RomneyCare: Tax Penalties Instill Responsibility

Tweet

USA Today Excerpt:
“Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often.” – Mitt Romney, March 22, 2011

Running Away From His Own Principles, Romney Fails Leadership 101.

Here's Romney again:
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED INTERVIEW)

MITT ROMNEY: It's not a tax hike. It is a fee. It is an assessment. The great majority of employers in Massachusetts are assessed this fee right now. There's a small subset that has not been assessed this fee and that subset is those who don't provide insurance to their employee.

LIASSON: So, this is what the Democrats point to as they defend themselves against the tax charge. They say health care is a character issue, a leadership issue. Romney is running away from his health care plan. The president isn't running away from his.

Then we have our own mentally challenged congressman, Paul Ryan, who argues for statism and said Obama’s health care reform law should be repealed because rights come from “nature and God,” not the government.

But Paul, why does God refuse to give North Koreans their rights?
Why does God refuse to give Saudi women their rights?
Why does God refuse to give Iranians their rights?
Why does God refuse to give his own gay children rights?

COMALite J Comment Excerpt:
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the multinational megacorporations, and unto the hedge funds and derivatives investors, and unto the SuperPACs that they doth fund that in turn fundeth the candidates that doeth their will; that some thereby mightest “trickleth down” unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Janesville City Council Refused To Reject Corporate Personhood

Tweet

During Monday's Janesville City Council meeting, two council members sponsored and introduced a resolution asking the Janesville Common Council to go on record in calling upon the Congress of the United States to begin the process of amending the Constitution to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of protections or "rights" of natural persons.

A council majority consisting of Kathy Voskuil, Russ Steeber, Deb Dongarra-Adams and Tom McDonald went on record refusing to demonstrate support for the core premise of the resolution. It never made it to the table for a vote.

Watch it:

Project: Random Person Creates New Pledge For Congress

Tweet

For the past two decades, many Senators and House members of the United States Congress have signed a pledge that intentionally ties the hands of legislative power, making it practically impossible for Congress to exercise full fiscal authority as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

That pledge, commonly known as the Taxpayer Protection Pledge (TPP), prevents Congress from meeting its fiscal obligation as prescribed in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The signers of the TPP have in effect pledged to abandon their fiduciary responsibility to the Federal Government, and in doing so have guaranteed insufficient funds to pay the nation’s bills.

Instead of fulfilling this important fiscal obligation as prescribed in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the TPP pledge has taken on the form of an ideological based conspiracy forcing the government to borrow from third party lenders and even hostile sources, driving us deeper into an unsustainable debt spiral which in turn has weakened our government's promise to keep its obligations and ability to perform, thus endangering the American people and our nation's future. Sadly, the consequences resulting from the signers action appear to be fully intentional.

Unlike the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, this New Pledge to the Constitution is not a got'cha document designed to trap lawmakers or to drown government in a bathtub. This reaffirmation is not about whether to borrow or spend, balanced budgets or lowering or increasing taxes. The multitude of issues surrounding those decisions are far too complex to address with a simple pledge or amendment.

Also, reaffirming and adhering to powers granted in the Constitution is not about partisan politics or social and economic philosophies, or ideological principles. But reaffirming your oath to office as outlined in Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths is an American hallmark of responsibility and patriotism our Founding Fathers recognized immediately and deemed absolutely necessary for its leaders to commit to in order for our nation to survive. This new pledge is not to constituents as the author of the TPP claims his to be, instead it's to the Constitution. It must be solemn and sincere and have no superior. In short, swearing allegiance to the U.S. Constitution is not a conspiracy.

I strongly believe that the signers of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge nullified orders of function set forth in the Constitution and broke their oath of office, and by doing so have committed an impeachable offense if not treasonous act. If you agree, contact your Senator and House Representative and ask them to clarify their oath and reaffirm the Constitutional Powers of Congress they were elected to exercise by sending them this petition for signing. Your help on this matter is greatly appreciated.

Thank You,
Louis Kaye, a real random person
(Not a lobbyist. Not a member of a political party or special interest group.)

Will your elected official sign this pledge?

I, _______________________, of the (______ district of the) state of _______________, with my Constituents as my witness, pledge that I will: ONE, reaffirm my Constitutional Oath of Office and abide to all duties and responsibilities as described there-in; TWO, that I will NEVER pledge or act to circumvent or obstruct constitutional powers of Congress including but not limited to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution; ”The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States and THREE, that no person, special interest, constituent or other, shall interfere, come above or between those powers of which I am duly elected and duty bound to exercise.

So help me God.

Original text published - November 16, 2011
Dedicated Web Page with sample opening letter.

Please send all signed petitions and responses to reaffirmationoath@gmail.com.

Anti-American Norquist Unrepentant For Nation's Massive Debt

Tweet

Grover Norquist is the guy who collected signatures from many Republicans pledging that they will not vote to raise revenue under any circumstances. He brags that Republicans haven't voted for a income tax increase since 1990.

Believe me. We've noticed.

Politico Excerpt:
“The tax issue is the most powerful issue in American politics” Norquist said to Kroft.

Here I always thought our annual national deficits and snowballing debt was the most powerful issue in American politics.

Politico Excerpt:
“I intend to win. I intend to be part of the whole effort to crush the other team,” Norquist said.

There's something wonderfully compassionate, all inclusive and apple pie about a person wanting to crush the other team, idd'in it?

But don't worry Grover, you are not only a part of the whole effort to crush the U.S. Government and put our economic future in grave danger, you are easily ranked in the top of our nation's worst domestic enemies.

Although Dems tend to blame you for complicating the supercommittee's process, you would be little more than a unknown random person had not those foolishly misguided elected officials signed your idiotic pledge to abandon their fiscal responsibility as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. I blame them first. Without them making that leap, you would be nowhere and America for the past 20 years would have been raising the revenue and paying its bills without saddling our children and grandchildren with this huge mountain of debt. But you did it Grover and we will hold you and those traitors accountable.

You won't have to worry about that.

A Word On Our Constitutional Collectivism

Tweet

Get Liberty Org. Excerpt:
(Titled: The Enslaving Folly of Shared Sacrifice)
The second point that Teacherken’s plea makes is one of collectivism. We are implored to take “collective responsibility” and accept “shared sacrifice.” But nowhere in our founding documents are we as a people or a nation submerged into the rancid stew of one big mass. Individual liberty was the watchword and is the goal to which we must now aspire.

To put it bluntly - Bullshit!

Our Constitution does not begin “I the individual” or “I the corporations.” It begins, "We the people" in big bold letters nearly five times the size of any other words on the document. Our founding fathers (and mothers) did this for a reason. That document could be burned to a crisp by cultist legislators and nazi-con judges, but as long as the words “We the people” remain visibly intact, we still have our constitutional government. At the same time, our Bill of Rights makes no restrictions or limitations on individuals, instead it grants us the right to rise above on our own accord within the means of the Constitution and human law.

Implying our Constitution and freedoms are threatened by the rewards of shared sacrifice is a direct affront to the collective known as “we the people.” Ideally viewed, the founders of our country wrote the Constitution as patriots not to themselves, but for the collective. It's "country first," not "me first."

National Security Program useless without Torture

Tweet

During a morning press conference, President Bush defended his endorsement for a program that uses torture and other outrages upon personal dignity of enemy prisoners in order to gain information.

Bush:
“And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's like -- it's very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.”

“Now, the court said that you've got to live under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. And the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forward the program, because they don't want to be tried as war criminals. They don't want to break the law. “

Text of Bush Press conference

But isn't it just the opposite, Mr. President? When laws are written vaguely and open to interpretation, aren't they difficult to enforce? The fact is, the Geneva Conventions are specific and well written, and educated people understand what they read, and know if they're breaking the law. Again, Bush talks to us like we're idiots.

Geneva Conventions Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

I don't see anything that needs clarification, or modification. Anyone who would want to weaken these rules will put our soldiers in danger not only on the battlefield but also when they're captured. When I read this passage, I don't think about our enemy. I think about some young American man or woman captured during combat and made prisoner. The Geneva Conventions provide a common ground for behavior that should be expected from civilized peoples. Our enemies may not agree with that statement, apparently neither does Bush. Obviously, the Geneva Conventions make no guarantee. If our enemy ignores the Conventions and tortures or cuts heads off, that doesn't mean it's okay for us to engage in the same activity. We will never defeat any enemy by being just like them, I should think we're better than that.

Saddam Hussein is accused of torturing and murdering people who were in his view, enemy combatants or enemies of the state. Without the Geneva Conventions as a guide, leaders of countries could round up people, imprison them, kill or torture them as they see fit, all in the name of national security. If Congress caves in to this flawed Bush logic, Saddam should hire Bush as his defense attorney.

Bush and many of his supporters have been playing this up to gain political advantage over Democrats and others who oppose their dangerous ideas. Bush views warrantless eavesdropping and torture not as an affront to civil liberties and freedom but as a twisted machination necessary for national security. Those who oppose this are therefore deemed unpatriotic, unamerican or worse yet, with the terrorists.

Hundreds of websites have parodized Bush's intentions for the past several years just to be funny. It's no longer a joke. Bush really has no use for our Constitution, the U.N. or the Geneva Conventions.

Why does Bush hate our soldiers?