Monday, November 11, 2013

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

The ability of the State to punish is dependent on the general acceptance by business and the public of the threat of punishment as a means to regulate and control behavior. 

Politicians of both parties no longer represent the majority of their voters. They represent an ideology of their own design based on the thought that they know what is best for this country and its people. They then use the threat of punishment to enforce these unconstitutional laws. Such as the penalty/tax imposed on those who do not purchase the government insurance mandated under the ACA. This threat of punishment has finally reached the halls of Congress.  Party leaders use the threat of withholding or removal of committee membership to force members to toe the party line. 

As long as business is willing to respond to this threat it will be controlled by government, just as the willingness of the people to accept this threat makes them subjects and they will be controlled by the government. 

The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King showed that the way to change this is by civil disobedience. Just as the government did then the government will turn to violence to punish this civil disobedience. The people can no longer expect the news media to report or support their civil disobedience causing outrage as it did in the case of The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King. (Notice how liberals leave out his title "Reverend")

Let me give you an example of those refusing to respond to the threat of punishment. 

The criminal element refuses to respond to the threat of punishment and receives little or no punishment. ie. Criminals own and use guns illegally. Rather than increase the punishment for having the guns illegally the government attempts to take the guns away from those they know will most likely follow the law. 

(They didn't expect people to turn to the Constitution and the 2nd Amend.)

Conclusion: We will have to become civilly disobedient and run the risk of a government forced armed insurrection or roll over and accept what is happening to us and our country. When that happens it will be incumbent on the people to meet violence with violence.

It is not just this president who is ignoring the Constitution, he could not do so without the support of Congress. They were elected to stop this from happening and rather than protect the Constitution and the people they have joined together to rule. Yes, both Democrats and Republicans. Yes, your Representative and Senator.

It is ironic that to make a point I have to show a quote from the first president to usurp the Constitution. "The right to dissolve the union." 

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

The Affordable Care Act AKA ObamaCare Part 1

Part 1 of a series on the Affordable Care Act, its constitutionality and damage to the people and economy.

This act is illegal as it was passed through the reconciliation Process, which is a procedure used to reconcile a dispute on a budget bill. It has never been used for anything other than budget reconciliation. In order to get past this restriction Democrat Reed attached a rider called the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act against Republican objections then as Senate President Harry Reid (D) Nevada reclassified the bill as a budget (Monetary) bill. The altered bill was sent to the House of Representatives where Republicans could have stripped the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act stopping the Senate from passing it under reconciliation.
Please remember this as it is the first chance Republicans had to defeat the ACA.

I have attached a link to the Wikipedia site so you can check it along with a partial copy of the text in order to help you understand my points in this series on the ACA.

Reconciliation (United States Congress)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a budget bill with debate limited to twenty hours under Senate rules.[1] Reconciliation also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but because the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the process has had a less significant impact on that body.

A reconciliation instruction is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or thedebt ceiling into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted.[2]
A reconciliation bill is a bill containing changes in law recommended pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution. If the instructions pertain to only one committee in a chamber, that committee reports the reconciliation bill. If the instructions pertain to more than one committee, the House Budget Committee reports an omnibus reconciliation bill, but it may not make substantive changes in the recommendations of the other committees.[3]


To trigger the reconciliation process, Congress passes a concurrent resolution on the budget instructing one or more committees to report changes in law affecting the budget by a certain date. If the budget instructs more than one committee, then those committees send their recommendations to the Budget Committee of their House, and the Budget Committee packages the recommendations into a single omnibus bill. In the Senate, the reconciliation bill then gets only 20 hours of debate and amendments are limited. Only one reconciliation bill can be passed in any given year.[10]


Under the Fiscal Year 2010 budget resolution,[5] the text of the reconciliation bill submitted to the Budget Committee had to have been reported by the relevant Committees by October 15, 2009.[6] Therefore, the Democrats combined the text of America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as reported out of the Ways and Means Committee, and as it was reported out of the Education and Labor Committee, and the text of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act as reported out of the Education and Labor Committee.[7][8] This version was never meant to be passed, it was only created so that the reconciliation bill would comply with the Budget resolution.[6] The bill was automatically amended to the version that was meant to be passed per the special rule that was reported out of the Rules Committee.[9] The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act was added to the Reconciliation Act as only one reconciliation bill can be passed each budget year, and it also faced a tough road through the Senate due to Republican filibuster and opposition from several centrist Democratic Senators.[10] The move was also thought to give President Obama two key victories in overhauling the health care and student loan system. It also eventually became clear that the budget savings caused by the student loan bill would become essential to the overall reconciliation bill by reducing the deficit enough for the overall bill to qualify for the reconciliation process.[10]

In the next part I will reference the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA showing why this bill was not found to be Constitutional. only the portion addressing the ability to fine (Tax) individuals while other Constitutional issues were ignored.

Sunday, November 3, 2013

Political Humor

The Delegated Powers, also called the Enumerated Powers

The Federal government has expanded its powers to make laws and regulate the States and it citizens way beyond the powers granted to it by the individual states as a condition for joining the union and creating "The United States of America".
Please read the Federalist papers which were written by the founders in order to explain and guarantee the States and its citizens the limitations put on the Federal Government and the true meaning of such terms as "Establish No Religion" .
They have grabbed these powers by citing the pre amble wording "To Provide for the Common Good" or by proclaiming the Constitution is a "living changeable document" that no longer applies to todays society. In doing so not only do they assume powers not granted to them but find new powers and constitutional rights such as the right to abortion and unfunded mandates such as The Affordable Care Act. One California Democrat Congressman went so far as to publically say that  Congress has the power to do what ever then choose and pass any law they want.
No one has ever been able to point out any wording or meaning that has changed since the Constitution was written that doesn't mean the same today.  Transportation is still the act of movement by means other than foot and covers movement by any means not available when the Constitution was written.

What are these Enumerated Powers?

The Delegated Powers, also called the Enumerated Powers,
are the powers of Congress established in section eight of Article I of the US Constitution. There are nineteen such powers. [1]

The Delegated Powers are as follows:[2]
  • The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, [in order] to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
  • To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
  • To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
  • To establish uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
  • To coin [not print] Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin;
  • To fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
  • To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
  • To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
  • To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
  • To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
  • To provide and maintain a Navy;
  • To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
  • To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  • To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
  • To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

  • Under Article I, Sections 2 and 3, Congress also has the power to impeach the President and remove him (or her) by trial.
  • Under Article III, Section 2, Congress also has the power to prohibit the Supreme Court from adjudicating any particular case (such as Roe v. Wade).

The following clause (appearing in Article I, Section 8) refers to the Implied Powers of Congress -- those necessary to accomplish the above, but not specifically mentioned ("enumerated"):
  • To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Powers Delegated to the States.

  • All powers not specifically Enumerated to the Federal Government to include - -
  • governance of religion
  • training the militia and appointing militia officers
  • control over local government
  • most crimes
  • state justice systems
  • family affairs
  • real property titles and conveyances
  • wills and inheritance
  • the promotion of  useful arts in ways other than granting patents and copyrights
  • control of personal property outside of commerce
  • governance of the law of torts and contracts, except in suits between citizens of different states
  • education
  • services for the poor and unfortunate
  • licensing of taverns
  • roads other than post roads
  • ferries and bridges
  • regulation of fisheries, farms, and other business enterprises.
  • References

    1. U.S Government and Politics
    2. United States Constitution

    Friday, November 1, 2013

    The Federalist No. 45


    Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered

    Independent Journal
    Saturday, January 26, 1788
    [James Madison]

    To the People of the State of New York:

    HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States.
    The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us.
    Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.
    We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although, in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter from the fate of the former, yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded. In the Achaean league it is probable that the federal head had a degree and species of power, which gave it a considerable likeness to the government framed by the convention. The Lycian Confederacy, as far as its principles and form are transmitted, must have borne a still greater analogy to it. Yet history does not inform us that either of them ever degenerated, or tended to degenerate, into one consolidated government. On the contrary, we know that the ruin of one of them proceeded from the incapacity of the federal authority to prevent the dissensions, and finally the disunion, of the subordinate authorities. These cases are the more worthy of our attention, as the external causes by which the component parts were pressed together were much more numerous and powerful than in our case; and consequently less powerful ligaments within would be sufficient to bind the members to the head, and to each other.
    In the feudal system, we have seen a similar propensity exemplified. Notwithstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter, it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rivalship for encroachments. Had no external dangers enforced internal harmony and subordination, and particularly, had the local sovereigns possessed the affections of the people, the great kingdoms in Europe would at this time consist of as many independent princes as there were formerly feudatory barons.
    The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.
    The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.
    The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system. Compare the members of the three great departments of the thirteen States, excluding from the judiciary department the justices of peace, with the members of the corresponding departments of the single government of the Union; compare the militia officers of three millions of people with the military and marine officers of any establishment which is within the compass of probability, or, I may add, of possibility, and in this view alone, we may pronounce the advantage of the States to be decisive. If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side. It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State.
    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
    The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.
    If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them. The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them. Had the States complied punctually with the articles of Confederation, or could their compliance have been enforced by as peaceable means as may be used with success towards single persons, our past experience is very far from countenancing an opinion, that the State governments would have lost their constitutional powers, and have gradually undergone an entire consolidation. To maintain that such an event would have ensued, would be to say at once, that the existence of the State governments is incompatible with any system whatever that accomplishes the essental purposes of the Union.

    The Price of Serving.

     "Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime."  — Adlai E.   Stevenson, Jr.  

    How are our service men and their families compensated for their patriotism?

    Every time a pay raise comes up for the military they usually receive next to nothing or nothing at all. While our soldiers are fighting and dying in the Middle East their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low rent housing.
    However our own U.S. Congress votes themselves a raise yearly, and what you might not know is that they only have to be in Congress for one term to receive a pension that is  more than $15,000 per month and most use their office to make  themselves millionaires.

    If military personnel stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7 they may receive a pension of $1,000  per month which is below the poverty rate (A majority retire at a lower rank.), while the very people who placed
    them in harms way receive a pension of $15,000 per month. I would like to see our elected officials, who start the wars, pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting. As of 2007, the average annuity for retired members of Congress is between $36,000 and $63,000.

    What's a Military Family Worth? 

    I think the vast differences in compensation between the victims of the September 11th, and those who die serving the country in uniform, are profound. No one is really talking about it either because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11th.
    People, who lost a family member in the September 11th attack, are getting an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.  Keep in mind that some of the people that are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. I also learned that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11th families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those killed in embassy bombings are now asking for compensation as well. 

    There is no movement or call to increase compensation to families who lost a soldier in combat.

    If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $12,420 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable. Next, you get a
    Death Gratuity of $100,000.00 to pay for cost to transport the body and burial connected services. If the soldier chose a Service members’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) $27.00 per month is deducted from his pay, the SGLI payment is $400,000 unless the member elected a lesser amount or declined coverage in writing.  If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month (below the poverty rate) until you remarry. There's also a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18.  When the child hits 18, those payments end. 
    Sources:  Adlai E.   Stevenson, Jr. Library, Rush and is the only fact checking site I trust because they link to their source but as a precaution I read the info at those links then research that info over the internet to verify the links information.

    How are our Veterans treated?

     Even though we were told that the ACA (Obamacare) would not have any effect on Veterans medical care I have learned from personal experience the VA is cutting back on the amounts and types of medications given to Vet’s. In addition they have cut the monthly wellness checks from once a month to once every 3 to 4 months. The reasons I was given were because of the increase in the number of Veterans requiring medical care and to keep from having to hire more Doctors.
     Basically this amounts to not funding the Veteran’s care while increasing spending on other items such as welfare, food stamps, etc. This administration has also refused to give Veterans a COLA allowance since it has been in control. Apparently the money allocated to the VA was needed to give bonuses to VA employees for maintaining backlogs in processing claims and to pay for multimillion dollar training seminars in Florida.
     More recently we have seen this administration and Democrats use Veterans as a pawn in trying to force a tax increase by closing access to Vets open air memorials.  Dr. Martin Luther King showed us the power that can be wielded by small organized groups through the use of civil disobedience. When will Veterans join forces and use this same tactic of civil disobedience? We saw a start when the WW2 Vets tore down the barricades at their Monument. You stood up and fought the armed enemy that the government designated; you came home injured or broken and now act like you have no spine.


     Anyone for standing up now?

    Saturday, October 12, 2013

    Not mine but you should know.

    BREAKING NEWS !!! Obama Introduces Americans With No Abilities Act
    (Sarcastic Humor)

    The Americans With No Abilities Act in support of Unions

    Washington , DC - (Dateline February 24, 2011)

    President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress are considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans with No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

    "Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said California Senator Barbara Boxer - Democrat. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability (POI) to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing."

    In a Capitol Hill press conference, former House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi - Democrat, and Senator Harry Reid - Democrat - pointed to the success of the Public Service Unions, and the SEIU which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of union members lack any job skills.

    Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the Inept include the TSA (72%), the EPA (68%), and HUD (65%). At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%).

    Under AWNAA, more than 25 million mid-level positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

    Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

    Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, "Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?"

    "As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint , Michigan, due to her inability to remember rightey tightey, lefty loosey. "This new law should be real good for people like me," Gertz added. With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

    Said Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat-IL), "As a Senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so."

    Questions no one is asking! (Part 1)


    Questions no one is asking - Part 1

    Affordable Care Act –ACA (Democrat tax on health)

    Why did the Democrats choose to redo our entire insurance system rather than addressing the 30 to 40 million uninsured?
    If a business has a problem with a number of its stores but the majorities are performing well they address the underperforming stores rather than change the whole business model.

    We, the public, were originally told that a change in the way people are insured needed changing because there were 30 to 40 million uninsured. Yet under the ACA we are being told that the same numbers of persons will likely remain uninsured.  Insuring that same 30 to 40 million could have been done by using the money already allocated to the ACA rather than disrupting our entire financial system and raising purchase price and co pay cost to everyone.

    What new taxes are included in the ACA?
    Page numbers and references to the ACA included.

    Employer: If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees.  Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

    (Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion)

    $60.1 Billion: Tax on Health Insurers (Takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.  Phases in gradually until 2018.  Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

    $32 Billion: Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family).  Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions.  CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

    $23.6 Billion: “Black liquor” tax hike (Took effect in 2010) This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

    $22.2 Billion: Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Took effect in 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

    $20 Billion: Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax.  Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

    $15.2 Billion: High Medical Bills Tax (Takes effect Jan 1. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

    $13.2 Billion: Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).  Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

    $5 Billion: Medicine Cabinet Tax (Took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

    $4.5 Billion: Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

    $4.5 Billion: Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Took effect in 2010): This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

    $2.7 Billion: Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Took effect July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

    $1.4 Billion: HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

    $0.6 Billion: $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000                                                                                                                 

    $0.4 Billion: Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Took effect in 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

    $ Negligible: Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Took effect in 2010): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

    $ Negligible: Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Took effect in Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957



    Why didn’t the Administration phase in signing up for their new insurance program rather than setting a sign up date of Oct.1 with a deadline of Jan 31?

    The administration knew there would be problems created by making everyone have to sign up on a certain date rather than phasing it in over a period of a year.  Common sense would dictate that by setting a sign up period of time would have alerted them to the “glitches” and allow time to fix them and  allowing those who sign up the time to research Exchanges for the best rate.

    DNC Chair Woman Debbie Wasserman Schultz claims the system is designed to allow access of 50,000 applications a day. At that rate I will take over 2 years to sign up the 30 to 40 million uninsured.

    Why won’t the administration extend the mandatory sign up date for individuals by one year?

    The President has extended by one year the date of mandatory compliance for business’s yet is opposed to doing the same for individuals.  Even though the law states that once a bill is signed into law changes can only be made by the Congress.

    The President has changed that law for some but not for others. Even though the Administration claims the ACA is “the law of the land”, the law applies to everyone equally and contains provisions to give subsidies to low income people he has granted exemptions to some and made the taxpayers provide subsidies for Congress and its staff.

    Why didn’t the Administration create a federal “Insurance Exchange” rather than make each state create a separate Exchange program?

    By creating a federal exchange program every insurance company in the U.S. could apply to be in the exchange giving everyone a larger choice of programs forcing the insurance companies to compete for clients and holding down cost. Under present law insurance companies cannot sell their product over state lines reducing the individual choice of insurance policies. Republicans offered an attendant to the ACA allowing this but Democrats wouldn’t allow it,

    Why did the Obama’s Administration reduce full time employment from 40 hours per week to 30 hours per week?

    Given that the ACA seems to have been thrown together without any thought of the possible consequences I am inclined to believe that it never entered their mind that doing so would have any impact.

    President Obama and members of Congress are still claiming that business are not cutting hours of fulltime to part time in order to save on the cost to them to comply with the ACA.

    Here is a link to a list of over 300 companies that have already done so.  I’m sure more will follow suit the closed they get to the compliance date.

    Sunday, June 16, 2013


    I use to hide the fact that I served in Vietnam. Seems I wanted others approval. I no longer need that approval. I find the truth in my brothers who served also. So pass this on to those who disparaged our efforts.

     Vietnam Facts vs. Fiction

    * * * * * *
    For over 30 years many Vietnam veterans....seldom spoke of Vietnam, except with other veterans, Not even my wife and family. These past five years I have joined the hundreds of thousands who believe it is high time the truth be told about the Vietnam War and the people who served there.

    It's time the American people learn that the United States military did not lose the War, and that a surprisingly high number of people who claim to have served there, in fact, DID NOT.

    As Americans, support the men and women involved in the War on Terrorism, the mainstream media are once again working tirelessly to undermine their efforts and force a psychological loss or stalemate for the United States.

    We cannot stand by and let the media do to today's warriors what they did to us 40 years a go.

    Below I have assembled some facts most readers will find interesting. It isn't a long read, but it will....I guarantee....teach you some things you did not know about the Vietnam War and those who served, fought, or died there. Please share it with those with whom you communicate.

    Vietnam War Facts:

    Facts, Statistics, Fake Warrior Numbers, and Myths Dispelled.

    9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the official Vietnam era from August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975.

    2,709,918 Americans served in uniform in Vietnam.

    Vietnam Veterans represented 9.7% of their generation.

    240 men were awarded the Medal of Honor during the Vietnam War The first man to die in Vietnam was James Davis, in 1958. He was with the 509th Radio Research Station. Davis Station in Saigon was named for him.

    58,148 were killed in Vietnam

    75,000 were severely disabled

    23,214 were 100% disabled

    5,283 lost limbs

    1,081 sustained multiple amputations  Of those killed, 61% were younger than 21.

    11,465 of those killed were younger than 20 years old.

    Of those killed, 17,539 were married

    Average age of men killed: 23.1 years

    Five men killed in Vietnam were only 16 years old.

    The oldest man killed was 62 years old.

    As of January 15, 2 004, there are 1,875 Americans still unaccounted for from the Vietnam War.

    97% of Vietnam Veterans were honorably discharged.

    91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served.

    74% say they would serve again, even knowing the outcome.

    Vietnam veterans have a lower unemployment rate than the same non-vet age groups.

    Vietnam veterans' personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent.

    87% of Americans hold Vietnam Veterans in high esteem.

    There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non-Vietnam Veterans of the same age group.

    (Source: Veterans Administration Study)

    Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison - only one-half of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes.

    85% of Vietnam Veterans made successful transitions to civilian life.

    Interesting Census Stats and "Been There" Wanabees:

    1,713,823 of those who served in Vietnam were still alive as of August, 1995 (census figures).

    ~ During that same Census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country was: 9,492,958.

    ~ As of the current Census taken during August, 2000, the surviving U.S. Vietnam Veteran population estimate is: 1,002,511.

    This is hard to believe, losing nearly 711,000 between '95 and '00. That's 390 per day. During this Census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country is: 13,853,027.

    By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not.

    The Department of Defense Vietnam War Service Index officially provided by The War Library originally reported with errors that 2,709,918 U.S. military personnel as having served in-country. Corrections and confirmations to this errored index resulted in the addition of 358 U.S. military personnel confirmed to have served in Vietnam but not originally listed by the Department of Defense. (All names are currently on file and accessible 24/7/365).

    Isolated atrocities committed by American Soldiers produced torrents of outrage from anti-war critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any media mention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy.

    Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while


    Communists who did so received commendations. From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and school teachers. - Nixon Presidential Papers.

    Common Myths Dispelled:

    Myth: Common Belief is that most Vietnam veterans were drafted.

    Fact: 2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted.

    Approximately 70% of those killed in Vietnam were volunteers.
    Myth: The media have reported that suicides among Vietnam veterans range from 50,000 to 100,000 - 6 to 11 times the non-Vietnam veteran population.

    Fact: Mortality studies show that 9,000 is a better estimate.

    "The CDC
    Vietnam Experience Study Mortality Assessment showed that during the first 5 years after discharge, deaths from suicide were 1.7 times more likely among Vietnam veterans than non-Vietnam veterans. After that initial post-service period, Vietnam veterans were no more likely to die from suicide than non-Vietnam veterans. In fact, after the 5-year post-service period, the rate of suicides is less in the Vietnam veterans' group.

    Myth: Common belief is that a disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the Vietnam War.

    Fact: 86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasians, 12.5% were black, 1.2% were other races. Sociologists Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler, in their recently published book "All That We Can Be," said they analyzed the claim that blacks were used like cannon fodder during Vietnam "and can report definitely that this charge is untrue. Black fatalities amounted to 12 percent of all Americans killed in Southeast Asia a figure proportional to the number of blacks in the U.S. population at the
    time and slightly lower than the proportion of blacks in the Army at the close of the war."

    Myth: Common belief is that the war was fought largely by the poor and uneducated.

    Fact: Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers. Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better.

    Here are statistics from the Combat Area Casualty File (CACF) as of November 1993. The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

    (The Wall): Average age of 58,148 killed in Vietnam was 23.11 years. (Although 58,169 names are in the Nov. 93 database, only 58,148 have both event date and birth date. Event date is used instead of declared dead date for some of those who were listed as missing in action)

    Deaths Average Age
    Total: 58,148 23.11 years

    Enlisted: 50,274 22.37 years

    Officers: 6,598 28.43 years

    Warrants: 1,276 24.73 years

    E1 525 20.34 years

    11B MOS: 18,465 22.55 years

    Myth: The common belief is the average age of an infantryman fighting in Vietnam was 19.

    Fact:: Assuming KIAs accurately represented age groups serving in Vietnam, the average age of an infantryman (MOS 11B) serving in Vietnam to be 19 years old is a myth, it is actually 22. None of the enlisted grades have an average age of less than 20. The average man who fought in World War II was 26 years of age.

    Myth: The Common belief is that the domino theory was proved false.

    Fact: The domino theory was accurate. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam.

    The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America's commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media.

    The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism.

    Myth: The common belief is that the fighting in Vietnam was not as intense as in World War II.

    Fact: The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter. One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,148 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.7 million who served. Although the percent that died is similar to other wars, amputations
    or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II ....75,000.

    Vietnam veterans are severely disabled. MEDEVAC helicopters flew nearly 500,000 missions. Over 900,000 patients were airlifted (nearly half were American). The average time lapse between wounding to hospitalization was less than one hour. As a result, less than one percent of all Americans wounded, who survived the first 24 hours, died. The helicopter provided unprecedented mobility. Without the helicopter it would have taken three times as many troops to secure the 800 mile border with Cambodia and Laos.

    (The politicians thought the Geneva Conventions of 1954 and the Geneva Accords or 1962 would secure the border).

    Myth: Kim Phuc, the little nine year old Vietnamese girl running naked from the napalm strike near Trang Bang on 8 June 1972.....shown a million times on American television....was burned by Americans bombing Trang Bang.

    Fact: No American had involvement in this incident near Trang Bang that VNAF (Vietnam Air Force) and were being flown by Vietnamese pilots in support of South Vietnamese troops on the ground. The Vietnamese pilot who dropped the napalm in error is currently living in the United States. Even the AP photographer, Nick Ut, who took the picture, was Vietnamese. The incident in the photo took place on the second day of a three day battle between the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) who occupied the village of Trang Bang and the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) who were trying to force the NVA out of the village.

    Recent reports in the news media that an American commander ordered the air strike that burned Kim Phuc are incorrect.

    There were no Americans involved in any capacity. "We (Americans) had nothing to do with controlling VNAF," according to Lieutenant General (Ret) James F. Hollingsworth, the Commanding General of TRAC at that time.

    Also, it has been incorrectly reported that two of Kim Phuc's brothers were killed in this incident. They were Kim's cousins not her brothers.

    Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam.

    Fact: The American military was not defeated in Vietnam.

    The Democrat controlled Congress of the U.S. surrendered after all American soldiers had left Vietnam.  The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973.
    The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. General Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.


    Read on........

    How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January.

    1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S.
    forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam and a
    commitment to peaceful reunification.

    The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military who had supported the U.S. during the war and later abandoned to death squads buy the U.S. Congress. ,

    NOT American military running for their lives.

    There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. Thanks for the perceived loss and the countless assassinations and torture visited upon Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians goes mainly to the American media and their undying
    support-by-misrepresentation of the anti-War movement in the United States.

    As with much of the Vietnam War, the news media misreported and misinterpreted the 1968 Tet Offensive. It was reported as an overwhelming success for the Communist forces and a decided defeat for the U.S. forces. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite initial victories by the Communists forces, the Tet Offensive resulted in a major defeat of those forces. General Vo Nguyen Giap, the designer of the Tet Offensive, is considered by some as ranking with Wellington, Grant, Lee and MacArthur as a
    great commander. Still, militarily, the Tet Offensive was a total defeat of the Communist forces on all fronts. It resulted in the death of some 45,000 NVA troops and the complete, if not total destruction of the Viet Cong ements in South Vietnam. The Organization of the Viet Cong Units in the South never recovered. The Tet Offensive succeeded on only one front and that was the News front and the political arena. This was another example in
    the Vietnam War of an inaccuracy becoming the perceived truth. However, inaccurately reported, the News Media made the Tet Offensive famous.

    Please give all credit and research to:

    Capt. Marshal Hanson, U.S.N.R (Ret.)

    Capt. Scott Beaton, Statistical Source

    Any man or woman who may be asked in this century what they did to make life worthwhile in their lifetime.... can respond with a great deal of pride and satisfaction, "I served in the United States Military."

    About Me

    My photo
    69 years old married 20 YEARS. Have a boy 21 and girl 19 plus two grown daughters and 3 Grandchildren. Served in Vietman. Combat wounded.In country 3 times. longest tour 8 months. Rated as totally disabled from injuries and PTSD. Friend of Bill W.

    Contact/Comment Form


    Email *

    Message *

    Military Order of the Purple Heart

    Oath Keepers