Category Archives: Systemtic Failure

Trends and Portents

Posted on by

Mark Levin’s book, The Liberty Amendments, has triggered a lot of discussion on the state of the nation, the Constitution and the constant violation of the Constitution by the federal government. Just scanning national opinion pieces this morning led to these headlines. One is a piece on the state of the government, another is on national trends and polls, still another proposes the country is in a pre-revolutionary state.

What Has Mark Levin Wrought?

By James V Capua, August 18, 2013

In The Liberty Amendments Mark Levin has delivered more than advertised. He promises a credible agenda for reinvigorating constitutional government based on an approach to the amendment process which avoids the liabilities of better known options.

Continued here…

Obama Flouts the Law

By Clarice Feldman, August 18, 2013

From his first presidential campaign to the present, the president, his party and his administration have openly flouted existing laws, and it doesn’t seem there is any legal means of stopping him short of impeachment.

Continued here…

America’s Tyranny Threshold

By Eileen F. Toplansky, August 19, 2013

As he finishes up his Martha’s Vineyard vacation, Barack Obama would be well-served to recall the fiery words of Jonathan Mayhew, who is famous for his sermons “espousing American rights — the cause of liberty, and the right and duty to resist tyranny.”

Continued here…

And finally, this one. Its subject is one few want to discuss all the while its one that is being discussed more every day.  Is a second American Revolution on the horizon?

Time for a New American Revolution?

By Richard Winchester, August 19, 2013

The United States of America was born in revolution. The Declaration of Independence asserted that people have a right of revolution. According to The Declaration, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [such as “life,” “liberty,” “the pursuit of happiness,” and “the consent of the governed”], it is the Right of the People to alter or 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.”

The Declaration acknowledged that people should not, and will not, seek to overturn “long-established” governments “for light and transient reasons.” After “a long train of abuses and usurpations,” however, which are clearly aimed at establishing “absolute Despotism,” people have not only the “right,” but the “duty,” to “throw off such Government, and provide new guards for their future security.”

The U.S. has not experienced a successful revolution since the one between 1775 and 1783, despite Thomas Jefferson’s hope that “[t]he tree of liberty should be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Some think it’s time for a new American revolution. Moreover, many of the preconditions for a revolt exist.

Continued here…

One of Levin’s common quotes is that we are living in a post-Constitutional era. In other words, government, at least at the federal level, Congressmen and the Supreme Court no longer follow the constraints of the Constitution. The Obamacare decision forced by Chief Justice Roberts is a prime example of that latter segment of government. There was NO Constitutional basis for his decision. But, with his vote, he joined the liberal Justices and overrode the strenuous objections of the remaining Justices. Roberts followed the liberal diktat that the Constitution is whatever the Court says it is.

That is a lie. Few, however, were reluctant to stand up and say so.

Perhaps one of the best statements of the condition of our government and the accelerating discussion of revolution, is this article by In her article she cites the acts of Obama and the democrats in government that supports Levin’s premise that we no longer have a governing Constitution.

Today’s post as turned into a long one. I’ll close with this from Betsy McCaughey.

King Obama vs. Rule of Law

By on 8.14.13 @ 6:08AM

Have we ever seen such presidential contempt for constitutional principles and our nation’s history?

At an August 9 press conference, President Barack Obama said that when Congress won’t agree to what he wants, he will act alone. That statement, which he has made before, should send shivers through freedom-loving Americans.

The President was asked where he gets the authority to delay the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate, even though the law states that the mandate “shall” go into effect January 1, 2014. The Obama administration had announced the delay on July 3, without seeking Congress’s help in changing the law.

In response, Obama said that “in a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the Speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law… so let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do.” 

But Obama explained that he took a different route because Republicans control the House of Representatives and ardently oppose Obamacare.

Obama’s statement reveals how disconnected this president is from this nation’s history and constitutional principles. Divided government is the norm in the United States. Most modern presidents have had to govern with an uncooperative Congress or at least one house of Congress controlled by the other major party. With the exception of Richard Nixon, these presidents — from Eisenhower, to Reagan, to Clinton, and both Bushes — have not tried to exempt themselves from the Constitution.

Article II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution commands the president to faithfully execute the law.

Courts have consistently ruled that presidents have little discretion about it. President Obama can’t pick and choose what parts of the Affordable Care Act he enforces and when. 
 

The framers duplicated the safeguards their English ancestors had fought hard to win against tyrannical monarchs. Most important, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 barred an executive from suspending the law. 

The tug and pull between the president and an uncooperative Congress is what the framers intended. It’s checks and balances in action. Obama has no patience for this constitutional system. In June 2012, the President announced that he would stop enforcing parts of the nation’s immigration laws, because “We can’t wait” for Congress to offer relief to young illegal immigrants brought into the country by their parents.

Now the President is rewriting the Affordable Care Act. Delaying the employer mandate is not a mere “tweak.” Because individuals will be required to have insurance as of January 1, 2014 or pay a penalty, some ten million currently uninsured or underinsured workers who would have gotten coverage at work under the employer mandate will now have to pay the penalty or go to the exchanges. That means more people enrolling on the exchanges, more dependence on government and a bigger bill for taxpayers. It’s not the law that Congress enacted.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) has urged Congress to vote against any continuing resolution to fund the federal government after September 30, as long as it funds this distorted version of Obamacare.

“Laws are supposed to be made by Congress, not… (by) the president,” Lee explained. If the administration is not prepared to fully enforce Obamacare as enacted, including the employer mandate, it should agree to delay the entire law and remove its funding from the budget.

Sadly most members of Congress are too busy looking out for themselves to stop the president from chipping away at the Constitution. Last week Republicans and Democrats conspired with the president to weasel out of Sect. 1312 of Obamacare, which requires members of Congress to get health coverage on the newly created exchanges. Congress was happy to let the President unconstitutionally give them a special taxpayer funded subsidy that no one else in America earning $174,000 would get.

Such self-dealing brings to mind what Benjamin Franklin warned about, as he and his fellow framers finished writing the Constitution. It’s a republic, said Franklin, “if you can keep it.”

If Congress refuses to use its power to restrain the Executive branch, we then reside in a dictatorship. No one with the ability to enforce constraints is willing to do so and thus participate in the dictatorship.

 

Facebook

Monday Moments

Posted on by

Phhhbt! to Algore and his Globull Worming fraud. There are two articles in the news today that oppose the global warming acolytes. First item is that this Spring has been the coldest on record since 1975—well before the start of the so-called warming, and, coincidentally, both periods were at the bottom of the 11-year sun spot cycle.

The second item appeared in reports from Russian researchers monitoring Arctic sea ice. Instead of growing thinner as claimed by global warming frauds, it isn’t.

“Journalists say the entire process is very simple: once solar activity declines, the temperature drops. But besides solar activity, the climate is influenced by other factors, including the lithosphere, the atmosphere, the ocean, the glaciers. The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%. This means that sun’s activity could trigger certain changes whereas the actual climate changing process takes place on the Earth”.

Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle. Yuri Nagovitsyn comments.

“Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century”. — The Global Warming Policy Foundation.

It appears that the solar cycles have more to do with the earth’s temperature than any man-made activity.  The 11-year cycle is well known. It directly affects radio/TV transmissions. At its peak, broadcast TV stations have far greater range than usual. Amateur radio operators know these cycles well. The troughs, however, when sun spot activity is low, TV/radio transmissions have much less range—and the weather is often much cooler as well.

What is coming, is multiple cycles bottoming, the 11-year cycle, the 90-year cycle and the 200-year cycle, at the same time. When the convergence of those cycles happened last, about 400 years ago, the period was known as the Little Ice Age.

Hey, Algore! Real science will always beat pseudo-science. You can only fool libs all the time.

***

Another item in the news today is now many Americans now fear or mistrust their government. Fox News published a poll recently that surprised many. To some, the poll was a confirmation of viewpoints wide spread across the country but never reported by the media. While this is reported on the WND website, the data is from FOX.

Americans fear government more than terror

Astonishing poll results for 1st time since 9/11 hijackings

According to a pair of recent polls, for the first time since the 9/11 terrorist hijackings, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep its citizens safe.

…

A Fox News survey polling a random national sample of 619 registered voters the day after the bombing found despite the tragic event, those interviewed responded very differently than following 9/11.

For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001, more Americans answered “no” to the question, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”

Of those surveyed on April 16, 2013, 45 percent answered no to the question, compared to 43 percent answering yes.

In May 2001, before 9/11, the balance was similar, with 40 percent answering no to 33 percent answering yes.

But following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the numbers flipped dramatically, to 71 percent agreeing to sacrifice personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism.

Subsequent polls asking the same question in 2002, 2005 and 2006 found Americans consistently willing to give up freedom in exchange for security. Yet the numbers were declining from 71 percent following 9/11 to only 54 percent by May 2006.

Now, it would seem, the famous quote widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” – is holding more sway with Americans than it has in over a dozen years.

A similar poll sampling 588 adults, conducted on April 17 and 18 for the Washington Post, also discovered the change in attitude.

“Which worries you more,” the Post asked, “that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”

The poll found 48 percent of respondents worry the government will go too far, compared to 41 percent who worry it won’t go far enough.

And similar to the Fox News poll, the Post found the worry to be a fresh development, as only 44 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2006 and only 27 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2010.

The Fox News poll was unique in that it further broke the responses down by political affiliation:

  • Bucking the trend, 51 percent of Democrats responded they would give up personal freedom to reduce the threat of terror, compared to 36 percent opposed.

  • Forty-seven percent of Republicans, on the other hand, opposed giving up freedoms, compared to only 43 percent in favor.

  • Yet independents were the most resistant, with only 29 percent willing to sacrifice freedom, while 58 percent stood opposed.

I’m not surprised all that much with the results of this poll. It mirrors sentiment I’ve observed over the last decade. The most tragic datum in the poll is this: 51 percent of Democrats responded they would give up personal freedom to reduce the threat of terror. We saw this in Boston where the populace gave up their 4th and 1st Amendment rights in the search for the remaining bomber. He was eventually found—outside of the search area by a resident who WASN’T quivering inside his home as ordered by the State.

The divide across the country continues to grow. The statists, those who depend on government for their security—economic, physical and political security, are content to give up their liberty. In past centuries, we called them subjects, peons and serfs.

Then, there are the rest of us who, for the most part, are the antithesis of those who would submit.

Facebook

Reality bites

Posted on by

We, the remaining conservatives in the nation, received a wake-up call last week.  It wasn’t one we wanted. It rang nonetheless.

We no longer have a Constitution-ruled government. We also no longer have a republic.  Our representatives to Congress have no power. The Government can pick and choose which law it will uphold and which criminal acts it will ignore.  The states are no longer sovereign and the government can tax anything it chooses. There are no longer any restraints on the government’s taxing authority.

Not a good picture is it? Before Obama we were a nation governed by law. Before Roberts, we had protection under the Constitution. We now have neither.

Reality Bites!

What do we have left? Political power. Total control of the government just like the libs have control now.  It is important to understand that we cannot go back to those ideals of the Founders. As Obama has proven, if the Congress enacts something the Executive does not like, he can ignore it and refuse to enforce it — like DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, or like blocking voter fraud as in the case of voter intimidation by the Black Panthers. The Panthers were found guilty. Obama, through Eric Holder dropped the case before sentencing.

The courts are no longer arbiters of law. As Roberts has proven, the Court can be influenced…manipulated by the media and the Executive. Obama’s warning to Roberts and the other Justices are examples.  From emerging reports, those threats, like those from Senator Leahy, were effective.

Not a pretty picture is it? No, that is now our reality. Political power.  There is an other option if push comes to shove. We really don’t want to go there but we must recognize the reality of the times. We once had ideals. We lost. Now we must be realists if we want to retain any of our remaining liberty.

Facebook

Can Medicare survive?

Posted on by

This has personal interest for me and my wife.  We signed up for Social Security last week.  Neither of us is 65, we’ve a couple of year yet for eligibility. But our healthcare options are limited and growing smaller thanks to Obamacare.

This column published in the Washington Times is more optimistic about the survivability of Medicare.       

SAVING & GOODMAN: Obama murdered Medicare

But the market can bring her back to life

By Thomas R. Saving and John C. Goodman
–
The Washington Times
7:32 p.m., Friday, October 15, 2010
The health care reform law enacted in spring will have a devastating impact on elderly and disabled Medicare enrollees if its provisions are not substantially changed.
The law creates a new mechanism to reduce the rate of increase in Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals. As a result, Medicare payments will fall below Medicaid rates before the end of this decade, and they will fall increasingly behind the rates paid by all other payers in succeeding decades.
To appreciate what that means, consider that Medicare currently pays about 20 percent below what private insurance pays. At those rates, hospitals lose money on Medicare patients. Under the spending cuts called for in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), payments will get worse in the future.
According to estimates from the Office of the Medicare Actuary, Medicare will be paying just two-thirds of what private payers spend by the end of the decade and just one-half as much by midcentury. Moreover, as Medicare rates fall increasingly below Medicaid rates, the elderly and the disabled will be the last patients doctors will want to see – if they have time for them at all.
Compounding these problems is the fact that the ACA will create a huge rationing problem systemwide. Although the law is expected to create as many as 34 million newly insured people, all funds to create new health care providers were zeroed out of the bill. Subsequently, the administration has promised new funds to increase supply, but they will be nowhere near the increase in demand.
Additionally, Medicare spending cuts will create enormous financial stress for the nation’s hospitals. According to the actuary’s office, more than one in seven health care facilities will be unprofitable before the end of the decade. That number will climb to one in four by 2030 and to 40 percent by midcentury.
One way to think about these changes is to consider the reduction in spending on Medicare beneficiaries relative to the expected path prior to the legislation. Under the new health care law, the average senior on Medicare will receive $2,300 less in annual benefits within 10 years and $3,844 less after 20 years. (All numbers are measured at current prices.) By midcentury, average spending per beneficiary will be $9,413 less than it would have been.
…

Fortunately, there is a better alternative. Instead of encouraging draconian price controls that will drive doctors and hospitals out of the market and leave Medicare beneficiaries with less access to care, we should allow the market to respond to patient needs. 

During the Clinton administration, the majority of the members of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare favored a “premium support” approach. Medicare would be converted from a top-down pricing system to a bottom-up system, in which providers would compete for patients. Individuals could shop for health care plans and use their premium support amount as full or partial payment. Such a reform would bring to all parts of Medicare what competition already has done for participants in Medicare’s new Part D drug program.
If the premium support amount were adjusted upward with the growth in per-capita national income, the resulting cost growth would be very similar to the path the health overhaul bill has set us on.
But unlike the price controls imposed by the ACA, premium support would not cause any providers to go out of business. Significant changes would occur in health care delivery. With Medicare participants paying directly for some of their health care, there would be an increase in the variety of delivery systems as providers competed for patients based on price and quality. A reform structured in this way would free doctors and patients from the cost-increasing, quality-reducing constraints of the current system.

You can read the entire column here, courtesy of the Washington Times.

What the dems don’t say and don’t want known is that Obamacare will cut $600M from Medicare to help “pay” for Obamacare.  The result is the Medicare will be destroyed on the alter of the libs “single-payer” system like the Brit National Health Service—a service that is actively imposing death panels to choose who will live and die.

This nation is still a republic, not a socialist oligarchy—yet and won’t be if I can do anything about it.