Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
The Measles outbreak, blamed alternately on illegal immigrants or parents that refuse to administer vaccines, continues to spread. The WaPo has more…
Measles cases: Jan. 1 to Feb. 6, 2015. There are 121 cases reported in Washington, DC and 17 states (California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Texas, Washington, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware). (CDC)
The measles outbreak spread to three more states and Washington D.C. last week, affecting 19 additional people, according to an update posted Monday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The highly contagious disease is now in 18 jurisdictions, with 121 people affected. The vast majority of the cases are part of the large outbreak that began in Southern California Disney theme parks in late December, the health agency said.
The total is on pace to easily surpass the 644 cases in the United States in 2014, the greatest number since measles was declared eliminated in the United States in 2000. Last week, the CDC reported 102 cases in 14 states.
Kindly go read the rest. Given that illegal immigrants will never be officially blamed for anything, and the anti-vaccine crowd has been vilified for years, it’s easy to assume who will be targeted for blame.
Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
It always struck me as funny that when a court ruled for something liberal, like killing babies, or the First Amendment doesn’t mean what it says it means, it’s the gospel truth, etched in granite, and can never again be questioned. However, if a ruling goes against them, that’s a different story indeed. Then, it’s terrible, awful, and require laws to be passed to bypass the court. Or, they might just ignore it anyway. The latest example of this comes from the ObamaCare front, where the administration’s efforts to bypass states that did not set up exchanges (or did, and failed miserably) met an end at the hands of a Federal Appeals Court. The Blaze has more…
A federal appeals court delivered a serious setback to President Barack Obama’s health care law Tuesday, potentially derailing billions of dollars in subsidies for many low- and middle-income people who bought policies.
In a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a group of small business owners argued that the law authorizes subsidies only for people who buy insurance through markets established by the states – not by the federal government.
A divided court agreed, in a 2-1 decision that could mean premium increases for more than half the 8 million Americans who have purchased taxpayer-subsidized coverage under the law. The ruling affects consumers who bought coverage in the 36 states served by the federal insurance marketplace, or exchange.
The majority opinion concluded that the law, as written, “unambiguously” restricts subsides to consumers in exchanges established by a state. That would invalidate an Internal Revenue Service regulation that tried to sort out confusing wording in the law by concluding that Congress intended for consumers in all 50 states to have subsidized coverage.
So, they passed a law, so they could see what was inside it, and now, they are finding out what happens when they disregard their own law.
Your ads will be inserted here by
Easy Plugin for AdSense.
Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters this morning the administration will ignore the ruling.
‘This ruling does not have any practical impact on their ability to receive tax credits right now. Right now there are millions of Americans all across the country who are receiving tax credits from the federal government as a result of the Affordable Care Act. While this ruling is interesting to legal theorists it has no practical impact on their tax credits right not.”
Just remember kids, when democrats use fraud to win elections, it’s called “Democracy.” When, in spite of their cheating, they lose, it’s “NOT Democracy.” When they win in court, it’s final. When they lose in court, they say “f**k you.” Sometimes, I’d like to live my life that way, but I’m a grown up.
Our nation, as constitutionally formed, is The Republic of the United State of America. In theory, a republic is where the supreme power is vested in the citizens who elect people to represent them. Do you feel that we are living in a republic? Do our elected officials really represent their electorate? And, what about the words: United States? Are we, a constitutional union of states, where all power rest with the states except for the enumerated powers constitutionally assigned to the federal government? Our nation may have started out as The Republic of The United States of America but it has evolved into something quite different. Some of the changes came about through constitutional amendments and, thereby, the citizens of each state did have a voice in those changes. Most changes, in my opinion, have come about by either judicial fiat or by congress passing laws that no one asked for or by Executive Orders of a sitting president. The laws passed by congress have often created federal programs, which states must implement with partial or full funding from the federal government. When states accept those funds, the find they must comply with the strings, which are firmly attached. Those federal funds and the attached strings have given the federal government much power over the states that was never envisaged in our constitution.
The Washington Examiner had an eye popping article the other day. The article contains a great graphic of the United States color code in one case to show the federal funds received on a per capita basis and then it changes to show the rate of change in dependency of the states on federal spending. I must admit I had no idea of just how dependent the states have become on federal funding. The first sentence in the article blew me away:
Only 11 states depended on the federal government for more than one-third of their total revenues in 2001. By 2012, 24 states found themselves in this situation.
Seriously, I would not have guessed that any state depended on the federal government for one-third or more of their funding. Please take time to read this short article. You will learn for example, that Louisiana receives 44% of their budget from Washington and New Mexico 37% and Idaho 35%. The article also points out that state which have historical not taken so much funding from the federal government, like Massachusetts, are now jumping on to the gravy train with both feet. There is no reason to believe this trend won’t continue. So, your humble observer of the asylum we all have to live in is wondering if some day congress will propose an amendment to our constitution to do away with state governments and set up regional federal administrative centers and change the name of our nation to simply America. After all, shouldn’t a nation’s constitution reflect what really is?
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?
Apparently, the effort that began with just a few companies has grown considerably, the list of companies that refuse to sell arm to law enforcement in states that have restrictive gun laws has grown to 120. Weasel Zippers has more…
On February 22, “Right Views” reported that a growing number firearm companies have suspended the sale of guns to states, counties, cities and municipalities that restrict their citizens’ rights to own them.
In just two weeks, the number of companies participating in what has been named the “Firearms Equality Movement,” has more than tripled from 34 companies to 118.
The Police Loophole lists every company and links to the statements that each has released regarding their new policies.
Wilson Combat, a custom pistol manufacturer located in Berryville, Arkansas, joined the movement on February 28 stating the following:
“Wilson Combat will no longer provide any products or services to any State Government imposing legislation that infringes on the second amendment rights of its law abiding citizens. This includes any Law Enforcement Department, Law Enforcement Officers, or any State Government Entity or Employee of such an entity. This also applies to any local municipality imposing such infringements.”
Wilson lists the states included on its no sale policy as: California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Washington D.C. and The City of Chicago, Illinois.
The statement also reads:
“Wilson Combat will in NO way support the government of these states or their anti-gun agenda that only limits the rights of law-abiding citizens. Wilson Combat will continue to supply any product and/or service they can legally sell in these states to all non-government affiliated citizens.”
It seems that more and m0re arms companies are “going Galt,” so to speak. If you go to the Police Loophole site, you can get the complete list of participating companies. While I would like to see the list grow to all arms manufacturers, I have to recognize that some will put the almighty dollar above what is right, but hopefully, it makes the points to the gun grabbers, and makes it very hard to arm themselves against the people.
One of the things that made the rounds on my Facebook was a boastful poster saying that those states with the highest number of college-educated people all went for Obama. The implication is that these smart Blue State people, unlike the ill-educated yahoos in Red States, are the ones who have the brains and ability to understand how Obamanomics will serve America.
What the genius who created this poster missed the fact that these smart Blue States are, not coincidentally, almost all broke. Thus, of the list above, the following Blue States are amongst those states running the biggest budget shortfalls in America: Virginia, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Minnesota. In other words, 80% of the “best educated” states are in dire financial straights. You’d think that, with all those smart people, they’d be rolling in the green stuff.
It turns out that one of the biggest indicators of Blue state-ness isn’t smarts — it’s brokes. Here’s the list of the states Obama won, with the ones that have more than a 10% budget shortfall marked, appropriately enough, in red:*
California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Hawaii Illinois Iowa Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont Virginia Washington Wisconsin
It’s striking that, of the 26 states that gave their electoral votes to Obama, 84% are in debt. (The perpetually broke District of Columbia also gave its vote to Obama, raising to 85% the number of broke jurisdictions that went true blue.) You’d think that, with all those smart people floating around, they’d manage their money better. In a way, you could say that the Blue States are actually Red States, given their financial hemorrhaging.
By the way, given that we’re still in a recession, it’s true that many Red States are also in debt. Still, there’s no doubt that the Red States are managing their money better than the ones filled with all those educated Progressive geniuses:
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Georgia Idaho Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah West Virginia Wyoming
As you can see, only 41% of the “dumb” Red States are seriously in the red. They may not have the degrees, but they have sufficient smarts to control their budgets — which is the fundamental responsibility of all viable governments.
So, for all of the alleged knowledge and wisdom in the blue states, it seems that they have great difficulty balancing their checkbooks. Or, as Reagan said…
I would strongly recommend heading over to bookworm to read the remainder of the post there. It is well done and thought provoking.
When I first heard that Obamacare along with the individual mandate was found to be constitutional I was shocked. When I learned that one of our own, Justice John Roberts crossed over to the dark side in a 5-4 ruling I was appalled. The end of liberty was at hand. The great experiment had finally unraveled and the republic our founders gave us we could not keep. I couldn’t believe Justice Roberts ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional because he interpreted that the penalty imposed was actually a tax and within the constitutional authority of the congress to levy on the people. I needed to know how a conservative Justice who many consider to be an extremely brilliant man could veer so far off the conservative course. This is a man who is no friend of Obama. This is a man who has championed individual rights again and again in his rulings. It just wasn’t passing the smell test.
As I sat at my desk I was trying to sort this ruling out in my mind I had an epiphany. What is the greatest threat to our individual liberties? Is it Obamacare or is it President Obama winning a second term? In my opinion it’s Obama winning a second term. A second term of President Obama will turn the republic on its head and cause irreparable damage to America. Think about all the unconstitutional actions this man has done in the first term with the knowledge that he has to run for reelection. Think of the President’s total disregard for the rule of law in the last three years. He ignored the orders and was actually held in contempt by a federal judge when he failed to lift the moratorium on deep-sea drilling in February 2011. Let’s not forget his recess appointments during a pro forma session of congress this past January, his unwillingness to defend DOMA, his signing of NDAA authorizing the indefinite detainment of America citizens, his kill list, his amnesty for 800,000 illegal aliens, his unwillingness to enforce immigration laws, his EPA imposing cap and trade around the congress, his use of executive privilege to protect Eric Holder in the fast and furious scandal, and so on. He has shredded the constitution during his first term. What would he do with a second term? My guess is it will be much worse. Like he whispered in the ear of the Russian President…he will have more flexibility after the elections. What will he do with that flexibility? Well more than likely he will appoint two or three Supreme Court Justices during a second term and that is something that cannot happen. And the only way can make sure he doesn’t have an opportunity to appoint these Justices is to make sure he’s a one term President. Justice Roberts helped with that this past Thursday.
So how exactly did Roberts help the cause? Let me start off by saying the opinions I’m about to express are my opinions and I realize that many may disagree, but hear me out. As I was reading through Justice Roberts’s opinion of the court, very early I read the following. “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
Justice Roberts tells us from the get go, we get the government we deserve and if we don’t like the consequences of it then elect people who will repeal the actions of it. That’s all on us folks. We have a responsibility as citizens to change out the people who infringe upon our liberties.
Below are five reason why I think this ruling empowered the states, shackled the government, will not only bring an end to Obamacare, but will ensure Obama is a one term President.
President Obama promised not to raise taxes on the American people making under $250,000. Democratic leaders promised that the individual mandate was not a tax. Well because of Justice Roberts and the court’s decision that’s exactly what the individual mandate is…a tax. Congratulation President Obama, your lawyers made their case! It’s a tax. Not only is it a tax, it’s the largest tax in American history. And for those who are worried this opens up a whole new way for the government to control our behavior through a “penalty” well it’s nothing new. They’ve been doing it for years with “sin taxes” on tobacco and other undesirable products. The only difference now, the SCOTUS has clarified that anything congress attaches as a penalty to can be viewed as a tax and it’s much more difficult to push bills through congress as a tax increase than bills that hide behind the commerce clause. Additionally because the individual mandate has now been ruled a tax Republicans can use the budget reconciliation process to repeal the mandate with a simple majority.
Judge Roberts’s argument against using the commerce clause not only brought more clarity to it, he greatly reduced the ability of congress to use this line of reasoning again to force us to engage in any activity they may view as commerce. His opinion reflected the following: “People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures—joined with the similar failures of others—can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act.That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. James Madison explained that the Commerce Clause was “an addition which few oppose and from which no apprehensions are entertained.” The Federalist No. 45, at 293. While Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause has of course expanded with the growth of the national economy, our cases have “always recognized that the power to regulate commerce, though broad indeed, has limits.” Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196 (1968). The Government’s theory would erode those limits, permitting Congress to reach beyond the natural extent of its authority, “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” The Federalist No. 48, at 309 (J. Madison). Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do. Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government.” This line of reasoning in essence shackles congress and expands liberty.
Justice Roberts, Justice Kagan, and Justice Breyer all agreed that it was unconstitutional for thegovernment to deprive a state of all of its Medicaid funding for refusing to agree to the new expansion. Roberts wrote the following. “As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of the Affordable Care Act.” So as you can see the states now have a choice. This conclusion blazes the trail to limit the expansion of other federal programs imposed by the government on the states. This was clearly a win for the states and states’ rights.
Obamacare still remains a very unpopular law. In fact those who oppose it still hover over the 50 percentile mark. Mitt Romney raised more than $4 million within 24 hours of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare and we have Justice Roberts to thank for this. While the Kool-Aid drinking liberals celebrate the Tea Party movement is charging up. Once again average Americans are waking up and they are rallying around the battle cry to repeal Obamacare. I personally received 10 emails from Tea Party Patriots; welcome back to the summers of 2009 and 2010. This is the last thing President Obama and Democrats wanted to see four months out from a major election. They wanted Obamacare to quietly fade into obscurity and be a nonfactor in 2012. John Roberts threw a wrench into that machine and now once again it’s hanging around their necks going into November. And you can’t tell me that Justice Roberts doesn’t read the polls.
The last thing to mention is that the left is so caught up in the moment they didn’t even see this coming. They didn’t even see how masterfully Justice Roberts played them. And by the time they do Obama will be a one term President, Republicans will control the Senate and House, and 2016 will seem like a million years away. Bub bye Obamacare and President Obama.
Mr. President…you’ve been punk’d and you don’t even realize it yet. If Obamacare would have been found unconstitutional my guess is that the left would have been charged up and the right would be celebrating its demise and feeling they no longer had to vote for a candidate they’re already lukewarm towards…well not so much now. I feel that Justice Roberts was right on target and it’s the left and conservative talking heads who are missing the mark. Let me know what you think.
John and I have, for some time, promoted the idea of focusing more on the politics within the local and state governments than the corrupt and inept national government. We truly believe that the answer to our current problems doesn’t start at a national reformation, but at a local one. Simply put, if we bring the power back to the states the national government will fall in line. Allow me to provide some evidence to support what we’ve promoted to be effective and hopeful.
First, it is abundantly clear that national political victories are, at best, a small source of friction along the path of self destruction. While the House victories in November were historic in numbers, the actual political outcome has been far from monumental. The addiction to spending in Washington runs so deep in so many that even historical elections can’t provide enough people for a successful intervention. Two months in and our great successes are a symbolic message to the President and a budget “cut” proposal that cuts $61 billion from our $3.7 trillion dollar budget.
Let’s consider this cut for a moment. First, watch the video below.
Now that we have a visual on how much a trillion is compared to a billion consider this. We’ve got a budget of $3.7 trillion (that means almost four times that represented by the double stacked pallet image) and we’re proposing a cut of $61 billion. $61 billion is merely 1.7% of the budget. Of course, cutting just 1.7% doesn’t sound like a lot to you and me, but to the addicted politicians in Washington it’s a ton. In fact, you would think it was the end of the world by their rhetoric. Apparently such a cut would endanger national security, hurt the low income and elderly, and destroy economic growth. I have news for Washington – all of those things are already happening.
The fact that Washington is calling anything in their actions “cuts” is absurd anyway. The President’s latest budget proposal of $3.7 trillion is actually up from 2010’s $3.5 trillion. Either way, our revenue is more than a trillion dollars lower than our budget proposal. Who proposes a budget with nearly a 1/3rd of it going directly to debt? I’ll tell you who, someone who already has a debt more than 5 times their annual income.
The fact is that this year’s proposal is an increase on the 2010 budget (there wasn’t a 2011 budget). It is interesting to see where this budget increased and decreased. Let’s take a look:
Health and Human Services +3.1% $1.11 trillion $9,727/household
Social Security +8.5% $808 billion $7,112/household
Treas.- Interest on Debt +14.5% $474 billion $4,173/household
Agriculture +21.3% $104 billion $917/household
Transportation +4% $70 billion $620/household
Education +56% $31 billion $276/household
Energy +38% $12 billion $104/household
Veterans Affairs -2% $70 billion $620/household
Military Reitrement -5.2% $48 billion $426/household
Labor -51% $117 billion $1,035/household
Does that look like the budget planning of a government that is serious about cutting spending and balancing a budget?
Let’s put this into a personal perspective. Let’s say that you were running a business with America’s fiscal attributes. Let’s say that this businesses annual revenue is $500,000 this year, but has started the year off with a budget to spend $750,000. At the end of this single fiscal year the business is going to add $250,000 dollars to their debt. Combine that with the fact that he is already $3,000,000 in debt and you can see this business is literally worthless. It’s okay though, because they are going to make a serious cut to the previous year’s $750,000 budget – they’re going to cut it down by $10,000! Now imagine that you were trying to run a business with this budget plan and you were selling these proposals to your investors. Unfortunately, we the people are the investors to such a plan.
The only conclusion we can draw is that the federal government is incompetent when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Even when we turn up at the polls and flip the national ratios the end result is comparable to a bucket in the ocean. We put too much faith into too few who are too far away. November did bring us hope though…
In November Republicans gained control of 19 state legislatures and picked up more than 650 seats nationally. 10 states threw democrats out of their executive seats and replaced them with republicans. More importantly than the R’s and D’s, many of these individuals have taken office with the intent to cut state spending and loosen the grip the fed has on their state. More important than the proverbial political promise is action; and we’re finally seeing something.
Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, Rick Scott, Sean Parnell, John Kasich, and more are a new breed of governor that are fighting the fed on behalf of their state’s rights. Further, they’re fighting the spending from within the state in order to make right what has for too long been wrong. Standing up against the fed, the establishment, and entitlement leeches is a formidable task, yet they do it and it is about time.
The states have been forgotten too long in the shadow of the ever growing centralized federal government. It is in these shadows that we find not only our only option to bring America back to a responsible and formidable nation, but also what has always been our best option. It is unfortunate that it has taken the exhaustion of all other inferior attempts to finally realize that our last option was best all along.
States are intended to be the greatest check on the potential imbalance of power at the federal level. It is by no mistake that the Constitution gave power, not specifically identified as national in letter, to the states. This nation has chosen to ignore the letter of the law in an attempt to redefine an intent; that is to say, that we can assume expanding national powers by applying broader definitions to the letter. The Commerce Clause, for instance, is specific in letter, but the intent can be broadly interpreted to mean nearly anything to include, most recently, that your thoughts are affirmative action and therefore fall under the proper jurisdiction of Congress.
Now, considering the relative ineffectiveness of our national elections, look to the victories of the states. Wisconsin, New Jersey, Indiana, Ohio, etc. are all making huge strides in balancing their state budgets, breaking up the democratic party’s money laundry scheme (unions), and throwing off the unbearable yoke of the federal government (Obamacare for instance). A small handful of states have done more in fiscal responsibility in just 2 months than the national government has even dared to dream. Of course, this doesn’t make the beneficiaries of our burden happy.
As such, it is my never so humble opinion that these individuals have no clue as to the limits the Constitution of the United States places on the Federal government and should either reconsider their stance on this issue or lose their office.
ObamaCare is unconstitutional, socialistic and furthers the implementation of and forces a soft tyranny on every American citizen with its overreaching federal intrusion into our lives.
Vote these people out of office. Support their Republican opponents, if available.
I should also note that due to the lateness of the hour in terms of the November election, I’ve chosen, with one exception, to include only Republican opponents. While I vote my true conscience as to libertarian/conservative values in Primary elections, I believe in voting for the most conservative candidate that can win in this important General election.
For now, the only ones listed are Texans. In time, more will be added. However, if you’ll notice the list below, there are over 1000 signatories to the PSN Healthcare letter to Obama.
How does it happen that those whom otherwise may be very sane people can ascribe to such philosophy? Anymore, I don’t care. I’m just here to stop the bleeding. We already have a diagnosis. The prescribed treatment is a transfusion of new blood, preferably TEA.