July 1-4, 2012
Jul 01 06:57 Obama's enemies list Jul 01 14:28 Americans for real health care reform Jul 01 20:35 Propagandist-in-training buys DFL propaganda Jul 02 03:04 Minnesota's changing politics? Jul 02 10:26 Seeing the big picture on the ACA Jul 03 02:10 An open letter to Keith Ellison Jul 03 03:04 Riding the storm out Jul 04 03:58 Our Lives, our Fortunes, our Sacred Honor
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Our Lives, our Fortunes, our Sacred Honor
With Independence Day now here, it's time to ask whether Americans know understand our Founding Documents. I'm betting that fewer than 25% could explain the concept of federalism. I'm betting that the vast majority of them know the details of the Declaration of Independence.
It's time that ended.
The first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence essentially announces that the united States of America won't subject themselves to Great Britain's laws.
The first half of the second paragraph contains the powerful, inspirational words that echo throughout history:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Later in the paragraph, the Founding Fathers accused the King of England of being a tyrant:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
These weren't idle accusations. The heart of the Declaration is an indictment of the government:
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
I can picture the third paragraph of 'the indictment' as being the thing they wouldn't tolerate. Telling the colonists that they'd suffer hardship at the hands of the government if they didn't relinquish the right of representation was "a right inestimable to them."
The colonists must've had some autonomy:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
It isn't difficult to imagine the colonists feeling like slaves to a tyrant based on this:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
It isn't a stretch to think that the colonists felt like rightless subjects to a tyrant king.
What's amazing is how the colonists responded. They didn't respond by throwing their hands up in desparation though they undoubtedly felt moments of desparation. This is how they responded:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. - And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
They responded with heroism. They responded with selflessness. They said that freedom is worth dying for. That's why they pledged their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor.
I pray that we be willing to do the same.
Tags: Declaration of Independence , Founding Fathers , United States of America
Posted Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:58 AM
No comments.
Obama's enemies list
It's apparent that President Obama carries some pretty nasty grudges. That was in plain view after the Supreme Court ruling on SB1070. The minute that they upheld the section that got the most publicity, President Obama's vindictiveness flashed into public view. At that precise moment, he stripped Arizona law enforcement of their 287(g) capabilities.
That's the face of vindictiveness.
It's equally apparent that he'll fight for his allies even if it means ignoring the Constitution or this nation's laws. This op-ed makes a compelling case that President Obama won't hesitate to ignore this nation's laws if that's what's needed to fight for his friends:
When the Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel exposed the fact that the Obama campaign is keeping an enemies list and spending vital resources attacking Romney supporters, many liberals gasped in surprise. Richard Nixon and Senator Joseph McCarthy kept lists of names to be targeted, but Obama keeping an enemies list? They just couldn't understand it.
The first proof we had of President Obama's lawlessness was when he told auto executives that their secured bondholders wouldn't get their money, that they'd have to wait in line until after the UAW got their money first.
At a private meeting, President Obama told the auto executives that he was the only person standing between them and angry mobs. The clear implication was that these bondholders would have to forfeit their rights to people who didn't have any rights to the spoils.
We saw President Obama ignore common sense when he shoved Solyndra's loan down our throats even though he knew they were going bankrupt. Those aren't the only examples:
This is why he threatens institutions such as the Supreme Court and treats the Republican House of Representatives as if they don't even exist. He isn't interested in compromise or coexistence with his opponents; he is committed to destroying them.
This is why when Washington rejects his political priorities, he just dictates them through executive order. Don't enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Don't enforce our immigration laws. Congress defeats his cap and trade legislation, so he tells the EPA to write the new regulations by edict. He is comfortable acting on his own, ignoring the US Constitution's old fashioned limits to executive power.
For most of my life, I've heard a phrase repeated again and again that I can't shake. America is a "nation of laws, not men." For most of my adult life, that's been true. The hallmark of this administration has been the opposite. In President Obama's practice, America is a nation of his whims and preferences. If this nation's laws don't fit his agenda, then he's ignored this nation's laws.
It isn't possible to credibly argue that President Obama hasn't attempted to do through executive orders and regulations what he couldn't accomplish legislatively.
After he's defeated this fall, most people won't miss his ruthlessness or lawlessness. They'll breath a sigh of relief that his ill-advised policies won't adversely affect their lives.
Investors will breath an even bigger sigh of relief because they won't have to worry about the bullseye this administration painted on their backs.
The downside is that President Obama created a pool of people who think that people with money should be punished. In fact, many of the lefty bloggers here in Minnesota think like that.
They hate prosperity. They love omnipotent government.
Many in the media have swooned over "The One." He isn't "The One." This administration's hardline followers are cultists; he's their James Jones.
Tags: President Obama , Enemies List , Nixon , McCarthy , Cultists , James Jones , Bailouts , UAW , EPA , Immigration , Law Enforcement , 287(g) , SCOTUS , Marxists , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, July 1, 2012 6:57 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 01-Jul-12 12:30 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget that hotline asking for bad police officers. That is the quickest way for police officers to get into trouble even if they do nothing wrong.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 02-Jul-12 12:12 PM
Obamugabe.
Americans for real health care reform
I've been looking for an article that summarizes Thursday's ruling since Chief Justice John Roberts read it. Holman Jenkins' op-ed does a great job with that, especially with this:
Congress cannot compel you to do anything Congress wishes, but it can impose taxes on you until you finally have no rational alternative but to do whatever Congress wishes.
History will judge whether Mr. Roberts saved the reputation of the court or lost his nerve. Many conservatives obviously suspect the latter. Resolved: The government cannot make you eat broccoli, though it may levy a non-broccoli-eating tax on any who refuse.
Roberts' apologists say that he limited the scope of the Commerce Clause, which is technically true. What his apologists haven't admitted is that his opinion said that a new authority can be used to expand the federal government beyond the limits of the Ninth and Tenth amendments.
A door closed. A new window opened.
Chief Justice Roberts' opinion essentially said the federal government's reach is still unlimited. To expand without a limiting power, they'll just have to use a different method.
There still isn't a limiting principle that limits government.
The good news is that every penny of tax increases, including the taxes known as the individual mandate and the 21-tax salute can be repealed with a simple majority vote in the Senate. It isn't subject to filibuster, either. That's the best news but it isn't the only great news:
Now just modify the Affordable Care Act so buying any health policy authorized by the new charter, no matter how minimalist, satisfies the employer and individual mandate.
What would follow is a boom in low-cost, high-deductible plans that leave individuals in charge of managing most of their ordinary health-care costs out of pocket. Because it would be cheap, millions who would opt not to buy coverage will buy coverage. Because it will be cheap, companies will direct their low-wage and entry-level employees to this coverage.
This is brilliant. First, eliminate every new tax created by the ACA. Next, eliminate all the increases of existing taxes. Finally, make all health insurance options viable.
In fact, I'd go a step further. I'd write a tax break so that people who chose to purchase high deductible policy could pay for it in pre-tax dollars. That way, people wouldn't have an incentive for not purchasing health insurance.
With consumers shouldering a bigger share of health expenses directly, hospital and doctors would discover the advantages of competing on price and quality. This way lies salvation. In the long run, whatever share of GDP society decides to allocate to health care, it will get its money's worth - the fundamental problem today.
When someone else pays for treatments, people don't have an incentive to watch expenses. The minute people have skin in the game, they become infinitely better shoppers.
The time for real reform is now. The time to get rid of this crap that got shoved down America's throats while ignoring We The People is now. The ACA wasn't health care reform. Government-run single-payer isn't reform either because it doesn't control costs and it's exceptionally inefficient.
Health care shopper-oriented policies are the only true health insurance and health care reform.
Anytime I have the opportunity to make decisions for myself rather than trusting the IPAB, I win.
Tags: Individual Mandate , Excise Tax , Tanning Tax , Payroll Tax , Tax Increase , Employer Mandate , Democrats , Catastrophic Health Insurance , HSAs , Competition , Reforms , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, July 1, 2012 2:28 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 02-Jul-12 10:55 AM
Deleted because Eric made a baseless allegation. FYI- If people want to make an accusation, provide verification for the accusation.
Comment 2 by eric z at 02-Jul-12 11:06 AM
Gary and readers. A few questions. Brief ones.
Presently:
Do you have healthcare coverage?
Who pays for it and how is it arranged?
Is it employer paid?
Are you limited to the plan contracting with a limited number of providers, or can you go to any healer of any kind anywhere in Minnesota [or Wisconsin or North Dakota]?
If your plan is constraining you to seeking treatment through specific channels, how is that a "healthcare shopper policy?"
Note - that "specific channels" would include having to see a primary care physician for a referral to a specialist, vs. picking and chooling what specialist YOU want, as to special area of practice, and identity.
How did you choose your primary care physician?
When you began your present coverage plan were you subject to a "preexistent condition" exclusion or special rider?
Bloviation aside, what are the FACTS?
Comment 3 by IndyJones at 02-Jul-12 03:11 PM
Health policy before my retirement covered me and wife. Cost was about 100 dollars per month paid weekly thru paycheck witholding. A.C mech at Fedex with health, dental and optional disability which I bought. Had a list of providers in area to choose from, also hospital of choice could be chosen. Could use any provider in an emergency.I had this before my retirement at the Indianapolis hanger but I only had one major use about 3 years before retiring. Trigeminal Neuralgia was not a surgical procedure anywhere except the Cleveland Clinic and the Mayo Clinic. The company allowed me to go to the Mayo Clinic for the procedure (neurological surgury) and I had to pay only about 50 bucks copay and no deductible as the procedure wasn't done within 25 miles of where I lived.Not sure what a shopper policy is? And proper channels? Everywhere you go you are required to have a primary care physician approve going to a specialist as they don't approve of self diagnosis and wasting a specilists time. They want the PCP to be the first line of diagnosis. Its like going to a dentist..he decides if you should have a root canal or a filing, and then does the work or sends you to a specialist for the root canal. We had a choice of local specialists and it was that specialist that approved going to the Mayo with approval from the company. I picked my PCP from a rather extensive list and you could change anytime which I had to do over the 25 years at the company working in Mpls, Memphis, Los Angelos,and Indianapolis. I don't recollect anything about pre existing conditions but you had a physical before employment and random drug testing the entire employment period.
Propagandist-in-training buys DFL propaganda
A propagandist-in-training wrote this LTE that exposes the heart of the militant environmentalist's thinking on PolyMet:
As a young Minnesotan who feels Minnesota's heartbeat in those northern Minnesota waterways, I do not trust mining companies or elected representatives who choose to overlook the potential catastrophes these projects have in store for Minnesota. I am not a pessimist. I am a concerned Minnesotan who is worried about cleaning up someone else's mess.
To quote George Will, "Well." First, let's introduce some facts to this conversation:
'The total number of hardrock mines permitted (on United States Forest Service lands) since 1990 is 2,658; no sites have been placed on the CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (commonly known as Superfund) list ' Department of Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack wrote in a letter to a U.S. senator on July 20, 2011.
In 21 years, no sites have been put on the Superfund list. That's an astonishing fact. You'd never know it by reading the LTE. In fact, you'd think that the mining industry was a catastrophe-riddled industry if you only read this young propandist-in-training's LTE.
As important as that discovery is, the underlying message is scary. In this young propagandist-in-training's mind, protecting the environment from imaginary environmental disasters is more important than putting policies in place that would help people find good-paying middle class jobs.
This isn't news to anyone who's paid attention to the so-called environmental movement. It isn't about the environment. It's about the Left's attempt to control people's lives. It's about the Left's attempt to prohibit people from doing on their private property what they want to do.
That's why the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act are vital to militant environmentalists.
It's time that young Mr. Wilson explained why his imaginary catastrophes should prevent miners from making a living. It's time that the environmentalist wing of the DFL told the Iron Range why they're targeting the mines in Ely and Hoyt Lakes :
Conservation Minnesota, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy are targeting the proposed PolyMet mine near Hoyt Lakes and the proposed Twin Metals mine near Ely.
What's most offensive is that Conservation Minnesota is littered with Twin Cities elitists . People that don't have anything to lose when mines aren't created are telling people whose lives depend on mining that mining should be stopped.
How dare these elitist Twin Cities snobs tell the blue collar workers of the Iron Range that they don't have the right to make a living by doing what generations of Iron Rangers have done before.
If the mining industry dies, these elitist snobs wouldn't blink an eyelash. However, if the mining industry flourishes, northern Minnesota's economy would take off like a rocketship. The harbor in Duluth would catch fire again. The Iron Range would see average salaries jump, too.
Finally, it's time to explode the myth that the Arrowhead and the Iron Range are vast expanses of pristine wilderness. A quick scan through Google Earth will prove that that region isn't the pristine wilderness that these Twin Cities elitists are selling.
Tags: Conservation Minnesota , Arne Carlson , Tom Horner , Dee Long , Margaret Anderson-Kelliher , Twin Cities , Elitists , Environment , DFL , Iron Range , Mining , Middle Class
Posted Sunday, July 1, 2012 8:35 PM
No comments.
Minnesota's changing politics?
Gently, like a falling safe, the political landscape in northern Minnesota is changing. It was inevitable because Alida Messinger's DFL isn't appealing to people who don't share the DFL's intemperate view on the environment and mining.
Thanks to Chip Cravaack's victory, people are taking a first serious look at incumbents like John Carlson and Carolyn McElfatrick. As incumbents, people already took them seriously. Running against Tom Saxhaug and Tom Anzelc respectively, though, new people are taking a serious first look at Sen. Carlson and Rep. McElfatrick.
Though this isn't a prediction, I expect Sen. Carlson to defeat Sen. Saxhaug and Rep. McElfatrick to defeat Rep. Anzelc.
The CD-8 GOP Facebook page is better known as Parade Pictures Central. The numbers of volunteers marching in parades is impressive. Even in the northernmost parts of CD-8, the numbers of volunteers is impressive.
Redistricting added new legislative districts to central Minnesota. Candidates like Jim Newberger and Dave Fitzsimmons will win their elections to the House of Representatives. Dave Brown will win re-election to the Senate. Mary Kiffmeyer will win election to the Senate.
Barring something unexpected happening, Jeff Howe will replace Larry Hosch in the House.
When the dust settled on Election Night, 2008, the DFL held the Senate seats in SD-15 and SD-16. They held the seats in HD-15B, HD-16A and HD-14B. They held 5 of the 9 seats in SD-14,SD-15 and SD-16.
When the dust settled on Election Night, 2010, Larry Hosch was the DFL representation for SD-14, SD-15 and SD-16. After the dust settles on Election Night, 2012, SD-13, SD-14 and SD-15 (their new numbers after redistricting) will be totally red.
Reports I'm getting tell me that swing areas in central, northern and western Minnesota are moving out of swing district status. That makes sense with people understanding that the metrocentric DFL has focused on an agenda that only public employee unions could love.
I wrote here and here about the DFL's hostility towards mining. Miners are noticing and they're abandoning the DFL in ever-increasing numbers.
They've noticed that the militant environmentalists from the Twin Cities are targeting the mining industry. Why be part of a coalition that wants to shut down your industry in northern Minnesota?
Put slightly differently, the DFL's anti-mining chickens are coming home to roost. Simply put, the DFL's' accusations, based mostly on Sen. Bakk's bluster, that the GOP isn't fit to lead are being ignored by the voters thus far.
Tags: Carolyn McElfatrick , John Carlson , Dave Brown , Jim Newberger , Dave Fitzsimmons , Mary Kiffmeyer , Jeff Howe , Mining , Chip Cravaack , MNGOP , Tom Saxhaug , Tom Anzelc , Militant Environmentalists , Alida Messinger , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Monday, July 2, 2012 3:04 AM
Comment 1 by Brandon Anderson at 02-Jul-12 12:08 PM
Hi Gary,
My name is Brandon Anderson, and I am an engineer, not a politician. But I am running with GOP endorsement for the State Senate seat held for 12 years by Dave Tomassoni (now district 6.) This is another area that could undergo a major change this year. This district hasn't had a Republican Senator in 98 years.
For 12 years Tomassoni was part of a powerful legislative clique led by Oberstar, with Rukavina and Sertich as his underlings. Of course, Chip Cravaack came out of nowhere to defeat Oberstar in 2010, and a week after Chip was sworn in, Dayton told Sertich to drop his seat and go head the IRRRB. Now with Rukavina becoming disgruntled and choosing to retire, Tomassoni has become the 'last man standing.' And I have been chosen to eliminate him.
I believe we have the strongest ever selection of GOP candidates in CD-8, with a great chance of getting the area back on the right track.
Let freedom ring, Gary. Liberty and Free Enterprise must be maintained.
-Brandon Anderson,
GOP-endorsed MN Senate District 6 Candidate
+ 218-780-7179
+ www.facebook.com/district6mn
+ on Twitter: @GOPBDA
+ GOP-BDA@USA.com
Comment 2 by Eric at 02-Jul-12 11:32 PM
I'll take your word for it miners are leaving duh DFL. So the 'enthusiasm' goes down too. Does this translate into any actual increase in votes for GOP?
Seeing the big picture on the ACA
Powerline's Scott Johnson and John Hinderaker did a great job highlighting Jack Lew's lying to Chris Wallace. Simply put, there's no other word that best describes what Lew said in denying that Chief Justice Roberts called the individual mandate a tax.
Still, they're missing a great opportunity to highlight the litany of regressive taxes in this bill. There's no need to just focus on the individual mandate as a regressive tax that hits the middle class.
I wrote an article titled " DFL delegation gives Minnesota 21-tax salute ", which highlights the litany of regressive taxes in the ACA.
It's time that everyone become familiar with this information because it's the type of thing that this administration can't argue with. It's the final piece of information that says that this administration loves raising taxes on America's middle class.
Now that we have that that information is highlighted, it's time to highlight Lew's lying. People have called it spin. They've called it tapdancing around the truth, too. These are euphemisms that attempt to hide what's happening. What's happening is that Jack Lew lied on FNS. He didn't get away with it but that's what he attempted to do.
He strategically lied about whether the individual mandate was a tax. At one point, Lew said that Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress has many powers, including the Commerce Clause and their taxing authority, suggesting that the individual mandate was constitutional for a variety of reasons.
Thanks to Chris Wallace's fidelity to the truth, Lew's statements didn't go unchallenged. Wallace said that Chief Justice Roberts said that the individual mandate wasn't constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Chief Justice Roberts ruled the individual mandate was constitutional only by using Congress's taxing authority.
The thing that stands out in this video is that Chris Wallace had to correct Lew on each of his points:
That's what happens when the administration attempts to lie about the litany of regressive tax increases in the ACA.
Tags: Jack Lew , Interview , Chris Wallace , ACA , Individual Mandate , Regressive Taxes , Tax Increase , Euphemisms , Political Correctness , President Obama , Commerce Clause , Democrats
Posted Monday, July 2, 2012 10:26 AM
No comments.
An open letter to Keith Ellison
Congressman Ellison, Last week, you joined with Congressman Grijalva in issuing this statement :
'This ruling is a significant victory for the American people. After a two-year legal battle, the Supreme Court confirmed today that the Affordable Care Act will continue to provide millions of Americans with health coverage. The health care reform act provides that children will not be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition, young adults will be able to stay on their family health plan, and that Americans can keep their health care insurance if they get a major illness. The Affordable Care Act will now take its rightful place with Social Security and Medicare as powerful examples of what we can do together to improve the lives of every American.
'Despite today's victory, Republicans in Congress will continue their assault on universal health care for the American people. Throughout this year, GOP lawmakers have tried to repeal and cut back health care benefits, including Medicare and Medicaid. We must continue to work together to protect vital reforms that will improve the health of every American.
'Today's decision is a turning point for the American people. Let's remember that millions of American families suffered without health care coverage for decades. The health care law has already benefited millions of families. The Court's decision to uphold this law President Obama proposed and Congress enacted is a sign that dramatic change can happen when the American people demand change. We have made an important step forward toward our goal of affordable universal coverage. Now we need to be vigilant to implement the law so that American families have the health care they need and deserve.'
Congressman Ellison, didn't the Affordable Care Act cut $575,000,000,000 from Medicare to pay for the CLASS Act ? How dare you say that Republicans tried to repeal Medicare and Medicaid. You've voted to cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare yet you accuse Republicans of trying to repeal Medicare ? It's pretty apparent that there's nothing you won't say to win a political fight.
You implied that the American people demanded the Affordable Care Act. Yet poll after poll shows the American people demanding that the Affordable Care Act be repealed. One of those statements must be false. Since August, 2009, people vehemently protested the Affordable Care Act at TEA Party rallies and townhall meetings.
In November, 2010, millions of voters fired tons of politicians that voted for the ACA. Those results prove that the polls showing the American people wanted to repeal the ACA were spot on accurate.
Saying that the Affordable Care Act "will now take its rightful place with Social Security and Medicare as powerful examples of what we can do together" is laughable. Democrats worked together to shove legislation down the American people's throats that a) doesn't insure everyone, b) explodes the deficits far beyond the deficits you've already run up, c)raises taxes on the middle class by hundreds of billions of dollars and d) doesn't cut health care or health insurance costs like President Obama promised.
On top of all that, people that bought their own insurance will pay the penalty because the policy they bought doesn't qualify as a government-approved health insurance policy. These people are getting penalized for doing the right thing.
Is that your way of representing the people? Dictating what We The People are required to do isn't liberty. It's what tyrants do.
You aren't a public servant. You're just a cheap politician who does what he wants. You're a disgrace.
Tags: ACA , Keith Ellison , Medicare , Social Security , CLASS Act , Democrats , Elections
Posted Tuesday, July 3, 2012 2:10 AM
No comments.
Riding the storm out
There's an advantage to staying up late at night. Tonight, a thunderstorm rumbled through St. Cloud at 2:10am. When the cell first hit my neighborhood, the temperature was an uncomfortable 84 with humidity sitting at 81%.
A short 36 minutes later, the temp had dropped to 68. We'd received .43" of rain in those 36 minutes.
Pea-sized hail was reported on the southeast corner of town. Thunder is still booming in the background. The great news is that the temp has dropped 16 degrees to the point where it's great sleeping weather.
The downside is that the next wave is just hitting my neighborhood. It's 2:55 as I type this. Based on where the thunder is coming from, the storm won't hit me as hard as it'll hit outside of town. I'm just guessing but I'd bet the heart of this cell is 2-3 miles east of St. Cloud.
Now that the last cell has passed, it's time to celebrate with the best storm song of all time. Enjoy.
Posted Tuesday, July 3, 2012 3:04 AM
Comment 1 by MplsSteve at 03-Jul-12 01:51 PM
I always wake up to a thunderstorm - no matter how strong it is.
But I didn't wake up to last night's storm. I live right in the People's Republic of Minneapolis - so I'm pretty sure we got some last night.
Thunderstorms at night are cool.
