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Politicians of both parties no longer represent the majority of their voters.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?

    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