Wednesday, October 19, 2016

The U.S. Constitution Matters

How many times has the U.S. Constitution been brought up during these debates?  I can only count one time and that was by Donald Trump.  The law of the land used to mean something in this country.  Now it’s little more than a speed bump on the road to totalitarianism.  

Master planners like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sneer at federalism.  Power is to be exploited and used for “the benefit” of the little people who are incapable of self-governance.  Our Ivy League betters have been trained to run our lives.  It’s best that we just shut our mouths and do what were told and forget such notions as life, liberty and property.  According to these central planners, the U.S. Constitution is an antiquated document; it doesn’t stand the test of times.

I say the U.S. Constitution matters more now than ever.  Barack Obama’s presidency is a testament to the genius of our founding fathers and the fallacy of the Progressive movement.   His administration has demonstrated how corrupt an unchecked executive can be.  No law or moral code shames this wannabe banana republic dictator.  No lie is too outrageous even in the face of overwhelming evidence.  And now we are about to elect the Queen of Scumbags: Hillary Clinton.

Our founding fathers new this day would come and they put provisions in the Constitution to counter a corrupt central government that’s incapable of governing itself.  After this fiasco of an election is over the States must activate Article V and implement a convention of the States.  We’ve already had a trial run with promising results.  Here is what liberty loving Americans can accomplish without our D.C. overlords.

“The Convention respectfully submits these proposals to the American people with the conviction that they are a sound beginning to a critically-needed national discussion about restoring the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

Further, it is the conviction of this body that the states must deliberate and adopt appropriate proposals for a balanced budget amendment and an amendment to provide the states a means to serve as a check on judicial overreach by the federal judiciary of the United States.”

(Note: the amendments below are listed in the order in which they were adopted.)

Fiscal Restraints Proposal 1.

SECTION 1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress, and only for a period not to exceed one year.

SECTION 2. No state or any subdivision thereof shall be compelled or coerced by Congress or the President to appropriate money.

SECTION 3. The provisions of the first section of this amendment shall take effect 3 years after ratification.

Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 1.

SECTION 1. The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states shall be limited to the regulation of the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods, articles or persons. Congress may not regulate activity solely because it affects commerce among the several states.

SECTION 2. The power of Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities there from, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

SECTION 3. The Legislatures of the States shall have standing to file any claim alleging violation of this article. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit standing that may otherwise exist for a person.

SECTION 4. This article shall become effective five years from the date of its ratification.

Federal Term Limits & Judicial Jurisdiction Proposal 1. 

No person shall be elected to more than six full terms in the House of Representatives. No person shall be elected to more than two full terms in the Senate. These limits shall include the time served prior to the enactment of this Article.

Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 2. 

SECTION 1. The Legislatures of the States shall have authority to abrogate any provision of federal law issued by the Congress, President, or Administrative Agencies of the United States, whether in the form of a statute, decree, order, regulation, rule, opinion, decision, or other form.

SECTION 2. Such abrogation shall be effective when the Legislatures of three-fifths of the States approve a resolution declaring the same provision or provisions of federal law to be abrogated. This abrogation authority may also be applied to provisions of federal law existing at the time this amendment is ratified.

SECTION 3. No government entity or official may take any action to enforce a provision of federal law after it is abrogated according to this Amendment. Any action to enforce a provision of abrogated federal law may be enjoined by a federal or state court of general jurisdiction in the state where the enforcement action occurs, and costs and attorney fees of such injunction shall be awarded against the entity or official attempting to enforce the abrogated provision.

SECTION 4. No provision of federal law abrogated pursuant to this amendment may be reenacted or reissued for six years from the date of the abrogation.

Fiscal Restraints Proposal 2.

SECTION 1. Congress shall not impose taxes or other exactions upon incomes, gifts, or estates.

SECTION 2. Congress shall not impose or increase any tax, duty, impost or excise without the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately present such to the President.

SECTION 3. This Article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the Sixteenth Article of amendment is repealed.

Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 3. 

Whenever one quarter of the members of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate transmits to the President their written declaration of opposition to any proposed or existing federal administrative regulation, in whole or in part, it shall require a majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate to adopt or affirm that regulation. Upon the transmittal of opposition, if Congress shall fail to vote within 180 days, such regulation shall be vacated. No proposed regulation challenged under the terms of this Article shall go into effect without the approval of Congress. Congressional approval or rejection of a rule or regulation is not subject to Presidential veto under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

I would also like to repeal the 14th and 17th Amendments, but I’m afraid that’s politically impossible. 


Trump's Not The Only One Who Thinks the System Is Rigged | SUPERcuts! #377

How many times has this thumb sucker in chief declared the system is rigged?  And he has the nerve to call Trump a whiner?  What a punk.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Central Planners Depend Upon Force to Ensure Failure

How many licks does it take for a liberal to call a failed government program a failure?  The answer is never!  These central planners are incapable of introspection.  They see things as they want to see it and the hell with everyone else.  This so-called Affordable Care Act is a centerpiece of Progressive willfulness.

States are witnessing a mass exodus of insurance companies that will no longer participate in this Obamacare fiasco.  North Carolina is no different.  As of now only Blue Cross and Blue Shield service all 100 counties.  Cigna is an option in five counties in the Raleigh area.  That’s it!  This year we received a 32% rate increase with an additional 24.3% scheduled for next year.  Genius!  All hail the master planners!

You would think that progressives would take stock in this massive failure and rethink this top-down, un-American policy.  But that would take a giant leap of faith that these people know what it means to be an American.  We have to remind ourselves that these people are central planners.   There are no limitations to their machinations and we have no say.

The News and Observer’s editorial board sees success where there is failure.  They believe the ACA just needs some tweaking and a little force by big brother:

BCBS also has the problem of the other companies’ withdrawal to deal with. The customers of those companies, some 260,000 of them, will now have to come to Blue Cross, and a good many of those customers may have significant and costly medical issues to deal with. That’s no small challenge for BCBS or any other insurance company.

This is one aspect of the ACA — which required most people to get insurance or pay a penalty — that is an ongoing problem. Without younger, healthier customers enrolled, customers who don’t need to make claims, insurance companies are crunched by increasing claims from older, sicker customers. Not enough of those younger people are signing up.

And unfortunately, given the partisan divide in Congress, it’s virtually impossible to “tweak” the ACA — to prevent companies from pulling out of a market, to strengthen the requirements for everyone to have health insurance, to bolster subsidies — because Republicans in Congress just want to kill the program outright.

Have you noticed federal government programs are dependent upon force?  Does that sound American to you?  It doesn’t to me.


Hillary Clinton Naked in Manhattan

I’m sure if you hang out long enough in New York City you’ll see all sorts of indecency.  I find it laughable that a self-righteous libtard took offense to a statue of Hillary Clinton in downtown Manhattan.

An artist erected an obscene statue of Hillary Clinton in downtown Manhattan Tuesday morning causing a heated fight between defenders of the profane piece of protest art and women trying to tear it down.
The grotesque caricature of the Democratic candidate appeared outside the Bowling Green station during morning rush hour on Tuesday and shows Clinton with hoofed feet and a Wall Street banker resting his head on her bare breasts.
The statue was up for less than three hours before an enraged woman toppled it over and started yelling at the statue’s creator.
Liberals love free speech as long as it comports to their ideology.  They’re quite intolerant of others point of view.


Hillary Clinton's Dirty Tricksters...

These people have no regard for laws or ethics.  If America still has a soul the Democratic Party would never hold the reins of power again.

Rigging the Election - Video II: Mass Voter Fraud

Project Veritas deserves a Pulitzer for investigative journalism.  This is a job the mainstream media used to do before they became the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

Monday, October 17, 2016

N.C. Progressives Propagandize Medicaid Expansion

How many times have we been told by liberals that the news section of a paper is for facts, and opinions are reserved for the editorial page?  We all know this is hogwash and the Charlotte Observer wallows in it every chance they get.  Last Sunday’s edition was no exception.

What is really despicable is the way these people propagandize health care.  Progressives would have us believe health insurance is the same as care and in doing so they have driven the cost of premiums and deductibles through the roof.  The Affordable Care Act is not affordable.  They have managed to turn North Carolina’s middle-class – those who make $30,600 to $96,812 a year – into beggars by forcing them to accept federal government subsidies, or onto the Medicaid rolls.

Medicaid was designed to help the poor and disabled.  Now this overburdened program is becoming a vehicle for a single-payer system.  The Charlotte Observer would have us believe Medicaid is the cure for all our healthcare needs and our failure to expand this program is directly responsible for numerous deaths in North Carolina:

Saxe often saw children on Medicaid who were brought in by mothers who worked and were not eligible for Medicaid themselves. “They were my patients too, but they would say, ‘Oh, I can’t see you. I don’t have the money.’ 

As a result, “you have a population of women of child-bearing age, some of whom didn’t come in and get contraception, and that puts them at risk for having another baby at a short interval.”

Saxe recalled one patient in her 40s who had been discharged from the hospital after having several strokes but had failed to keep follow up appointments because she didn’t have insurance or the cash to pay. “She could have died waiting to see me,” Saxe said.

Indeed, an estimated 455 to 1,145 unnecessary deaths a year can be attributed to North Carolina’s failure to expand Medicaid, according to a 2014 study published in the journalHealth Affairs. The study also estimated that 14,776 North Carolina residents would face catastrophic medical bills because of the state’s decision.

First of all, women can get contraceptives at a number of free clinics at no cost.  Second, why is a poor mother unable to qualify for Medicaid and her children can?  Could it possibly be that she’s an illegal alien? Hmmm?  Third, non-profit hospitals provide indigent care.  Besides, you can still have insurance and not afford a doctor because of a $9000 deductible thanks to Obamacare.

I find it laughable the study in Health Affairs used the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment which was highly critical of Medicaid.  OHIE concluded the following:

“This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured health outcomes in the first two years, but it did increase use of health services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.”

 We shouldn’t be surprised progressives, who were critical of this study, are now spinning it to their advantage.  These people will bastardize anything. Here is what Avik Roy wrote in his broadside, How Medicaid Fails the Poor:

Immediately, progressive bloggers went into overdrive to explain these results away.  “The sample size was too small,” they said, even though new medicines for diabetes, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure routinely show significantly improved health outcomes in much smaller trials.  “Two years isn’t long enough to show a significant benefit,” they insisted, even though new drugs that failed to show any benefit in two years would be summarily rejected by the FDA and abandoned by sponsors.

The Medicaid cohort reported that they felt better about their health and their financial security as a result of enrolling in the program and were less depressed.  We can presume that the 40 percent of Medicaid “winners” who didn’t bother to fill out the application felt differently; they, however, were not surveyed.

The Charlotte Observer didn’t mention the caveats Health Affairs enumerated at the bottom of their hypothesis.  One being an article published by the New England Journal of Medicine entitled, Mortality and Access to Care among Adults after State Medicaid Expansions.  Here is the takeaway:

Study Design

We used a differences-in-differences quasi-experimental design that incorporated data before and after Medicaid expansions in both the expansion states and the control states. 

Quasi-experimental design?  What in the hell is that?  Is that an oxymoron like the Affordable Care Act?  Maybe we should ask Dr. Benjamin D. Sommers about his association with The Commonwealth Fund.  That suspect organization had a hand in this whole Obamacare fiasco.  Here is an excerpt from Michelle Malkin’s article:

 The tipster is right to question the Commonwealth Fund’s ability to provide objective information about Obamacare to journalists. The head of the fund, Karen Davis, is a Jimmy Carter leftover and self-identified “progressive” economist who has long peddled single payer. Her 2009 annual report proclaims:

The Commonwealth Fund marshaled its resources this year to produce timely and rigorous work that helped lay the groundwork for the historic Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama in March 2010.

Perhaps one of the journalists participating in these indoctrination sessions can enlighten the public on the people, funding, and ideology driving the Commonwealth Fund’s media “education” campaign

I wonder if this so-called journalist at the Charlotte Observer attended one of these sessions.  Her use of suspect studies and reports is indicative of indoctrination.