Did you know that Obamacare Is the Law of the Land? Well 42% of the population in the US today don’t! Only 53% of all legal voters voted in 2012. More proof that there were uniformed people voting for President (48%) in the United States of America in 2012. Well who are they? (Wikipedia and Census Bureau, 2013 Information):
My Savior and Lord Jesus Christ, how do You put up with this situation? Obviously You don’t. Yes, we know You are punishing this country! I pray You will have mercy on us and not let us destroy the US of A.A
- Almost all of those voting, in school, and under the age of 26.
- Almost all of those who voted illegally.
- Over 40% of Blacks.
- Over 40% of Hispanics.
- Less than 10% of the Muslims.
- More than 20% of Christians!
- Over 40% of the Sexually Deviant Voters.
- Over 50% of Those on Welfare.
When an old man died in the geriatric ward of a nursing home in an Australian country town, it was believed that he had nothing left of any value. Later, when the nurses were going through his meager possessions, they found this poem. Its quality and content so impressed the staff that copies were made and distributed to every nurse in the hospital.
One nurse took her copy to Melbourne. The old man's sole bequest to posterity has since appeared in the Christmas editions of magazines around the country and appearing in mags for Mental Health. A slide presentation has also been made based on his simple, but eloquent, poem.
And this old man, with nothing left to give to the world, is now the author of this "anonymous" poem winging across the Internet.
Cranky Old Man
What do you see nurses? . . .. . .What do you see?
What are you thinking .. . when you're looking at me?
A cranky old man, . . . . . .not very wise,
Uncertain of habit .. . . . . . . .. with faraway eyes?
Who dribbles his food .. . ... . . and makes no reply.
When you say in a loud voice . ."I do wish you'd try!"
Who seems not to notice . . .the things that you do.
And forever is losing . . . . . .. . . A sock or shoe?
Who, resisting or not . . . ... lets you do as you will,
With bathing and feeding . . . .The long day to fill?
Is that what you're thinking?. .Is that what you see?
Then open your eyes, nurse .you're not looking at me.
I'll tell you who I am . . . . .. As I sit here so still,
As I do at your bidding, .. . . . as I eat at your will.
I'm a small child of Ten . .with a father and mother,
Brothers and sisters .. . . .. . who love one another
A young boy of Sixteen . . . .. with wings on his feet
Dreaming that soon now . . .. . . a lover he'll meet.
A groom soon at Twenty . . . ..my heart gives a leap.
Remembering, the vows .. .. .that I promised to keep.
At Twenty-Five, now . . . . .I have young of my own.
Who need me to guide . . . And a secure happy home.
A man of Thirty . .. . . . . My young now grown fast,
Bound to each other . . .. With ties that should last.
At Forty, my young sons .. .have grown and are gone,
But my woman is beside me . . to see I don't mourn.
At Fifty, once more, .. ...Babies play 'round my knee,
Again, we know children . . . . My loved one and me.
Dark days are upon me . . . . My wife is now dead.
I look at the future ... . . . . I shudder with dread.
For my young are all rearing .. . . young of their own.
And I think of the years . . . And the love that I've known.
I'm now an old man . . . . . . .. and nature is cruel.
It's jest to make old age . . . . . . . look like a fool.
The body, it crumbles .. .. . grace and vigour, depart.
There is now a stone . . . where I once had a heart.
But inside this old carcass . A young man still dwells,
And now and again . . . . . my battered heart swells
I remember the joys . . . . .. . I remember the pain.
And I'm loving and living . . . . . . . life over again.
I think of the years, all too few . . .. gone too fast.
And accept the stark fact . . . that nothing can last.
So open your eyes, people .. . . . .. . . open and see.
Not a cranky old man.
Look closer . . . . see .. .. . .. .... . ME!!
Remember this poem when you next meet an older person who you might brush aside without looking at the young soul within. We will all, one day, be there, too!
The name of the author was Dave Griffith. The best and most beautiful things of this world can't be seen or touched. They must be felt by the heart!
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
“An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.”
"The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..."
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
"A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering… And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."
My article on the Supreme Court ruling below upholds these principles. We now have an unlimited government with unlimited power to tax. Thank you Supreme Court. Thank you Progressives. Thanks to all who have compromised or abandoned principles. Our Constitutional Republic appears doomed unless the people change themselves, awaken, and demand principled and virtuous candidates.
Regular visitors here may have noted my "absence" for the past couple of days. A number of us traveled to Raleigh early Thursday morning to be at the Legislature when the Supreme Court announced its decision on Obamacare. We all had our individual expectations of what might be announced, and mine were certainly limited in optimism.
But none of us were prepared for what we heard. We were completely "blown away". I came home in a deep depression, and until this morning, I simply could not bring myself to do anything except listen to the media pundits and "experts", read the articles and blogs, and listen to talk radio.... searching, hoping, yearning for some "silver lining", some "ray of hope" that I had missed.
Oh, people have tried to find such. And for a brief moment yesterday I was tempted to accept some of those propositions. But their propositions are all false arguments. They are based only on political rationalizations, on speculation of ulterior strategies on the part of Justice Roberts, and on specious interpretations of Supreme Court interpretations which are, themselves, un-Constitutional. And now I'm angry. More angry than I've ever been in my entire life. All of our institutions have now failed.
In short all of the arguments made to defend the decision, to defend Justice Robert's statements in the ruling, to paint silver on the seamy twisted logic -- all of it is based on a lack of principle. And unprincipled behavior is poison to governance and to our rights and liberties. Let me explain.
1. A Tax? The Court was completely unprincipled here. To begin with, this was the first question addressed by the Court during the hearings and oral arguments. Because the Government was arguing that the individual mandate was not a tax, the Court even hired an independent outside attorney to make the oral argument that the penalty associated with the individual mandate was, indeed, a tax permitted to Congress under the Constitution. Why would the Court do this? Answer: They had to do this. You see there is a 19th century law which applies: The Anti-Injunction Act. That law states that a federal tax cannot be challenged in court until it has been collected. Since this part of ObamaCare will not be implemented until 2014, no penalty/tax has been "collected". Therefore, if the fines associated with the individual mandate were adjudicated as a tax, the Supreme Court would have no option, under rule of law, but to throw the case out until 2014. But everyone wanted the case adjudicated now, not in 2014; therefore, the Court accepted the Government's argument that the fines were not a tax.
So, by ultimately ruling that the fines are a tax, Justice Roberts and the Court violated federal law themselves. How can we place any faith on a Court which will willingly and knowingly violate law? We cannot. This behavior was completely unprincipled.
2. What kind of tax? Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants to Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises....". However, neither the Framers nor the Nation nor the Courts ever held this power to be unlimited. Indeed, it required an amendment to the Constitution -- the Sixteenth Amenment -- to authorize Congress to levy personal income taxes for the first time back in 1913.
By allowing the Government to now levy a tax on inactivity, the Court essentially removed all Constitutional limits on taxation. The Government may now levy any kind of tax for any reason on anyone for any activity or inactivity. This Court has expanded the powers of Congress to infinity, limited only by the political process. This renders the Constitution essentially meaningless and useless as a constraint on government power. Congress already thought they had loopholes for unlimited power through the Commerce Clause and through the tortured and twisted "interpretations" of the "welfare clause" -- now they have yet another route to infinite unlimited power fully granted and blessed by the Supreme Court. How can such a Court claim to be "protecting and preserving the Constitution of the United States"? It cannot.
3. Speaking of interpretations.... There is nothing in Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution which grants the Supreme Court any powers to "interpret" or "re-interpret" the Constitution. Nothing. This is a Progressive Lie which has been accepted by too many ignorant, unthinking people and by too many of the sitting justices on the Court. The Constitution is not a "living" "liquid" document which can be "re-interpreted" to "fit" "new ideas and problems". This Progressive technique is exactly why Obama scolded George Stephanopoulos for using a dictionary during that 2009 interview
where Obama insisted this was "not a tax". Progressives and socialists do not like dictionaries. Dictionaries state the meaning of words. Words must mean something; meanings are important. But meanings get in the way of Progressives. Progressives constantly come up with new meanings of their own for words in order to hide and conceal their real intent and purpose. So, Obama hates the dictionary and scolds George for even bringing it up.
Well, the Supreme Court and Justice Roberts engaged in the same behavior in rendering this terrible ruling. They not only "re-interpreted" the Constitutional language having to do with taxes, but they "re-interpreted" the language of the ObamaCare act as well. The Court twisted the words of both documents as well as the legal arguments brought before them to (by their own admission) find a way to rule the act "constitutional".
This, again, is unprincipled behavior. It is akin to the concept of "situational ethics". If the words of the Constitution and of acts of Congress can mean anything when convenient to "re-interpret" them, then those words actually mean nothing at all.
4. But Justice Roberts put a new limit on the Commerce Clause.... Really? Did he? Where is that limit? Firstly, the Court did not reverse Wikard vs. Filburn
. So, the Court left standing the perversion that the government can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. The Court did not roll back any of the regulatory powers that the federal government has imposed under the Commerce Clause within intra-state commerce. All this Court basically said was that the Commerce Clause did not apply in this instance. That did not change past precedents whatsoever, really. To argue that it did is a vapid stretch and really nothing more than the kind of "hopeful thinking" to which so many succumbed back in 2008.
The complete and utter perversion of the Commerce Clause in Section 8 remains in effect along with the un-Constitutional concept of court "precedents" which have accomplished that perversion. This again, is unprincipled behavior. And to argue that Justice Roberts "sneaked one over" on the liberal justices to somehow limit the now-unlimited scope of the simple little Commerce Clause is completely a "red herring". Besides, if he did attempt to "sneak one over" by joining with the liberals in upholding ObamaCare, simply to be able to write a majority opinion that somehow limited the perversion of the Commerce Clause, is such sneaky behavior worthy of a Supreme Court Justice? I would say it is, again, unprincipled behavior.
5. Justice Roberts cited former Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: “As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act.”
Must I say anything more about duplicitous "interpretations"? Justice Roberts went on to say: "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
Well, is it the "job" of the Supreme Court to re-write legislation? To uphold anything that Congress passes? To "protect the image" of the Court. No, no, and no! Those on the Court were granted lifetime tenure and shielded from political and legal liabilities in order to protect them. They need no further protection -- they certainly do not need to render convoluted rulings to assuage the ire of some in the other branches. And their job was designed to be a check and balance on the abuse of power by the other branches --- NOT to find a way to "interpret" the act or Constitution so as to rubber-stamp the will of an out of control Congress.
The job of the Supreme Court IS (was) to uphold their Oath -- to preserve, protect, and uphold the Constitution. Instead, this Court has done irreparable damage once more to the Constitution. The Framers intended the federal government to have the 18 enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8. The Framers intended a limited government. The Supreme Court has now granted the Congress and Administration at least three unlimited plenary ways to seize new powers. This is the opposite of what the Constitution was designed and intended to do. If the words of the Constitution can be so wildly "interpreted", then those words mean nothing. If the government now has unlimited powers, then the Constitution means nothing. The Progressive goal of making the Constitution irrelevant has finally been achieved with the help of this Court.
As Rush Limbaugh put it: "There are now no limits anywhere on the size, scope, the growth of government."
As Colorado's Attorney General, John Suthers, says: "Whatever limits remain on Congress's power will now be left to the political arena. If our liberty is dependent on the voters, history has proven that little stands in the way of further encroachments on individual and state rights."
As Senator Lindsey Graham responded to an reporter's question: "How do you hold the President accountable, Senator?"
Graham responded: "It's called an election."
The Court surrendered its role in checks and balances. The Court abdicated its responsibility to protect the people from government overreach. Now the self-appointed role of the Supreme Court is to find ways to uphold unconstitutional laws and regulations. This is unprincipled behavior.
But it is not only the three branches of government who have abandoned principles and failed. The media has failed in its role to be a check on the government and a purveyor of the truth and facts. Our schools have abandoned principles of education in favor of bureaucracy, employee benefits, political ideology, and indoctrination. Our culture is riddled with unprincipled and unscrupulous behaviors.
An unprincipled populace is ungovernable except by force. This is why our institutions and our Constitution have failed. Our populace is generally unprincipled, and their representatives and institutions merely reflect the people. John Adams said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
So, our unprincipled behavior creates a populace which can only be governed by force -- which is why we are quickly transforming into a totalitarian state -- a dictatorship.
We are close to dictatorship. We must now resort to the purely political arena to preserve any vestige of our once-great Constitutional Republic. We have one more chance this November to pull back from totalitarianism. Considering the ignorance, apathy, greed, and misguided ideologies among the electorate, that is a very slender thread upon which our nation dangles. If the electorate get it wrong this year, or if those we elect again betray us, we will become either serfs in a poverty-struck proletariat or revolutionaries in a desperate last-ditch bid for our freedom.
Equal Justice Under the Law -- Not "Social", "Envirornmental", "Economic" Justice!!!!
Americans for Prosperity sponsored a rally in Washington D.C. on March 27, 2012, to encourage the Supreme Court to do the right thing and rule ObamaCare Un-Constitutional. Moore TEA Citizens organized a bus to Washington to join the rally. This video is a compilation of snippets from the trip that give a flavor of our rally.
In Washington, we first joined up with Tea Party Patriots at the steps of the Supreme Court Building where after mixing with and confronting the opposition there, they quickly dispersed and went to their own rally point near the Capitol.
So, after a relatively brief celebratory rally at the Supreme Court, the patriots walked to the AFP rally site also near the Capitol building. We heard from a host of Senators and Representative who spoke against ObamaCare and for Liberty.
It was a long, hard day journey. From getting up at 2AM, departing on the bus at 4AM, rallying all day, and getting back to our cars at midnight, the trip was exhausting. But we patriots were pleased and happy. Two of our numbers suffered minor injury, but overall the day went very well indeed.
I'm proud to be a Tea Party patriot. I actually feel pity for the selfish, ignorant dullards we met there who tried to "defend" this monstrosity of an abomination. When asked questions, none I saw could offer a rational, intelligible response. All they could do was chant.
These are very troubled times. I often find myself becoming too frustrated, too passionate -- even angry.
Sometimes we become so focused on the troubles, on the barriers, on our opposition that we fail to keep our perspective. We forget what is right, we disregard what is beautiful, and we forget to count our many blessings.
The young gentleman below is amazing. He is by no means unique. I have seen and been introduced to amazing soldiers, for example, who overcome debilitating injuries and demonstrate equal determination, valor, and love of life.
People such as this are truly heroic. They set an example for all of us who have no excuse at all to let the perils and pitfalls of life discourage us. He has a message for us -- that we are all beautiful and capable. That we can prevail and make life a truly beautiful journey. That helping others is our highest calling.
What a shame if the Complete Lives System of the new national healthcare system had snuffed out this man's flame at the very beginning because of his perceived limited potential.
If you haven't noticed it yet, you soon will. The Obama Administration has launched a full-court press to sell the president's "signature" achievement, Obamacare, or the "Affordable Care Act", to the American public as well as to the 800,000 American physicians it directly impacts.
As one of those doctors, it was no surprise when an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association by lead author Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel attempted to convince American physicians that they will enjoy expanded autonomy and greater liberty under the new act.
Dr. Emanuel helped create the 2,700-page ObamaCare bill and has now been enlisted to sell it. As a bioethicist of considerable acclaim, Dr. Emanuel goes to great lengths to establish his case, maintaining that with new payment models promoted by the law, doctors will be in a position to free themselves from the fee-for-service system that he and others have worked to vilify in the physician-patient relationship. What he misses entirely is that it's the opaque economic arrangement caused by our third-party payment systems, not the honest exchange of payment for a service that is the root cause of the soaring costs in American health care today.
The law promotes a "new" model, the Accountable Care Organization (ACO), in which an entity that covers a specified number of Medicare patients is given a fixed pot of money. This is quite similar to the HMO capitation systems that caused tremendous backlash in the early 1990s. In both, if the doctors can provide care for less than what is in the pot over a defined period, they get to share the leftovers. If, however, the doctors overspend the pot, they are financially liable for the consequences. With sleight of hand and fanciful re-packaging, Dr. Emanuel attempts to convince physicians that this gallows for private practice somehow improves and enhances autonomy. Nice try, but doctors have been fooled once, which is quite enough.
Do you see the problem? It should be obvious to all physicians and the public. When you see your doctor, what do you want the caregiver to have foremost in mind: your medical needs or the doctor's income? Is this ethical? Hardly. But this is the reality of any payment model that ties physician income directly to the unstated decision to withhold expensive services. Either consciously or subliminally, the message is the same: The less you spend on patient care, the more you gain financially. This is the reality of the ACO model and the "new ethics" of government cost control in medicine, courtesy of the "Affordable Care Act". Shouldn't economic and professional decisions be transparent in medicine, where doctors and patients make joint decisions based upon available resources, not some underlying, unspoken financial advantage for the physician to offer the patient less?
ThisA dministration held up the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic and others as shining examples of the best medical systems in the country. They didn't tell you that when Dr. Charlie and Dr. Will Mayo opened the Mayo Clinic in 1889 and when Dr. George Crile and colleagues opened the Cleveland Clinic in 1921, they were not coerced by any government entity or law to provide honest medical care under the most ethical economic model that exists -- fee-for-service -- in which the doctors care for the patient and the patient pays the doctor.
Using the terms "autonomy" and "liberty" in the same paragraphs as descriptions of the "Affordable Care Act" and the ACO is disingenuous at a minimum and laughable when you know even a portion of what this law contains. ObamaCare endows the office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services with more power than any Cabinet officer in history to virtually control the American health care economy by 2014. Any argument asserting that autonomy and liberty are enshrined in the thousands of pages of regulations emanating from the Cabinet Secretary is risible.
What occurred with the Catholic Church and its associated organizations over contraception services last week is only a small preview of what is in store for the remainder of the United States. Attempts to frame this law as promoting enhanced physician autonomy and liberty is akin to rearranging the furniture in a prison: You can seat yourself on the loveseat or a chair, but you can't leave the premises.
The Mayos and Crile would not be amused. My sense is that the founders of our nation would spit on Dr. Emanuel's shoes -- or worse.
Dr. Richard A. Armstrong is the chief operating officer of Docs4PatientCare
If it is not repealed, the completely misnamed "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" -- ObamaCare -- will enslave the entire population of this nation. In so doing, it will change everything about this nation -- our form of government, our economic systems, our quality of life, and our very way of life.
Everyone but the most self-centered slackards or the most ideologically fanatical leftists understand this linkage. The populace understood this linkage when HillaryCare was pushed under President Clinton. The populace understands the dire consequences now, and ObamaCare has become more and more unpopular -- unwanted -- every month since it was passed using lies, bribes, and subterfuge by an insanely socialist Democrat-controlled Congress.
This abomination and national threat should be one of the foremost issues during the 2012 general elections. Unfortunately, if Romney wins the Republican nomination, it won't be, because of RomeyCare. Romney will not be able to address this issue, because the Democrats will use it back against him. If he tries to address the issue, the Democrats will bludgeon him to mush with it. He cannot say anything against ObamaCare without being made to look like a hypocritical pretender. Romney's campaign will devolve to the level of McCain's in 2008, where Romney is unable to mount any credible attack on his opponent, Romney will be reduced to a full-time defensive strategy. You cannot win an election by playing defense.
Santorum is finally making this critical connection in his campaign. And it does appear to be working. He must not allow the liberal media to keep dragging his conversation back to divisive social issues. The media and the left want to change the conversation to redirect attention from the Administration's horrible record and from the key important issues (ObamaCare, National Debt, Deficit Spending, Abusive Regulation, the Economy, and Jobs). The Democrats and the media want to use red-herring issues like contraception and racial charges to steer and control the conversation. Santorum needs to learn how to neutralize their ploys.
Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal wrote a great column on Thursday, March 8 about this. You should read it for yourself: Santorum and Freedom
Would you be surprised to learn that the ObamaCare Pre-Existing Condition Plan is costing twice as much as was predicted
by our crack Federal actuarial estimators back in 2010. So much for CBO accuracy...
Every thing about this legislation was lies, illegitimate, un-Constitutional, immoral, unethical, and dangerous.
I'm going to spend another day of my life in Washington, D.C. on March 27
to let our Supreme Court and Congressional representatives know how much I despise ObamaCare and to encourage the Supreme Court to stand up for the Constitution which they are sworn to protect and defend. Won't you come with us?
This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.