In congress assembled …
Posted by DNW on 2014/03/06
In congress assembled …
Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/12/26
There should be some rejoicing about this news the way I see it. It is believe that a “Good” Congress is one that passes an enormous amout of laws. But as we have seen, each law passed favors one group at the expense of another. Look 111th Congress that passe a lot of Bills plus one misnamed the “Affordable Care Act” at roughly 2000 unread pages that spawned 8 FEET of paper printed regulations when stacked with more to come. Would that rate then a “Productive Congress”? A Do-Nothing Congress in my mind is a good Congress. No new laws restricting more things in our lives. But then again, the resident at 1600 PA Ave., NW, Washington, Disease, and permanent traveler and vacationers seems to think he can do, and has usurped some Congressional Power.
Poll: Most Americans Say U.S. Congress Has Done Nothing
December 26, 2013 by UPI – United Press International, Inc.
ATLANTA (UPI) — Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the current Congress has been highly ineffective, while two-thirds say it’s the worst in their lifetime, a poll says.
Some 73 percent of those surveyed said current federal lawmakers had done nothing to fix the country’s problems, said the CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday.
One in four people disagreed with that assessment.
“That sentiment exists among all demographic and political subgroups. Men, women, rich, poor, young, old — all think this year’s Congress has been the worst they can remember,” said Keating Holland, CNN’s polling director.
The poll also found Americans were not hopeful Congress would change for the better, Holland said.
Some 52 percent said Democratic leaders were leading the country the wrong way, while 54 percent believed the same thing about Republican leadership.
Fewer than 60 bills were passed in the first year of the current session of Congress, an analysis by CNN found.
Some 1,035 adults around the United States were interviewed for the survey, which was conducted Dec. 16-19 by ORC International. The margin of error was 3 percentage points.
Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/11/15
In Article II of the US Constitution, that would be the the one that Presidents swear or affirm to uphold in Article II Section 1. says he shall take the following oath or affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
With that, the President must uphold the laws of the United States. On occasions, the Supremes have said this happens in the “Take Care Clause” which is below in Article II, Section 3.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
…………….; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, ……….
Note, it didn’t say just the laws you like, or unilaterally change the laws you don’t like.
The remedy for not doing this is in Section 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Now in the last few weeks due to the LAW known as BarackObamaCare, we have seen 5 million people thrown off their then Affordable Health Care, but the reason was, they were inferior to ObummerCare, but they also met the losers needs at a lower cost. BO has caught lots of flack for having a law doing this. And further more, Obummer has told these 5 million at least 29 times they could keep their policy. When called on this, Obummer said he didn’t say that. Now that a minor revolt has happened with the losers, the Reps and Senators seeing what they voted for, they were going to answer for. So, Obummer did what he has done a number of times, unilaterally changed the law. However, instead of doing what he usually does in the middle of the night, he did in the daylight, and poorly. Now Obummer is losing his allies in the Press, in Congress, and has lost the trust of the public.
This is reminding more and more of Nixon. We do have what looks like a probable Constitutional Crisis.
Posted by DNW on 2013/11/12
It’s a striking fact that the predicate of Obamacare, i.e., the premise of a redistributionist implementation of what John Rawls approvingly called, a “commitment to a shared fate” is simply, and unequivocally, fascist.
This “shared fate” social obligation, is the very principle behind Obamacare; and is rhetorically traceable among others, to the Fascist in Chief himself.
Hyperventilating lefty professors, so fond of directing the charge of “fascist” at others for whatever rhetorical effect they imagine they can leverage out of it, will continue to busily construct their self-serving political taxonomies based on wish-fulfillment listings of the supposed attributes essential to a fascist attitude and polity. These attributes, they claim, invariably involve hostility to foreigners, or the arts, or minorities.
Yet a libertarian polity or anarchist system of association with a population that manifests these three traits on average, would not thereby be transformed into a fascist solidarity or corporatist state. Something more “positive” must be added without which the fascist state cannot logically or coherently be said to officially exist.
Recall here Obama’s problem with our current charter of negative (negatively defined) liberties. The problem as he sees it, is that it defines what you are free from, not what you must do for whom, or what you are entitled to expect from others.
The individual mandate with its across the board legal transformation of freeborn men and women into social resources unconditionally available to the government for the support and maintenance of a redistributive social solidarity state, is that necessary addition. It’s what the fascist left seeks to implement. And as such it’s the manifest essence of the fascist concept.
Recall that this Obamacare individual mandate claim upon the individual is not temporary, nor based upon the necessity of a repulsion of foreign invaders by all citizens, nor upon the need to distributively protect all from some contagion that knows no distinctions of person. It is instead, based upon the presumption of one’s open-ended duty to sacrifice one’s own opportunities and life choices in order to indemnify others against the costs and consequences of being themselves.
It’s emotionally difficult – despite the occasional rhetorical exercise by those like myself warning of a possibility to the contrary – for many of us, myself included, to face the fact that people whom one has heretofore considered as probable moral fellows, are not in fact anything of the kind. Obamacare has now brought this into the sharpest relief.
They, its advocates, have now willingly and overtly become people who in active and current fact, as well as in prior principle, operate off the principle that they will now recognize no limit to their claims upon other human beings for the sake of that secularized social sodality regime which they crave, and which they feel will benefit themselves through the coerced access they gain to your life energies and expenditures.
It, sadly, is therefore not at all hyperbolic to state that the Democrats in Congress who voted for Obamacare and the individual mandate were seeking to institute or to further an already incipient social fascism in the United States. The Democrats should just rename themselves the Fascist Party, and have done with it.
This Obamacare state of affairs has long been the obvious goal of left-wing ideologues: to construct a default situation wherein there preexists a sociopolitical presumption that the individual exists for the utility of others.
The Democrat party has now explicitly advanced and endorsed this premise through Obamacare. Whether the impulse further progresses to the social or state ownership of some or all productive resources or tools of production, as in full blown socialism, is besides the point. The point is that man has now been made by law, and by virtue of his mere existence, into a social resource upon which the state has a legally unlimited claim.
The definitional lines are drawn, and the sides chosen. How friends and relatives will react to being told to their faces that they are fascist, remains to be seen. My guess is that they could not care less what they are, or are called, as long as they get what they want out of others.
They like it that way.
And that, is not a matter of mere politics, but includes something that might almost be seen as a “spiritual dimension”.
Note: I wrote this out earlier today on the fly, and hit “post” rather than “save”. I’ve made a few of what I think should be improvements in clarity and precision. The labored language … well, that, I can do nothing about. LOL.
Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/11/08
BFD, BO says I’m sorry. He’s sorry all right, he’s a sorry sack of Bovine Feces. He’s not going to roll back the clock, but he wants to “help”. If OBUMMERCARE is help, no thanks, you’ve helped screw this country enough. If BO was that so damn sorry, he should resign in DISCRACE for being the worst piece of Bovine Feces every to inhabit the Dark House. By not resigning, his words are more hollow than his head. Do us all a favor QUIT NOW. Your apology means NOTHING, Not A Damn Thing since you and your court jesters knew Obummercare was CRAP three Years ago.
Exclusive: Obama personally apologizes for Americans losing health coverage
By Chuck Todd, NBC News
President Obama said Thursday that he is “sorry” that some Americans are losing their current health insurance plans as a result of the Affordable Care Act, despite his promise that no one would have to give up a health plan they liked.
“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he told NBC News in an exclusive interview at the White House.
“We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”
In a wide-ranging interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, President Obama discusses implementation of the Affordable Care Act, rollout of the healthcare website, NSA spying, Iran and keeping Joe Biden as his running mate.
Obama’s comments come 10 days after NBC News’ Lisa Myers reported that the administration has known since the summer of 2010 that millions of Americans could lose their insurance under the law.
Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/11/05
The By-Stander President has said over and over “if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it, Period. if you like your doctor you can keep him, Period.” I believe these statement in plain everyday English and Diction to make a clear declarative statement that do stand on their own. These need no interpretation or explanation to be understood. Obama has said this and recorded over 20 times. Now lets look at Malfeasance.
mælˈfizəns/ Show Spelled [mal-fee-zuhns] Show IPA noun Law.
the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust). Compare misfeasance ( def 2 ) , nonfeasance.
Now at least 20 times or more Obama has said this: “If you like your plan, you can keep it PERIOD”
Now, within the last few days, Obama has taken the word “Period” or end of statement and turned it to another New Lie. Now Obama has dropped PERIOD and now has a new qualifier since people have lost their insurance and doctor. The worst is a woman being treated for FOUR YEARS for Cancer lost her plan and can not find another one to replace it.
It is clear the President has Lied, Misled, stretched beyond all recognition THE TRUTH.
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Meaning of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”
by Jon Roland, Constitution Society
The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word “high”. It does not mean “more serious”. It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.
Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject’s fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.
Perjury is usually defined as “lying under oath”. That is not quite right. The original meaning was “violation of one’s oath (or affirmation)”.
The word “perjury” is usually defined today as “lying under oath about a material matter”, but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is “violation of an oath”. We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter “j” is the letter “i” in Latin.
periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury.periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath.iurator, oris, m., a swearer.iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty.per, … IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, … under pretense of, by the pretext of, ….
Posted by DNW on 2013/09/21
I’m working today and while doing so I’ve been accessing the Internet.
I don’t know why exactly, but possibly because after hearing about the House Republican’s courageous act of defunding Obama Care, I glanced at one of Perry Hood’s typically puling exercises in social justice pimping.
I then decided to revisit and review the fact situation premises underlying the arguments we’ve all seen concerning “national” health care costs by doing a couple of searches. Just for the sake of Auld Lang Syne …
My first search was on the topic of uncompensated emergency care. I Googled: “Percentage of US health care expenditures on uncompensated emergency room treatment”.
There, in the results window I found links that informed me that emergency room treatment accounted for only about 2 cents of every dollar expended on medical treatment in the United States.
Emergency care represents less than 2 percent of the nation’s $2.4 trillion in health care expenditures while covering 136 million people a year.i ii
Emergency departments are open 24 hours a day and provide “one-stop shopping” with all the hospital’s resources – such as diagnostic testing and consultation by other medical specialists – in one place.
The most pressing economic issue in emergency medicine is uncompensated care: the lack of adequate reimbursement for emergency medical care has led to the closure of hundreds of emergency departments.
The focus on preventing so-called “non-urgent” ER visits distracts policymakers from the real cost savings in reducing hospital admissions.
Emergency departments are critical to our communities and must be adequately funded.”
We also learn that,
“About half of all emergency services go uncompensated, according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).iv The typical ER treats 1 in 5 patients without insurance or a clear method for reimbursement. The CDC reported that 19 percent of all emergency patients in 2009 were uninsured.”
“Nearly half (44 percent) of emergency physicians responding to a poll say fear of lawsuits is the biggest challenge to cutting emergency department costs. More than half (53 percent) say this fear is the main reason for ordering the number of tests they do.viii Every additional diagnostic test adds to the overall cost of care.”
See also this American College of Emergency Physicians link
So, at first glance anyway, only about 20 percent of 2 percent of the money spent in the US on medical treatment is spent on the uninsureds’ emergency room treatment. Though, this burden is costly enough, and damaging enough, to the facilities treating these patients.
Next I began to check on structural issues related to demographics. Say for example, on the cost of behavioral problems to the US economy. But that was not really a fruitful avenue. We learn of course that fat kids are a large (pun intended) and growing (same) problem and that they will likely experience a host of chronic conditions which will eventually …
Oh. Yeah, “Chronic care”
Wonder what that costs “us” as a portion of what “we” spend?
Google: “Chronic condition expenses as a percentage of American medical costs”
And this my friends really set me back on my heels. I couldn’t believe it. Though I cannot now explain why I hadn’t known it earlier.
We debate insurance reform, and malpractice reform, and we talk of defensive medicine. But what are the real causes of this social phenomenon are we being held political hostage to? Is it really primarily due to greedy doctors and profiteering insurance companies, inflated drug costs, scheming lawyers, and proliferating defensive medicine?
We speak in terms of “social costs”. What of social use? Is the demand itself unreal? What of actual use and spending, and of who is doing the using and spending?
” … Half of the population spends little or nothing on health care …”
it turns out that,
” … 5 percent of the population spends almost half of the total amount [spent]…”
What? How can this be? Feeling dizzy too? But why should we stop there when there is so much more to learn …
” … In 2002, the 5 percent of the U.S.community (civilian noninstitutionalized) population that spent the most on health care accounted for 49 percent of overall U.S. health care spending …”
” … the 50 percent of the population with the lowest expenses accounted for only 3 percent of overall U.S. medical spending, with annual medical spending below $664 per person. … those in the top 5 percent spent, on average, more than 17 times as much per personas those in the bottom 50 percent of spenders“
” … The elderly (age 65 and over) made up around 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2002, but they consumed 36 percent of total U.S. personal health care expenses. The average health care expense in 2002 was $11,089 per year for elderly people but only $3,352 per year for working-age people (ages 19-64 …”
” … people in the highest 5 percent of the distribution of medical expenses were 11 times as likely to be in fair or poor physical health as people in the bottom half of that distribution (45 percent vs. 4 percent) …”
” … 21 percent of people in the top 5 percent [those with the highest medical expenses] were in fair or poor mental health, compared with 3 percent of people in the bottom 50 percent [of medical expenses]“
Chronic, crazy, (and a modest percentage of the) elderly account for half of that infamous 16 percent or so of the GDP being spent on health care. This then is half of the “crisis” that has been driving a formerly free people into the clutches of an Obama Care mandate, and toward the degraded status of “Property of the State”.
I’m going to quit writing now; before I say something really, really cruel …
You can read and judge for yourself. As for me, I am done researching for today.
Oh you can bet your bottom dollar on this though. Once the government really gets its say, and those figures are considered, as they already have been by many in the Single Payer system movement, there will be death panels.
And what will the left do? That is to say the same left that earlier mocked Palin?
They will shrug and ask, “What did you fools expect?”
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/01/15
A man brutally murdered his own grandmother in 1980, got convicted, and went to prison. After getting out of prison, he once again went on to murder people. He set a building ablaze, then proceeded to lay in wait for the firefighters to arrive so he could murder them. I’m sure you’ve already heard a little about him. He’s the man in western New York that was on the news. But did you know he was already convicted of murder?
It’s already illegal for him to have in his possession the gun he used to murder the firefighters, because he’s a convicted violent felon. He already murdered before, using a hammer and not a gun. He murdered family. And did a stint in prison for it. But the Left, always looking for ways to prevent criminals from bearing full responsibility for their actions, let the violent murderer free to murder again. And the Left, always looking for ways to prevent criminals from bearing full responsibility for their actions, blamed guns for his next bunch of murders.
The solution is very easy to understand. The solution is also Biblical. Execute the murderer and that will serve as a deterrence. No murder, once executed, has ever gone on to murder another person. But a violent hammer murderer who murdered his own family member has gone on to murder other people outside his family after being released from prison.
It wasn’t the gun that murdered those firefighters. It was a convicted violent murderer who did. But the Left refuses to lay the blame at the convicted violent murderer’s feet. To do so would be to require adults to be responsible for their actions, and the Left is apparently incapable of the basic logic necessary to come to that conclusion.
No, they want to steal our Providence-given Second Amendment rights from us law-abiding citizens.
Make it illegal to carry a gun and only criminals will have guns.
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Posted in Character, Constitution, Constitution Shredded, crime, Culture, Law, Liberal, media, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, society | Tagged: hammer murderer, murdered firefighters, Second Amendment, western New York | Comments Off
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/11/07
Weimar Germany had an economic crisis.
The Germans elected a bunch of politicians who scapegoated large groups of Germans, pitting Germans against each other.
German political leaders turned their backs on their Constitution, and the German people followed along, like sheep, out of a sense of expediency and crisis.
Free Germany then collapsed into a totalitarian state, which soon crumbled into total devastation, but only after tens of millions of lives were lost.
We are repeating history. But this time, there’s no gleaming beacon on the hill to come to the rescue. We are the last bastion of Freedom left in the world. And We The People are willfully letting that freedom vanish.
DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT
Posted in Constitution Shredded, economics, Elections, history, Law, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, Poetry, politics, society, truth, war | Tagged: Dylan Thomas, expediency, freedom lost, Germany, history repeats itself, Weimar Republic | 1 Comment »
Posted by Yorkshire on 2012/10/26
This is SICKENING. The Discraced House at 1600 PA Ave., NW, Washington, DC DID NOTHING to save and fight for our fellow citizens and Americanns. Anybody who votes for Obama after reading or hearing this, is BLIND!!!
Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?
Posted on October 26, 2012 byCowboy Byte
Charles Woods, the father Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reveals details of meeting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the publically broadcast memorial service for the slain Americans at Andrews Air Force Base only days after the attack. And, in a recent radio appearance, Woods publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son’s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya).
When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that you’re son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”
Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”