mayor Bloomberg is saying about ObamaCare's impact on the city.

The combined tax hikes in the Medicare portion on earned and unearned income will siphon over $5 billion a year from New Yorkers, starting in 2013, his office says. The plan for a 40 percent tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans would cost city taxpayers $1.5 billion more when all its sticky-fingers take effect in 2020.

That money would be picked from New Yorkers' pockets and shipped to Washington for the bureaucrats to dispense. Maybe their bridges to nowhere could be dedicated to the New Yorkers whose sweat paid for them.

The folly is that the city's congressional delegation put party ahead of its New York constituents and neighbors. It is not representation, it is misrepresentation.

Put the $6.5 billion a year in context: Total city tax revenues now run about $37 billion. The added federal bite would thus shift the equivalent of about 17 percent of annual city taxes to Washington. Every year.

It is unconscionable and ruinous drain of New York wealth for a ravenous national government that knows no limits. That is not an ideological argument.

As Bloomberg said, the money we ship to Washington is money that won't be spent here on food, doctors, clothing, apartments, cars. That means jobs won't be created here so ObamaCare can spread the wealth there.

Bloomy aides are still trying to decipher the impact of the final bill to add up the total hit, as are Albany bean counters. The vast expansion of Medicaid won't be cheap, with New Yorkers paying for it either through local taxes or federal ones.

All city reps are Dems, and the only one with the sense to vote no on the monstrosity was Mike McMahon (above) from Staten Island. Maybe some of our money could be used to clone him.

Cab-scam watchdog gets a flat

Each day brings more proof the Taxi and Limousine Commission is the gang that can't shoot straight -- or count.

Let's review the bidding. The cab-ocrats missed the overcharge scam for years, then announced riders had been ripped off by $8.3 million. They were specific in saying 35,558 hacks, out of 48,300, were part of the scam.

Now they're not sure of anything. Matthew Daus, outgoing TLC boss, told a City Council hearing that new data show some suspect drivers never received an improper dime even though meter receipts showed the wrong rate code.

"It could be accidental," he said.

Yes, and I can pitch for the Yankees. Here in the real world, all that's certain is the TLC can't be trusted to dig itself out of its own mess and guarantee riders they're not getting ripped off.

A thought from an insolent subject: Perhaps Lord Bloomberg could stir himself to get the truth.

Politics on the cheap & cheat

The Post's revelations about part-time council members and Albany porkers spending millions of public money to reward their friends and buy votes reveals the mindset of many legislators. They pay no attention to oversight, or even the details of the laws they vote on.

Their sole concern is how much money they can dole out. Of course, most of the big givers are tightwads when it comes to their own charitable giving. They're only big spenders when it's taxpayer dough.

One hot jokester

Maybe it was Nobel Prize envy when Bill Clinton dinged his former veep the other night. Bubba dead panned that spring is "other wise known to Al Gore as proof of global warming."

Don't Buy It - Reason Magazine

Don't Buy It
The crazy constitutional logic of the individual insurance mandate

Jacob Sullum | March 24, 2010

A few weeks before Congress passed a law that orders every American to buy health insurance, the Virginia legislature passed a law that says "no resident of this Commonwealth…shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage." Two weeks later, Idaho’s governor signed a law that declares "every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty."

Supporters of ObamaCare say such legislation, which more than 30 other states are considering, has no force, since the Constitution makes congressional enactments "the supreme law of the land." But that is true only when federal laws are authorized by the Constitution, and the individual health insurance mandate is not.

The mandate's defenders say Congress is exercising its power to "regulate commerce…among the several states." Yet a law that compels people to engage in an intrastate transaction plainly does not fit within the original understanding of the Commerce Clause, which was aimed at facilitating the interstate exchange of goods by removing internal trade barriers.

Even a Commerce Clause stretched by seven decades of deferential Supreme Court rulings is not wide enough to cover the failure to buy insurance, a noneconomic inactivity. The two cases that led to the Court's broadest readings of the Commerce Clause both involved production of a fungible commodity for which there was an interstate market regulated by Congress.

In the first case, decided in 1942, the Court ruled that a farmer could be penalized for exceeding federal crop limits aimed at controlling supply and boosting prices even though all of the extra wheat he grew was consumed on his farm. The Court reasoned that homegrown wheat "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce" by reducing the total amount of wheat sold.

In the second case, decided in 2005, the Court ruled that Congress could ban homegrown marijuana used for medical purposes authorized by state law. Although the marijuana, like the wheat, was never sold and never left the state, the Court said, its production undercut the federal government's attempt "to control the supply and demand of controlled substances in both lawful and unlawful drug markets."

Unlike growing wheat or marijuana, the decision not to buy medical insurance does not produce anything, let alone a commodity traded between states. Maybe so, say ObamaCare’s defenders, but that decision has an impact on the demand for insurance and on the health care market (one-sixth of the economy!), which the federal government is trying to control in the same way that it tries to control the marijuana trade (with similar prospects of success).

This sort of reasoning leaves nothing beyond the reach of Congress, since anything you do (or don't do) can be said to affect interstate commerce. In its 1995 decision overturning a federal ban on possessing guns near schools, the Supreme Court cautioned against the temptation "to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States." That kind of analysis, the Court warned, threatens to "obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local."

In a recent Heritage Foundation paper, Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett and two co-authors note that the decision upholding wheat quotas does not mean "Congress can require every American to buy boxes of Shredded Wheat cereal on the grounds that, by not buying wheat cereal, non-consumers were adversely affecting the regulated wheat market." Likewise, federal regulation of carmakers does not mean "Congress could constitutionally require every American to buy a new Chevy Impala every year."

Yet this is the logic of the health insurance mandate, an unprecedented attempt to punish people for the offense of living in the United States without buying something the federal government thinks they should have. Don't buy it.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Health Bill Primer - Overview

Health Bill Primer - Overview

Here is a breakdown of the new bill passed yesterday for healthcare.

This was prepared by our head analyst.

Senior Investment Strategist
Trust and Wealth Services

Subject: Health Bill Primer - Overview
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:43:15 -0500

There is plenty of noise around the passage of the Health Care Bill late yesterday. The Left makes it out as the biggest accomplishment since The New Deal was enacted by FDR. The Right thinks that yesterday marked the day when the USA turned into the USSA (United Socialist States of America). Like usual, the legislation probably falls somewhere well away from these two extremes. Like any bill, there are some winners and losers. The WSJ and ISI do a nice job of summarizing some of the key points, something I’ve tried to simplify below for client consumption:

Chronological Progression of Changes:

2010

* Subsidies begin for small businesses to provide coverage for employees.
* Insurance companies barred from denying coverage to children with pre-existing illness.
* Children can stay on policies of their parents until 26th birthday.

2011

* Long-term care program enacted. Pay premiums into the system for five years to be eligible for support payments when needed.
* Drug makers start to face annual fee of $2.5 billion (rises in subsequent years).

2013

* New Medicare taxes enacted for couples making more than $250k a year. Goes from 1.45% to 2.35%. New tax on income from dividends and interest for Medicare enacted (3.8%).
* Tax of 2.9% imposed on sale of medical devices.

2014

* Exchanges created for people without healthcare coverage and small businesses to shop for plans.
* Insurance companies barred from denying coverage to anyone for pre-existing conditions.
* Requirement begins for everyone to have health care coverage.
* Insurance industry must pay annual fee of $8 billion (rises in subsequent years).

2018

* Excise tax of 40% imposed on high value health care plans. Value of these starts at $27,500 for family coverage.


Interesting “Fallout”

* Indoor Tanning Services get a new 10% tax imposed (Sorry, Rosener!).
* Lifetime benefit caps will be banned.
* Limits amount you can put in tax-free flexible spending account at $2,500 a year by 2013.


Plenty of debate about who the winners and losers are in this bill. The bill is so long in its duration and has so many phase-ins that the final points won’t be tallied until the end of the decade. What we will have for a time in the health care sector is some uncertainty, and we know how stocks react to that. Here is a shot at scoring out this bill early on.

Winners:

* Drug Companies – Surprise! They are all up nicely today. They’ve been supporting the bill all the way through. Yes, they will be subject to a special tax, but everyone will be insured and have coverage for prescription drugs. Biotechs are also a winner as generic competition remains barred from duplicating biotech drugs maintain 12 years of patent protection. Don’t shed a tear for generics, though, they will still do well with a new group of cost conscious insured customers.
* Distributors/Disposable Medical Products – Becton a perfect example here. More people seeking health benefits means more syringes, gauze, microscopes, etc. and they are taking none of the heat with industry specific taxes.


Mixed Bag:

* Medicaid HMOs – Not all insurance companies will be losers. Depends on what type of insurance you offer. Many more new customers for those involved in Medicaid. Still questions as to what reimbursement rates will be and what types of profits will be allowed.
* Quality of Health Care – Patient load to increase for doctors and hospitals, but in a nice change: they’ll get paid for most services rendered. Of note, illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy policies on the exchange. Emergency care must still be extended to them, however. Reimbursement rates still likely to be under fire as desire for cost savings at the government level will be high.


Losers:

* Traditional HMOs - Could have been worse. Taxes on the industry are pushed off until 2014. Positives largely end there. Bill doesn’t address industry’s largest concern: spiraling health care costs. Not being able to deny coverage will also increase costs. Will be under massive political scrutiny and extensive regulation. Virtually will have profits capped.
* Upper Income Individuals/Investors – Medicare taxes go up for high income individuals. Previously untaxed areas of income from investments (dividends/interest) will be taxed. ISI calls this “a massive subsidy for low and middle income Americans” and the upper class will be the ones paying for it.


One final thought from the D.C. folks at ISI. They think the political fallout of this will be interesting. The bill was largely opposed by the public. With little measurable happening with the bill before the mid-term elections, those that voted for it may be placing themselves in a difficult place with their voters.

ATTORNEY GENERAL JOINS FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING HEALTH CARE MANDATE

PRESS RELEASE
Colorado Department of Law
Attorney General John W. Suthers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 22, 2010

CONTACT
Mike Saccone, Communications Director
303-866-5632

ATTORNEY GENERAL JOINS FEDERAL LAWSUIT
CHALLENGING HEALTH CARE MANDATE

DENVER — Colorado Attorney General John Suthers announced today he will join with nearly a dozen other state attorneys general to challenge the constitutionality of the individual health care mandate in the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“The United State Constitution enshrines a form of limited government to protect the rights of the states under a system of federalism and to protect the individual freedom of American citizens. The individual mandate to purchase insurance or suffer economic sanction violates constitutional principles and lacks constitutional authority,” Suthers said. “The Constitution gives Congress the enumerated powers to regulate those engaged in interstate commerce. It does not give the Congress the power to compel a citizen, who would otherwise choose to be inactive in the marketplace, to purchase a product or service and thereby become subject to congressional regulation. Such an expansion of the current understanding of the Commerce Clause would leave no private sphere of individual commercial decision making beyond the reach of the federal government. It would render the 10th Amendment meaningless.”

The lawsuit also will challenge the constitutionality of the penalties included in the legislation for individuals that decide to forgo purchasing health insurance. Although government can tax commercial activity, this law would constitute a tax on an individual’s commercial inactivity and not on the states’ populations or another concrete metric. Such a tax would not be apportioned between the states, as required under the Commerce Clause. The courts, too, have established that Congress cannot exercise its tax powers to “coerce’ individuals or businesses.

The Office of the Attorney General is vested with the inherent authority to act and enter lawsuits concerning the general welfare of the state, People of the State of Colorado, ex rel Salazar v. Davidson, 79 P. 3d 1221, 1231 (2003).

FEDERAL HEALTH CARE PLAN REMARKS
March 22, 2010

It is not part of my job as the Attorney General of Colorado to weigh in on whether the Patient Protection and Affordability Health Care Act passed by Congress yesterday is good public policy. It is however, part of my job to defend the rights of the State of Colorado and its citizens from the exercise of federal power in violation of the United States Constitution.
The U. S. Constitution gives the federal government only enumerated powers. All other powers are expressly left to the states and their people. One such enumerated power in the Constitution is the power to regulate interstate commerce. Under that enumerated power, anyone who voluntarily engages in commercial activity that affects interstate commerce is subject to regulation by Congress. So, for example, Congress may regulate people who choose to buy or sell insurance to the extent that impacts interstate commerce.
But in the health care legislation passed yesterday, Congress is attempting, for the first time in our history, to use the interstate commerce power to regulate citizens who choose not to engage in a commercial activity, by forcing them to buy insurance. Never before has Congress compelled Americans, under the threat of economic sanction, to purchase a particular product or service as a condition of living in this country. After careful analysis of the individual health care mandate and the arguments of various legal scholars, I have come to the conclusion that this expansion of federal power is unconstitutional and have made a decision to join several other state attorneys general in a lawsuit challenging the individual health care mandate.
Even the Congressional Budget Office understood the unprecedented implications of this legislation when it stated: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The federal government has never before required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
As desirable as it may be for all Americans to purchase health care insurance, the commerce clause, or any other provision of the Constitution, does not give Congress the authority to compel a citizen, who would otherwise choose to be inactive in the marketplace, to purchase a product or service that Congress deems beneficial. Such an expansion of the current understanding of the commerce clause would leave no private sphere of individual commercial decision making beyond the reach of the federal government. Congress could make any citizen buy any product or service it wanted, if buying it would be commercial activity subject to the interstate commerce clause. Such an expansion of federal power would render the 10th Amendment meaningless.
I understand that many citizens of Colorado will allege that this lawsuit is politically motivated. It is not. I am not reacting to any group or constituency. All I can do is assure all Coloradans that my decision is based on my belief that the individual health care mandate is an unprecedented expansion of the power of the federal government that could undermine the rights of the states and their citizens for generations to come.

When Debating a Liberal, Start With First Principles - Alexander's Essays - PatriotPost.US

When Debating a Liberal, Start With First Principles
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, March 11, 2010

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson

There are only two rules you need to know when debating a liberal.

Rule Number One: You must define the debate in terms of First Principles1, which is to say, you must be able to articulate those principles. (Read Essential Liberty2 for more.)

Conservatives subscribe to the fundamental doctrine of Essential Liberty3 as enumerated by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We understand that individual responsibility is the foundation of a free society. We advocate for the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary. We promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.

In short, conservatives endeavor to conserve Rule of Law as our guiding principle, and any legitimate policy debate must start there.

Liberals, on the other hand, subscribe to principles du jour; whatever solution feels best for the day's most popular, fashionable, or prominent cause célèbre.

In short, they believe that the feel-good solution (a.k.a. "rule of man") supersedes Rule of Law.

For the most part, today's liberals are a case study in hypocrisy, the antithesis of the once noble Democrat Party4, the party of Thomas Jefferson.

Liberals speak of unity, but they incessantly foment disunity, appealing to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into constituent dependencies. They speak of freedom of thought -- except when your thought doesn't comport with theirs. They assert First Amendment rights -- except when it comes to religion or speech that doesn't agree with theirs. They promote tolerance -- except while practicing intolerance and seeking to silence dissenters.

Liberals deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny. They protest for the preservation of natural order while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals while ardently supporting the killing of the most helpless and innocent among us -- the unborn, the infirm and the aged.

Liberals loathe individual responsibility and advocate statism. They eschew private initiative and enterprise while promoting all manner of government control and regulation.

Now, I'm not suggesting that everything liberals believe or support is wrong, but their underlying philosophical doctrine surely undermines our "unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as established by "the laws of nature and nature's God."

As Ronald Reagan observed, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Thus, don't be snookered into defending or denouncing the merits of any issue as framed in liberal terms. Such deliberations are rarely resolved and tend to end in gridlock, or worse, deadlock. (If congressional Republicans really want to end gridlock, they too need to control the debate in terms of First Principles.)

One means of taking control of a debate is to inquire whether an opponent has ever taken an oath to "support and defend5" our Constitution. (If you have not, or wish to reaffirm your oath, then we invite you to do so by registering with The Essential Liberty Project6.

If your opponent answers "yes," then inquire as to which constitution -- the one upon which our nation was founded, or the so-called "living constitution7" adulterated by generations of legislative and judicial diktat.

Of course, you must be prepared to explain the difference -- to explain that only one of these constitutions exists in written form, while the other is a mere fabrication. This can be best accomplished by presenting your copy of the Essential Liberty Guide8.

Another means of framing the debate is to ask your opponent to articulate the difference between constitutional Rule of Law and the rule of men. Again, you must be prepared to explain the difference.

You may also start by asking your opponent what "liberal" means. Most liberals will define "liberal" in terms of the issues they support, so ask your opponent if those issues comport with our Constitution.

Once you've framed the debate in terms of First Principles, give your liberal opponent a recess, and a copy of the Essential Liberty Guide8.

Principled liberals (admittedly an oxymoron) will remain satisfied that what they feel is equivalent to, or even supersedes, Rule of Law. These poor souls are on their way to becoming über liberals, or Leftists, and are probably beyond any logical redemption.

But if you use your Essential Liberty Guide as an education tool rather than a hammer, some liberals may actually start to come around, and this conversion should be your primary objective.

Further, if confronted by your opponent with a challenge to provide a constitutional defense for some Republican legislation, don't bite. Most Republican legislation, though it may be more in line with our Constitution, rarely comports with the plain language of Rule of Law. Don't let your opponent frame you as a hypocrite. Remember: You are, first and foremost, a constitutional conservative, not a tool of any political party.

Alas, selective interpretation of our Constitution has expanded its meaning beyond any semblance of its original intent, and it will take time and discipline to contract its meaning through due process to restore its original intent.

Finally...

Rule Number Two: You must distinguish between liberals and Leftists. The former subscribe to a plethora of contemporaneous solutions, while the latter are bona fide "useful idiots9," those Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas that terminate with the institution of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism masquerading as regulation and taxation.

When it comes to debating Leftists, the outcome is utterly dependent on who has superior firepower.
Links

1. http://patriotpost.us/about/more/#principles
2. http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009/09/03/essential-liberty-part-1
3. http://essentialliberty.us/
4. http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2008/10/24/the-once-noble-democratic-party
5. http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2008/11/14/our-sacred-honor-to-support-and-defend
6. http://essentialliberty.us/about/oath/
7. http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2005/09/16/a-living-constitution-for-a-dying-republic
8. http://patriotshop.us/product_info.php?cPath=85&products_id=124
9. http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2004/09/24/useful-idiots-on-the-left/

KUHNER: Impeach the president? - Washington Times

KUHNER: Impeach the president?

The 'Slaughter Solution' would violate the Constitution

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.

Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.

This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.

Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.

The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.

Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life - the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.

Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure's sweeping and radical aims - the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.

Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.

Numerous states - from Idaho to Virginia to Texas - have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come.

Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party's congressional majority and - most disturbing - our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country's stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.

The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.

It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.

It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from noon until 3 p.m.

Communist Goals (1963) - How Many Have Been Fulfilled? - The 9.12 Project Network

Communist Goals (1963)

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35

January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963



Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]


CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

It will probably be available at your nearest library that is a federal repository. Call them and ask them.

Your college library is probably a repository. This is an excellent source of government records.

Another source are your Congress Critters. They should be more than happy to help you in this matter.

Medicare: Largest Denier Of Health Care Claims | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Medicare: Largest Denier Of Health Care Claims

Posted October 6th, 2009 at 1:10pm in Health Care, Ongoing Priorities with 12 comments

According to AMA’s National Health Insurance Report Card, Medicare denies 6.85 percent of its claims, higher than any private insurer (Aetna was second, denying 6.80 percent of its claims), and more than double any private insurer’s average.

What’s fascinating is that The American Medical Association (AMA) has endorsed a public option, despite the fact that “some member physicians at the group’s annual meeting [in June] likened the notion to communism.”

The Obama administration repeats ad nauseum that we need a government option to “keep insurance companies honest” and to make sure they don’t deny anyone coverage. Well what does one say about the fact that Medicare denies more claims than private insurers?

President Obama has promised that if we like our health insurance we can keep it. But will those who are forced into the public option–which has been estimated to be minimum of tens of millions of currently insured Americans in addition to those “46 million” currently uninsured–be satisfied with their care given that the government program Medicare’s denial of claims outranks any private insurer’s?

AMA is effectively endorsing a public plan that is the largest denier of claims. How the public option would provide health care to patients is hard to understand.

Another excellent letter from Gary Hubbell in Aspen

In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man


Gary Hubbell,
There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.

Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.

The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.

He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.

Gary Hubbell is a writer, photographer, location scout for films and photo shoots, and a ranch real estate broker. He writes a monthly column for the Aspen Times Weekly. He can be reached at www.writerphotographer.biz.

A letter from the Aspen Times (that they have subsequently removed)

Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation

Gary Hubbell
Aspen Times Weekly

Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America's future. He is the best thing ever.

Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America's resurrection. Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have
previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and
looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace.

That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America.

Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored.

Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips — they've gotten off the fence. They've woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has
been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness.

Think of the crap we've slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion. Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and “disabilities.” Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts.

We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives.

But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest.

In the time of Barack Obama, Black Panther members stand outside polling places in black commando uniforms, slapping truncheons into their palms. ACORN — a taxpayer-supported organization — is given a role in taking the census, even after its members were caught on tape offering advice to set up child prostitution rings. A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and
the auto workers' union — whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense — is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval,
Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.

I don't know about you, but the other day I was at the courthouse doing some business, and I stepped into the court clerk's office and changed my voter affiliation from “Independent” to “Republican.” I am under no illusion that
the Republican party is perfect, but at least they're starting to awaken to the fact that we cannot sustain massive levels of debt; we cannot afford to hand out billions of dollars in corporate subsidies; we have to somehow trim our massive entitlement programs; we can no longer be the world's policeman and dole out billions in aid to countries whose citizens seek to harm us.

Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They're organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative
candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 years — the Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political
correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.

Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real estate broker. He can be reached through his website,aspenranchrealestate.com.

A letter from the Aspen Times (that they have subsequently removed)

Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation

Gary Hubbell
Aspen Times Weekly

Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America
in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America's
future. He is the best thing ever.

Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval
ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack
Obama as the source of America's resurrection. Barack Obama has
plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have
previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have
been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts
and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on
the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and
looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy
entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable
levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace.

That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America.

Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has
infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just
as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as
the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to
the point where it could no longer be ignored.

Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives,
earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite
charities, going to high school football games on Friday
night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting
trips — they've gotten off the fence. They've woken up.
There is a level of political activism in this country that we
haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has
been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the
American political and social consciousness.

Think of the crap we've slowly learned to tolerate over the
past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the
America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all
the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on
the basis of compassion. Welfare policies encouraged
irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of
generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate
the economy. Our children left school having been taught that
they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of
them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and
literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be
trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of
their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society
have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order
to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling
in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and
“disabilities.” Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested,
coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers
routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business
people with dubious torts.

We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our
heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives.

But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron
of dissatisfaction and unrest.

In the time of Barack Obama, Black Panther members stand
outside polling places in black commando uniforms, slapping
truncheons into their palms. ACORN — a taxpayer-supported
organization — is given a role in taking the census, even
after its members were caught on tape offering advice to
set up child prostitution rings. A former Communist is given a
paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the
president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and
the auto workers' union — whose contracts are completely
insupportable in any economic sense — is rewarded with a
stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street
investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their
executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public
support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given
free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval,
Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would
re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.

I don't know about you, but the other day I was at the
courthouse doing some business, and I stepped into the
court clerk's office and changed my voter affiliation from
“Independent” to “Republican.” I am under no illusion that
the Republican party is perfect, but at least they're
starting to awaken to the fact that we cannot sustain massive levels
of debt; we cannot afford to hand out billions of dollars in
corporate subsidies; we have to somehow trim our massive
entitlement programs; we can no longer be the world's
policeman and dole out billions in aid to countries whose
citizens seek to harm us.

Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They're
organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist
Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up
at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative
candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there
a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a
keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must
be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent
revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation
of the original document that has guided us for 220 years — the
Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political
correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete
repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years
from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time
when America got back on the right track. And for that, we
can thank Barack Hussein Obama.

Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and
fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real
estate broker. He can be reached through his
website,aspenranchrealestate.com.