Love/Hate between Republicans and Obamacare

If Republicans in Congress truly opposed socialized healthcare in general… Obamacare specifically, it would not be taking effect.  All spending bills must be approved by the House of Representatives (controlled by Republicans) at the Federal level!  

This could have been done in 2011, when the new “Tea Party” Congress took over… It wasn’t.  It could have been done at any time during the campaign to get the Republicrat Romney elected (although this would remove the only reason a Conservative  might have voted for that particular pro-socialized healthcare, pro-gun-control, pro-Federal Reserve, pro-TARP, pro-bailout, big government RINO).  So now that their trap has failed to spring, and their candidate lost, how about feed simply feed us the cheese… and KILL OBAMACARE NOW!

I am under no illusions that the representatives in Congress will take any such actions.  I know that their agenda no longer has them taking any chances in the pursuit of liberty.  Sadly, given the choice between liberty and job security, Republicans who have resided in DC for 2+ years will choose job security every time.  How about limiting spending?  All spending bills have to go through the House of Representatives (again, entirely controlled by the Republican party).  We were promised that if we sent them to Congress in 2010, they would bring the spending under control. 

So when they raised the debt ceiling (also entirely under their control), what was the ‘carrot’ to their constituents?  They would create the “super” committee to ensure spending cuts , with automatic spending cuts if it failed (to show how serious they were…) and how is that working out for us?  Listen to the wailing about the “fiscal cliff” (of which the promised “sequestration” is a component). 

Details

The Unraveling of a Gateway Tyranny

The Coalition to Preserve Arkansas Values filed a lawsuit with the Arkansas Supreme Court in August to remove Arkansas’ medicinal pot measure from the ballot. Arkansas Matters .com ran the following article on the lawsuit that I feel needs a thorough rebuttal. Seeing as here in Oregon I have heard several of the same false premises argued against our very own measure 80  to legalize pot and hemp statewide. I have taken it upon myself to correct some of the silly assertions made by Jerry Cox of the Family Council Action Committee in the article.

To begin with, Mr Cox asserts that the medical weed law is to use his words:

“… illegal because of federal statute passed by Congress. Only the federal government can change that. The Arkansas Constitution and the United States Constitution both prevent Arkansas from passing laws that blatantly defy federal law.”

Of course this assertion should not fool regular readers of the TAC, nor should it fool any person who truly understands the Constitution (US or Arkansas) or the American federal system for that matter, but for newcomers to the debate I will lay it out once more. The Supremacy clause only renders federal laws “in pursuance” of the Constitution’s enumerated authority the “supreme law of the land”.

Details

Why Should Oregon Nullify Obamacare? (When Kitzcare is Still in Effect)

Everywhere I go, I try to build momentum for nullifying Obamacare. People have been surprisingly luke-warm to the idea, however, many say that it’s impossible as long as Kitz is in office. To this I say, Kitz is not a dictator! His veto(s) can be overridden (and even if they couldn’t, that would just mean that we need to go a different route). A ballot initiative, or a referendum can go around the Governor.

Many wonder why we should expend the amount of energy required to try and nullify ‘Obamacare,’ when we’ll still be in the same boat with ‘Kitzcare’ anyway!? This is a good question, and I hope that this article will convince anyone who has any doubt, that this is energy will be well-spent.

First, lets begin with the ethical reasons, that is, the reasons why we should do it regardless of what we actually get out of it:

Details

Where is the Civil Liberties Party?

Recently, I posted an article that was leveled against the 2-party system.  My wife was kind enough to point out that I was much harder on the Republican party than the Democrat party, so with this in mind I decided to attack the question from the other side as well.

For years, the American voter has been sold into the idea that the 2-party system is a method of limiting government. For instance, most people assume (by believing the WORDS that come out of politicians’ mouths, rather than observing their ACTIONS – Perhaps they only pay attention during election time?) that the ‘left’ strengthens civil liberties, and the ‘right’ strengthens property rights. This battle is sold as if respective liberties will steadily advance via this battle! But one has only to look back over the last 30 years to realize of the fallacy of that sale!

Surely the Democrat party is true to their word when it comes to the size of government? For instance, they seem to be almost monolithic in their calls for pro-choice policies. Whenever they’re in power, they consistently advance higher taxes on the “rich.” They also support increasing dependency of the poor on state-sponsored welfare entitlements and are opposed to any policy that will require any responsibility for the individual! In general, they err on the side of addressing every problem of society with more and more government largess. All of these policies are in keeping with their rhetoric. It’s always baffling to me how they can ever be elected after carefully considering these policies, but I guess some people still need a Mommy even after they’ve moved out of the house.

Details

Just what do they think these oaths mean??

So, I was reading a very good recent article by the TAC Machine Mr. Maharrey, and I noted a misunderstanding by the lawmaker (Florida State Rep. Gaetz) cited in the piece, illustrated by this passage from an email he sent to a constituent:

“It is said that one evening, while he was president, General Jackson was interrupted in his reading in his bedroom by an alarmed military aide who breathlessly reported, “Mr. President, the “nullifiers” are in front of the Executive Mansion with torches and guns. They are screaming that each state has the right to decide for itself which federal laws to follow. They threaten to burn us down if you will not agree with them.”

Without lifting his head from his reading, Andrew Jackson said, “Shoot the first nullifier who touches the Flag. And hang the rest.”

Chaplain (Gaetz’s constituent), I have sworn an oath on my father’s Bible before Almighty God to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States. And that’s exactly what I intend to do. Count me with Andrew Jackson.”

Details

“Constitutional Rights”? Not Really

I frequently hear people talk about how many “constitutional rights” we have lost under (fill in whichever President’s name). This brings up a very interesting misunderstanding about the origin of our rights… For one thing, our rights don’t come from the Constitution; the Constitution merely recognizes that our rights preexist it.

For instance, in the 2nd Amendment it goes like this:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” ..not “the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms” – this is a very important difference in syntax! This is true throughout the document, and the document even recognizes in the 9th Amendment that we have all the rights not specifically mentioned.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

If the Constitution gave rights, then the syntax of the 9th would say something like “that the people shall enjoy” or “that the people shall have” instead of retained by the people.”

The meaning of the subtle difference here is profound, and has vast implications!

Details

Do We Have the Stones

You know, with all the focus on Obamacare, and the horrendous decision by the “conservative” Supreme Court, I almost missed this story regarding a recent initiative that qualified for the ballot here in Oregon. The Oregon Cannabis Tax Act essentially legalizes Marijuana, and treats it like alcohol. Regardless of how you feel about pot, you should applaud this law.

Not because marijuana is “safer than alcohol” I am not certain of that argument. Not because the war on drugs is a gateway tyranny that allows the feds to justify atrocious behavior that would never be tolerated under any other circumstances. Not because you would enjoy getting high with your friends. You should applaud this because the federal government has acknowledged (by the ratification of the 18th amendment)  that they do not have the authority to execute the war on drugs, and they do it anyway!  If the Constitution is to mean anything, it must mean what it means all the time. Selective enforcement of the Constitution by both parties is what has brought the republic to the sorry place that it now stands.

Don’t get me wrong, I would much rather this blow be struck by the right. Nullifying Obamacare, or passing a firearms freedoms act would be somewhat preferable to see. Heck, I even wrote an article about the refusal of the Conservatives in Oregon to stand against federal usurpations. Interestingly this article was about the failure of the right, but when I closed with this challenge:

“Why is it that Conservatives have lost their courage where the left so defiantly treaded for Medical marijuana? Do Conservatives have the stones to reclaim their liberties from the Feds, or am I just shouting into the wind?”

This was the teaser used on the national TAC Facebook page. One conservative commented that conservatives would never back medical marijuana because it is “from the devil”. Interesting that a conservative could not bring himself to read an article mostly about conservatism and nullification for long enough to take the lesson that nullification does not equal open revolution.

At any rate, the initiative is a real middle finger to the feds, it is loaded with one liner quotes such as:

Details

Kill it now, Kill it here

After burning 2 years waiting for the Supreme Court to stab us in the back, at least we know one thing now.  We are on our own.  Why should we have thought otherwise; after all in the 60 years between the mid 1930s, and the mid 1990s the Supremes did not strike down one law from the federal government.

After Republican presidents ran 7 out of the last 11 administrations, if they haven’t been able to stack the courts to give us a “strict constructionist” court yet, why should we expect them to in the future. Worse yet, the Chief Justice most conservatives thought for sure would strike this law down turned out to be just another statist turn coat.

Now the establishment wants us to just wait till November and elect Romney (of Romneycare fame) so he can repeal Obamacare and replace it.  Replace it with what?  I say rather than wait till November, and elect somebody who will stack the court with more just like Roberts, we take a page out of Thomas Jefferson’s playbook, and stop it here at home!

When the Adams administration passed a law making it illegal to criticize public officials. Jefferson didn’t wait till November to vote them out. Jefferson did not sue the Federal government in the Federal Supreme Court.  Jefferson took action, and passed a law making enforcement of this unconstitutional act a crime in his state.

Already Florida, Louisiana and Wisconsin have refused to set up state exchanges.  Many states have passed laws making it illegal to force their citizens to buy health insurance.  We can do it here too.  Please sign this petition to show your support.

Details

Our Children’s Entitlement Slavery

Seems every time I turn around, I see the meme describing some sort of entitlement Ponzi scheme that some victims’ group or another wants to retain access to. The oft-repeated mantra goes something like, “Don’t tell me I have to give up my entitlements, I paid cash for them.”  Or.. “They have been purchased by years of payroll deductions.”  The meme, no doubt, makes absolute sense to most people who hear such arguments, after all, it seems the height of injustice when -after a lifetime of contributions to a welfare program, someone would simply discontinue the program just as it was about to pay dividends for the elderly who are dependent upon the proceeds of these fraudulent ponzi schemes! (Which, btw, are about to implode… leaving the dependants of such entitlements starving and destitute).   Surely it is the height of a contractual right – that the people who have diligently paid into these programs should be paid back!

This, of course, ignores the actual facts of the case.  The proceeds of those payroll deductions have never actually been ‘saved’ or ‘invested’ to pay the claims that would come due in the first place!  No-one who is on the hook to pay the claims back has even received any benefit from them, whatsoever!  Rather, they were used to pay for undeclared wars, to fund domestic graft (buying votes), campaign contributions, the funding of unconstitutional foreign aid – and worse yet….. to prosecute an unconstitutional Federal War on Drugs..  In many cases, it was used to pay off the people who retired before!  It has been understood by politicians for decades that our entitlement spending was/is doomed to bankruptcy, yet they still continue to promise that not only will you get back every penny you’ve paid into the system (which was designed for the mortality of Americans dying at the age of 62 on average, and is currently bankrupt), but a mandated return on top of that! (The burden of which is to be passed on to our children) who have absolutely no hope of ever being reimbursed for such lavish spending…  The beneficiaries who’ve collected the plunder in the past, having been given promises by the New Deal Ponzi schemers of some sort of magic government money machine  voted in the politicians (who were knowingly stealing your future retirement money) largely on the promises of getting  a share of the “loot!”

Details