Category Archives: Congress

The New & . . . Well, NEW Progressive Constitution

With Rep. Clyburn admitting that the proggies would prefer to govern without a Constitution, it’s time to take a look at their constitutional goals.

By Wolf Howling

Let’s face it.  Progressives have gone a long way to making our Constitution a dead letter already.  But as Rep. Clyburn makes clear in the video below, they are not yet wholly satisfied with the result.  Work remains to be done.

What progressives want is nothing more than permanent power.  That would be impossible to accomplish were they starting from scratch, but clearly they aren’t.  A lot of the most important groundwork has already been laid over the past century.  So with that in mind, let’s take a look at the state of our Constitution today, how it has already been altered, and how it would look once the proggies are done rewriting it.

———-

Art 1 Sec. 1:    Out — All legislative power is vested in Congress.  In — Government by regulatory bureaucracy and Executive fiat (Presidential pen and phone).

This is one we don’t have to imagine.  Progressives won this fight nearly a century ago with FDR’s court packing scheme, but it was not until Obama that we were treated to Congress becoming a secondary, and comparatively unimportant, source of legislation.  And that is how progressives want to keep it.  It’s much easier to make “fundamental changes” to society when bureaucrats write the laws without being subject to any of the checks and balances written into the Constitutional scheme.

As Justice Kagan stated recently in Gundy v. U.S., if Art 1, Sec. 1 of the Constitution actually means what it says, that “all legislative power” resides in Congress and cannot be substantively delegated, “then most of Government is unconstitutional.”  She says it like its a bad thing.  Of course, this is the same Supreme Court Justice who accused plaintiffs of “weaponizing the First Amendment” by relying on it to challenge forced union dues.  This is a woman who should not be allowed to sit on a public park bench in the U.S., let alone the Supreme Court bench.

Two notes — One, Senate Republicans and Democrats alike are fine the way things are.  That way, they don’t have to make any of the tough decisions.  It is the only way to interpret the fact that the Republican controlled Senate killed the REINS Act.  Worthless bastards, all of them.  Two, the Supreme Court as it is now sitting (and if it does not get packed by the next Democrat administration) signaled in Gundy that it is probably going to force legislative authority back into Congress, whether Congress likes it or not.  The proggies will die to a man (woman, or pick your favorite fantasy gender) on the hill before they allow that to happen.

———-

Art. 1 Sec. 2:  Out — Each State is entitled to two Senators.  In — Let’s have two Houses of Representatives.

Letting small conservative states have an equal vote in the Senate with large states (the Connecticut Compromise) was necessary in 1787, but there was no progressive imperative then; now, it just sucks.  Per The Atlantic just a few months ago, this equal representation of states in the Senate is a problem in need of a progressive solution.

Today the voting power of a citizen in Wyoming, the smallest state in terms of population, is about 67 times that of a citizen in the largest state of California, and the disparities among the states are only increasing. The situation is untenable.

Under the new proggie Constitution, there will be equal representation in both Houses . . . at least so long as that continues to yield a progressive majority.

———–

Art I Sec. 8:  Out — Enumerated Powers of Federal Government;  In — Unlimited Power of Federal Government (for Progressives Only)

It’s been a long, long time since progressives started running wild with the “Commerce Clause” to justify federal legislation reaching every aspect of life in America.  Its reach is practically unlimited today, though it did suffer a small set back a few years ago in the Obamacare cases concerning the mandate to purchase insurance.  Not to worry though, for while even the power of the commerce clause can’t be stretched that far, our inventive Supreme Court can find other justifications.  Our modern taxing authority, as Chief Justice John Roberts reinterpreted it, can substitute in a pinch to save the progressive bacon.

We are already a very long way from the Founder’s Constitution of limited federal powers, but under the Constitution as rewritten this will be a settled issue.

Of course, the flip side of this new doctrine is also worthy of mention.  As courts repeatedly make clear in the Trump era, most recently here, even if a Republican president uses federal power in a wholly legal way, s/he can be stopped by a progressive in a black robe who doesn’t agree with the policy.

———-

Art II Sec. 3:  Out — The Electoral College.  In — Pure Democracy

The Electoral College is, according to Chiquita Khrushchev, a “RACIST scam” standing athwart the progressive will to power.  We could be enjoying nirvana under President Hildabeast today were it not for the horrible, racist Electoral College.

One man (woman, or pick your favorite fantasy gender), one vote sounds fair . . . unless you know a bit about political history and why our Founders would not even consider democracy as a viable option for this nation.  As John Adams said:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Democracy invariably devolves into mob rule. Of course, that’s okay with the proggies, for any rule that gives them a benefit at the moment is, to hear them tell it, the only one with moral standing — whether it is actually in the interests of minorities or not.

And in that vein, a special mention here of Art 1 Sec. 2 clause 3’s Three Fifths Compromise.  While it hasn’t been operative since about 1865, word is that AOC wants to revive it as part of the new proggie rewrite of the electoral college.  She wants to have the votes of white people counted as only three fifths of a vote.  As quoted at the Bee, AOC said “What if we count all white people as three-fifths of a person instead of a full person? Then, good votes would count more than bad, racist votes. Like, four or five times more or something, because 3/5ths is only like 10% of a real vote.”

Sometimes it is hard to figure out whether the Babylon Bee is satire or not.  No wonder Snopes is so confused.

———-

Art II Sec II:  Out — Limited Presidential Powers; In — Presidential Powers Limitations Depending on Party Affiliation

This rewrite is wholly situational.  A non-Progressive President is an obscenity who cannot Constitutionally wield any power (under the progressive rewrite at least).  But put a non-progressive in as President and the sky’s the limit, from unilateral legislation of DACA (the textbook definition of tyranny) to unilateral execution of treaties with Iran and the Paris Accords, etc.

———-

Art. III  Out — An Independent Judiciary Limited to Exercise of Judicial Power;  In — A Progressive Judiciary with Statutory Legislative and Constitutional Amending Powers

For nearly a century, our judiciary has leaned progressive and has busily been rewriting our Constitution by assuming the powers of legislation (Art. 1 Sec. 1) and amending the Constitution itself (Art. V) (abortion, gay marriage, etc.).  Now, with the Court in danger of becoming non-Progressive, well, that cannot possibly be allowed. It would be too blatant to rewrite the Constitution to require a progressive majority on the Supreme Court, but the practical way of accomplishing that is to pack the Court.

Actually, I can’t think of anything more likely to ignite a shooting civil war in this country, but . . . what’s a civil war when progressive dominance over the evil that is non-progressives is at stake.

———-

The Bill of Rights

1st Amendment:  Out — Religious Conscience Clause;  In — Progressive Conscience Clause

The whole purpose of the progressive embrace of sexuality, and in particular, homosexuality and gender identity as moral imperatives, has been as a cudgel to attack the Judeo Christian religions and drive those religions out of the public square.  Bookworm had the definitive look at this years ago at American Thinker.

1st Amendment:  Out — Anti-Establishment Clause;  In — Secular Religion Clause

The progressive war on the Judeo-Christian religions has been ongoing in this country for over a century.  Socialism requires the replacement of a monotheistic God with government.  It has been that way from the moment of socialism’s inception:

Sixty years after the French Revolution, Karl Marx, socialism’s greatest philosopher, famously wrote in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right that religion is the “opium of the people” and that “[t]he abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.” The British socialist party wrote in their 1911 manifesto that “it is a profound truth that Socialism is the natural enemy of religion.” Lenin, the father of the Soviet Union’s bloody experiment in Communism, wrote in 1905, “The modern class-conscious worker, reared by large-scale factory industry and enlightened by urban life, contemptuously casts aside religious prejudices, leaves heaven to the priests and bourgeois bigots, and tries to win a better life for himself here on earth.” Lenin further noted that “every socialist is, as a rule” an “atheist.” And Hitler himself was of like mind – “National Socialism and Christianity cannot co-exist together.”

1st Amendment:  Out — Freedom of Speech;  In — Freedom for Progressive Approved Speech Only

Speech control equals thought control, so that progressives’ love for speech limitations, such as on “hate speech,” almost goes without saying.    It is right out of Orwell.  Of course, as an alternative, if speech cannot be fully controlled, progressives are fine if it can be effectively suppressed on social media or by sending out ANTIFA thugs to shut down speakers.

2nd Amendment:  Out — Right to Keep & Bear Arms;  In — The Right of Government to Disarm the Populace

This is another one that needs very little elucidation.  A prerequisite for tyrannical government is a disarmed populace.  Unarmed cows become Big Macs and Whoppers. Cows with guns on the other hand . . .

4th Amendment: Out: General Warrants are per se Unconstitutional; In — The police power of government can be used against political opposition

Whether it was using the IRS to target the Tea Party or using general warrants under the guise of a counter-intelligence operation against the Trump administration, this obscene abuse of power is okay as long as progressives use it against evil non-progressives.  The only surprising thing about the Obama administration’s incredible abuse of power as to the investigation of Trump is that the proggies found nothing to actually charge as a substantive crime.  Beria would be most unimpressed.

——————–

So as you can see, the rewrite need not be too much more extensive than already exists.  Then we can finally have progressive heaven on earth.  Somehow, I think it is more likely to resemble biblical hell.

The post The New & . . . Well, NEW Progressive Constitution appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Congressman Lee Zeldin Rips Anti-Semite, Ilhan Omar, on House Floor (video)

The three stooges (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar) in the House of Congress are the gift to cowering Republicans that keeps on giving.  Kudos to Congressman Lee Zeldin for daring to go where Kevin McCarthy among others are too spineless to go.

Published on Mar 11, 2019 by GLOBAL News

Watch congressman gets up and rips rep. Ilhan Omar to shreds! Omar’s worst nightmare. Congressman Lee Zeldin and Doug Collins condemns Rep. Ilhan Omar of her “a. n. t. i. S. e. m. i. t. i. c” rhetoric over the past month in light of recent legislation to pass through the House. Should Rep. Ilhan Omar stay on the Foreign Affairs Committee?

The post Congressman Lee Zeldin Rips Anti-Semite, Ilhan Omar, on House Floor (video) appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Bookworm Beat 3/8/2019 — the Democrat Party goes full anti-Semitism

An illustrated edition focusing on the Dems’ weirdly ecumenical transition from anti-Black (slavery, Jim Crow, ghettoization) to untrammeled anti-Semitism.
(Plus other examples of the myriad threats socialists pose to America, and the way Trump is a bulwark against those threats.)

Before getting to the posters, a short video I urge you all to watch:

We now return to our regularly scheduled illustrated edition

Anti-Semitism Ilhan Omar David Duke Democrats















































The post Bookworm Beat 3/8/2019 — the Democrat Party goes full anti-Semitism appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

How a Balanced Budget Amendment Would Give the Federal Government Lawful Power Over Whatever They Want

By Publius Huldah

 

Does our existing Constitution permit the federal government to spend money on whatever they want?

 

No! It contains precise limits on federal spending.

Federal spending is limited by the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. If you go through the Constitution and highlight all the powers delegated to Congress and the President, you will get a complete list of the objects on which Congress is permitted to spend money. Here’s the list:

  • The Census (Art. I, §2, cl. 3)
  • Publishing the Journals of the House and Senate (Art. I, §5, cl. 3)
  • Salaries of Senators and Representatives (Art. I, § 6, cl. 1)
  • Salaries of civil officers of the United States (Art. I, §6, cl. 2 & Art. II, §1, cl. 7)
  • Pay the Debts (Art. I, §8, cl. 1 & Art. VI, cl.1)
  • Pay tax collectors (Art. I, §8, cl.1)
  • Regulate commerce with foreign Nations, among the several States, and with Indian Tribes (Art. I, §8, cl.3)
  • Immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
  • The mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
  • Attorney General to handle the small amount of authorized federal litigation involving the national government (e.g., Art. I, §8, cls. 6 & 10)
  • Post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
  • Patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
  • Federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9 & Art. III, §1)
  • Military and Militia (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
  • Since Congress has general legislative authority over the federal enclaves listed in Art. I, §8, next to last clause, Congress has broad spending authority over the tiny geographical areas listed in this clause.
  • The President’s entertainment expenses for foreign dignitaries (Art. II, §3); and
  • Since Congress had general legislative authority over the Western Territory before it was broken up into States, Congress could appropriate funds for the US Marshalls, federal judges, and the like for that Territory (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2).

That’s what Congress is authorized by our Constitution to spend money on. Did I leave anything out? Take a few minutes and, armed with a highlighter, read carefully through the Constitution and see for yourself.

Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out this handful of delegated powers; and it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes. 1

Pursuant to Article I, §9, clause 7, the federal government is to periodically publish a Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures. Citizens could use this Statement and Account – which would be so short that everyone would have time to read it – to monitor the spending of their public servants.

So that’s how our existing Constitution limits federal spending:

  • If it’s on the list of enumerated powers, Congress may lawfully spend money on it.
  • But if it’s not on the list, Congress usurps powers not delegated when it appropriates money for it.

 

It was unconstitutional spending and unconstitutional promises (Social Security, Medicare, etc., etc., etc.) which got us a national debt of almost $19 trillion, plus a hundred trillion or so in unfunded liabilities.

Since the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money; the Constitution doesn’t provide for a budget.

We never had a federal budget until Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. By this time, the Progressives controlled both political parties and the federal government.

The Progressives wanted a federal budget because they wanted to spend money on objects which were not on the list of delegated powers.

A balanced budget amendment (BBA) would substitute a budget for the enumerated powers, and thus would legalize the current practice where Congress spends money on whatever they or the President put in the budget.

The result of a BBA is to legalize spending which is now unconstitutional – it changes the constitutional standard for spending from whether the object is on the list of enumerated powers to a limit on the total amount of spending.

 

  • And to add insult to injury, the limits on spending are fictitious because they can be waived whenever Congress 2 votes to waive them.

 

And because a BBA would permit Congress to lawfully spend money on whatever is put in the budget, the powers of the federal government would be lawfully increased to include whatever THEY decide to put in the budget.

So a BBA would fundamentally transform our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only to one of general and unlimited powers – because the federal government would then be authorized by the Constitution to exercise power over ANY object they decide to put into the budget.

You must read proposed amendments and understand how they change our Constitution before you support them.

All federal and State officials take an oath to support the federal Constitution (Art. VI, clause 3). When people in Congress appropriate funds for objects not listed in the Constitution; and when State officials accept federal funds for objects not listed, they violate their oath to support the Constitution. According to the PEW Report, federal funds provided an average of 30% of the States’ revenue for FY 2013. Look up your State HERE. Were those federal funds used to implement unconstitutional federal programs in your State?

Power over education, medical care, agriculture, state and local law enforcement, environment, etc., is not delegated to the federal government: those powers are reserved by the States or the People. Congress spends on objects for which it has no constitutional authority; and bribes States with federal funds to induce them to implement unconstitutional federal programs. It was the unconstitutional spending which gave us this crushing $19 Trillion debt.

 

How do we go about downsizing the federal government to its constitutional limits?

We stop the unconstitutional and frivolous spending one can read about all over the internet.

 

We begin the shutdown of unconstitutional federal departments and agencies by selecting for immediate closure those which serve no useful purpose or cause actual harm such as the Departments of Energy, Education, Homeland Security, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 3

 

Other unconstitutional federal departments and agencies must be dismantled and their functions returned to the States or The People.

 

An orderly phase-out is required of those unconstitutional federal programs in which Citizens were forced to participate – such as social security and Medicare – so that the rug is not pulled out from American Citizens who became dependent. The phase-out could be funded by sales of unconstitutionally held federal lands.

 

The federal government is obligated (Art. I, §8, cl. 11-16) to provide for service related injuries suffered by our Veterans.

 

The Constitution delegates to Congress the power to appropriate funds for “post Roads” (Art. I, §8, cl. 7). While there may be room for argument as to what is included within the term, “post Road”; clearly, some federal involvement in road building is authorized by our Constitution. State dependence on federal highway funds might be reduced by eliminating or reducing federal fuel taxes, and the substitution of fuel taxes collected by individual States. And there is nothing immoral about toll roads.

 

Since our Constitution was written to delegate to the federal government only the few and defined powers enumerated in the Constitution, we don’t have to change the Constitution to rein in federal spending. The Constitution isn’t the problem – ignoring it is the problem. Let us begin to enforce the Constitution we have.

Endnotes:

1 Our original Constitution authorized only excise taxes & tariffs on imports (Art. I, §8, clause 1), with any shortfall being made up by an apportioned assessment on the States based on population (Art. I, §2, clause 3).

2 Compact for America’s (CFA) version of a BBA permits spending limits to be waived whenever Congress and 26 States agree. CFA’s version also authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax in addition to keeping the income tax! See THIS Paper.

3 George Washington’s Cabinet had four members: Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of Treasury, and Attorney General.

 


Article written by: Tom White

Beware the Son of Magnitsky: Global Meddling at a Whim of Congress or the President! It MUST BE Stopped!

I just posted on the original Magnitsky Act, which was a gross meddling in the internal affairs of Russia and which named names and convicted those as human rights abusers.  It violates in my view the clear provision of the US Constitution that states as follows (Article I, Section 9):

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Congress cannot name names and then punish those alleged offenders or delegate that unconstitutional power to any President.  (I am well aware that some lower federal court precedent is against me on this but this question has not been clearly adjudicated by any US court!)

BUT, now we have the Son of Magnitsky:  The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. (This bill like many others introduced or passed such as the Affordable Care Act or the No Child Left Behind Act or the USA Patriot Act, is another example of another of Sandy’s Political Laws:  Bills with fancy names usually lie in the name or it is a propaganda cover for something bad – in this case both!

This is bad policy:  Who made US the arbiter of human rights accountability?  We are not just the policeman of the world, we’re now it’s judge and jury and will execute the sentence too!  It’s monstrous.

Here is the text of this monstrous act (passed by the Senate by unanimous consent) and below are a few highlights:

(1) FOREIGN PERSON.—The term “foreign person” means a person that is not a United States person.

(2) PERSON.—The term “person” means an individual or entity.

(3) UNITED STATES PERSON.—The term “United States person” means—

(A) a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence to the United States; or

(B) an entity organized under the laws of the United States or of any jurisdiction within the United States, including a foreign branch of such an entity.

***

(a) In general.—The President may impose the sanctions described in subsection (b) with respect to any foreign person the President determines, based on credible evidence—

(1) is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals in any foreign country who seek—

(A) to expose illegal activity carried out by government officials; or

(B) to obtain, exercise, defend, or promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms, such as the freedoms of religion, expression, association, and assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and democratic elections;

(2) acted as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign person in a matter relating to an activity described in paragraph (1);

(3) is a government official, or a senior associate of such an official, that is responsible for, or complicit in, ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, acts of significant corruption, including the expropriation of private or public assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, bribery, or the facilitation or transfer of the proceeds of corruption to foreign jurisdictions; or

(4) has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, an activity described in paragraph (3).

***

(1) INADMISSIBILITY TO UNITED STATES.—In the case of a foreign person who is an individual—

(A) ineligibility to receive a visa to enter the United States or to be admitted to the United States; or

(B) if the individual has been issued a visa or other documentation, revocation, in accordance with section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)), of the visa or other documentation.

(2) BLOCKING OF PROPERTY.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The blocking, in accordance with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), of all transactions in all property and interests in property of a foreign person if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person.

***

(c) Consideration of certain information in imposing sanctions.—In determining whether to impose sanctions under subsection (a), the President shall consider—

(1) information provided by the chairperson and ranking member of each of the appropriate congressional committees; and

(2) credible information obtained by other countries and nongovernmental organizations that monitor violations of human rights.

(d) Requests by chairperson and ranking member of appropriate congressional committees.—Not later than 120 days after receiving a written request from the chairperson and ranking member of one of the appropriate congressional committees with respect to whether a foreign person has engaged in an activity described in subsection (a), the President shall—

(1) determine if that person has engaged in such an activity; and

(2) submit a report to the chairperson and ranking member of that committee with respect to that determination that includes—

(A) a statement of whether or not the President imposed or intends to impose sanctions with respect to the person; and

(B) if the President imposed or intends to impose sanctions, a description of those sanctions.

***

(f) Enforcement of blocking of property.—A person that violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or causes a violation of subsection (b)(2) or any regulation, license, or order issued to carry out subsection (b)(2) shall be subject to the penalties set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705) to the same extent as a person that commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) of that section.

***

(i) Identification of sanctionable foreign persons.—The Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs and other bureaus of the Department of State, as appropriate, is authorized to submit to the Secretary of State, for review and consideration, the names of foreign persons who may meet the criteria described in subsection (a).

***

(j) Appropriate congressional committees defined.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and

(2) the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

I am not sure where to start, there are so many things wrong with this law.  Let’s start with:

  • “[C]redible evidence” – who decides?  The President.  There is no criteria as to what is credible and no procedure to go to court to protest these personal sanctions.
  • The bad behaviors sound pretty severe at first BUT closer examination it could cover a broad brush:  “other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals in any foreign country…[against among other things, those who seek to] obtain, exercise, defend, or promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms,…”  Who decides that?  The President, again.  (Subject to the provisions that authorize powerful politicians – chairpersons and ranking members of key committees – to recommend names to the President!)
  • The sanctions are the offenders cannot come into the US and any property they have in the US is “blocked” – seized perhaps and taken from them – without a trial!  Note that if the property comes into the hands of any US citizen or legal resident, it comes under this law.  Or a US bank.  Even abroad.  More paperwork at the least.  And even the foreign subsidiary of such a US bank.  It must be turned in by that person or entity to the Federal Government.  Or else…
  • It would be a new Federal crime to attempt to stop the or hinder the blocking of assets and a willful violation is a FELONY punishable by up to 20 years in prison!  That is not just a crime a foreigner can commit – only a foreigner can be sanctioned – but an American citizen can be convicted of helping the bad guy keep his or her (or its) property too!

This law will “legalize” the meddling in other nations’ internal matters that has been conducted by both parties:  Serbia was attacked without cause in 1999 by a Democrat President and numerous meddling (Iraq is one example) by the Republican (President Bush 41) President and then more meddling (Syria and Libya etc.) by the present Democrat in office now.  The parties are Tweedledee and Tweedledum on this question.

There will be blowback – maybe other nations will do the same to us – or try to.  The Russians responded to Magnitsky by blocking US adoptions of Russian children – even stopping pending legal actions!  (Putin was compared to Herod here in the US because it happened at Christmas 2012 BUT few blamed Congress for their initial meddling that started it!)

This article at the Hill states the law in summary and states why some think this is a better method than blanket sanctions:

In a recent Forbes article, Doug Bandow commented that, “Sanctions have become a tool of choice for Washington to coerce governments short of war. Yet severing commercial relations rarely has promoted America’s ends. Nothing obvious has been achieved in Sudan, where the U.S. stands alone.”

Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and at the Institute on Religion and Public Policy, rightly argues that blanket sanctions imposed on states do not achieve the ends intended. Instead, sanctions — particularly those imposed for human rights purposes — only serve to harm the general population of the country while the leadership remains both unchanged and unaffected.

Bandow is right of course as far as it goes.  But this law is worse, much worse.  It is unconstitutional and bad policy.  John Quincy Adams warned us against seeking monsters to slay abroad.  The American people must reject this law immediately by advising their House member to say NO.

Here is the general list of members of the House of Representatives.  I intend to advise my representative Dr. Dave Brat tonight when I see him about this foolish, unconstitutional and dangerous bill.


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Ration Roulette: U. S. House debates ObamaCare’s Death Panels

Reader Submitted

Now that Democrats have had five years to read the health care law, most of them agree with the GOP: we need to kill at least part of the bill — before it kills Americans! The Independent Payment Advisory Panel (or “death panel,” as it’s been dubbed) has been a major sticking point with both parties since ObamaCare passed. Among other things, IPAB would be responsible for keeping Medicare costs down, which sounds innocent enough. But the big controversy isn’t whether IPAB should save money — but how it does.

As the former chief of Medicare said, it’s much cheaper for the government to let sick people die than care for them. So, the President’s team invented this Board, which would be hand-picked by the White House to determine who is worthy of care and who isn’t. Not only would IPAB be free of congressional oversight, but it would also operate without much input from health care providers. Instead of discussing the options with your doctor, IPAB will be sitting at the controls in Washington making health decisions for your family.

Essentially, the Board’s 15 members would be completely unaccountable — to Congress or anyone else. They’d have the power to limit which doctors you see, what treatments are available, and in some cases, whether you’re eligible for care at all. “The ‘independent’ part of IPAB’s name is no joke…” Forbes points out. “If Medicare spending exceeds limits set by law, then IPAB can impose its own set of cost controls… Once IPAB settles on its cuts, lawmakers must either offer an alternative plan that cuts the same level of spending or muster a super-majority to block the Board’s cuts from taking effect.”

Republicans have called it a “rationing board” — and even liberals agree. Hundreds of groups like the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (which supported the overall health care law) have been pushing to repeal IPAB. And believe me, Congress is trying.

Tomorrow in the House, members will be voting on a measure to bury the panel. In committee alone, the repeal had 20 Democratic cosponsors. In fact, you have to go a long way to find someone in favor of the idea. Since its inception, not one person has said they would accept an invitation to join the Board. They understand what most Americans do: What should control health care isn’t IPAB. It isn’t even Congress. What should control health care is the relationship between doctors and patients. Injecting more government into the equation only punishes patients and squeezes out the cutting-edge science that could treat them. In many respects, IPAB is just a microcosm of the President’s political philosophy: bypassing Congress to implement Big Government lawlessness.

It’s another symptom of an ObamaCare system that’s plaguing America — physically, politically, and economically. Insurers are already pushing for massive rate hikes under the ObamaCare exchange, meaning that premiums (which have already climbed significantly) will skyrocket. In places like New Mexico, Tennessee, Maryland, and Oregon, the “rate boosts” would be anywhere from 25-51%! Under the rules of the state exchanges, companies have to appeal to regulators for a rate increase (and, according to the Wall Street Journal, only Maine’s market leader has not).

As most of us predicted, the medical costs for sick enrollees (which are the bulk of people using the coverage) are too high, and there’s no way for insurance plans to absorb them. In the end, it all points to the bigger picture on ObamaCare — which is that rationing boards or not, the only thing we should be killing is this law!


Article written by: LIBERTY!