Remember the 3AM call during the 2008 campaign? The phone rang yesterday on the anniversary of 9/11 when angry mobs stormed U.S. embassies in Egypt and Libya KILLING! our ambassador and desecrating our flag. Americans do not care what the ostensible excuse was for the mob outrage, and it was mob outrage. Citizens in civilized societies learn in elementary school that you cannot hit the teacher because she was not ‘nice’ to you. If breaching an embassy is not an act of war, killing an ambassador certainly is! Quit ‘leading from behind’ Mr. President, at the moment you are the President, and send the message that no matter what your alleged grievance, killing a U.S. ambassador is an act of war that will not stand without SEVERE punishment!
It is ironic that our ambassador was killed in Libya, a country Barack Obama helped liberate, and on the same day that Barack Obama refused to meet with the Prime Minister of the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel. Those are discussions for another day. In the meantime, quit campaigning and issuing mealy mouthed condemnations, condolence proclamations and apologies and get these bastards!
If Barack Obama’s campaign slogan is “It could have been worse,” Mitt Romney’s seems to be “It won’t be as bad.” Mitt Romney’s comment on Meet the Press about maintaining ‘guaranteed issue’ in his ‘repeal and replace’ health plan means there will be no repealing and far less replacing. When combined with comments about his opposition to tax cuts which will effectively raise the net tax burden for many, they reinforce an aversion to free market solutions that causes many conservatives to cringe when faced with the prospect of supporting his candidacy.
What Mitt Romney fails to acknowledge or perhaps does not understand is that ‘guaranteed issue’ is the reason why health insurance premiums are dramatically higher in liberal northeastern states like Massachusetts than they are in the rest of the country. “Guaranteed issue’ provides that an insurance company must issue a policy no matter the health of the applicant. What it guarantees is that healthy people wait until they become sick before applying for coverage. Consequently, ‘guaranteed issue’ forces insurance companies to assume that each new policy applicant has cancer and price coverage accordingly in order to ensure that they have sufficient capital to pay anticipated claims. Imagine if insurance companies priced homeowners insurance as if every house was located in a flood zone, or automobile insurance as if every driver had a history of alcohol abuse and reckless driving. While Mitt Romney may feel empathy for people who are born with expensive illnesses, they comprise a sliver of the population and their coverage requirements can be dealt with in much more cost effect ways.
In addition, Mitt Romney expressed an interest in maintaining the provision that children be allowed to stay on their parents’ health insurance policy, as he put it, “up to whatever age they might like.” Does Mitt Romney envision maintaining his 60 year-old children on his health insurance policy when he reaches 80 years of age? This is hardly the warm embrace of free market solutions he spoke of in his convention acceptance speech.
Further, Mitt Romney added,
“I can tell you that people at the high end, high-income taxpayers, are going to have fewer deductions and exemptions. Those numbers are going to come down. Otherwise they’d get a tax break. And I want to make sure people understand, despite what the Democrats said at their convention, I am not reducing taxes on high-income taxpayers.”
During the tax debate that occurred after the 2010 midterm elections, Congressional Republicans proudly reminded us that raising taxes on high-income taxpayers would be raising taxes on the small businesses that are the engine of economic growth in America. Mitt Romney is proposing that Congressional Republicans break their pledge to small business. By reducing federal income tax rates but not by an amount sufficient to account for the elimination of deductions for state and local taxes as well as mortgage interest, Mitt Romney will ask Congressional Republicans to reverse the pledge they made to small business not to raise their taxes. Further, if Mitt Romney was a true free marketeer, he would join the rest of the Republican party and the conservative movement and endorse a flat tax or at the very least, a significant flattening of the Internal Revenue Code similar to what was proposed in the House budget offered by his running mate.
By reversing course and endorsing parts of Obamacare, Mitt Romney is running the campaign Barack Obama should have run by saying he and Mitt Romney are not so different after all. Barack Obama will become the first American President to preside over a net job loss and yet he is LEADING most swing state polls. This is not because voters mistrust Mitt Romney because he is a rich guy who does not understand their struggles. It is because voters do not trust that Mitt Romney has values that are inviolable. Repealing Obamacare is not an applause line to the conservative movement that manufactured a 60 seat swing in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections. It is our raison d’etre! We do not want Massachusetts liberalism to infest conservatism and reverse the accomplishments we fought so hard for.
To paraphrase a biblical story, Moses smashed the tablets when he came down from Mt Sinai because his people were not prepared to receive them and were thus relegated to forty years wandering the desert. I worry that unless Mitt Romney reverses course relinquishing his embrace of Obamacare and tax hikes, the American people may be in for four more years of wandering.
— FreedomWorks (@FreedomWorks) September 12, 2012
Conservatives at the Republican National Convention and many of their allies back home have been up in arms the past several days about a proposed rule change that would allow the RNC and a winning Presidential candidate to unseat activist delegates and replace them with party insiders and donors to the winning campaign and the party. They claim this is unfair as a ticket to the convention is their reward for years of hard work. It is and they are correct. However, in making an uproar and threatening a floor fight, they are losing sight of the bigger picture.
Accompanying this rule change is another change specifying that the delegates from a given state must be awarded to candidates in proportion to the result of the primary election. Gone would be the days of ‘beauty contest’ primaries where one candidate was preferred by flesh and blood grassroots voters only to have his opponents be awarded more delegates at a state convention months later. Best I can tell, this injustice happened to all candidates during the 2012 Presidential election cycle.
Further, Republican National Conventions of modern years are largely four day parties where the Presidential candidate has been chosen months before. Attending a national convention has no bearing on the ability of a grassroots candidate to be elected to office at any level. If no Presidential candidate won a plurality of delegates prior to the national convention, this rule would not apply.
I have heard it argued that attendance at the convention is a reward for hard work. Maybe so. The grassoots activists I have heard make this argument have toiled just as hard or harder to elect conservative candidates precisely because these candidates promised to fight crony politics and end the awarding of such perquisites. I understand the desire of local activists to attend the convention. Is it worth sabotaging an opportunity to institute real democratic reform in the Presidential election process in order to attend a quadrennial party?
Personally, I would prefer that the grassroots opposition and the RNC split the difference and drop the offensive delegate change while keeping the change that institutes democratic reform in the election process. I found it offensive when political commentators dismissed the results of primary voters who braved foul winter weather by suggesting that their vote amounted to nothing more than a ‘beauty contest.’ If you are going to ask my opinion as to who should be President of the United States by holding an election, then respect my opinion by respecting the result of the vote win, lose or draw. Don’t change or skew the outcome at a state convention months later by altering the delegate allocation or skewing the result with votes by “super”-delegates. Why should a bunch of party insiders or a vocal minority of committed activists be able to effect a result that they were unable to achieve at the ballot box? If the Democrats had enacted such a rule, it is entirely possible Hillary Clinton would be running for re-election.
In reaction to what a vocal minority of committed activists were able to achieve at some state conventions, the RNC is attempting to implement real democratic reform in the Presidential primary process. Let us not miss this opportunity to enact it.
At a fundraiser in New York City, President Obama appeared beside an NBA star who can be seen in a 2007 DVD alongside a Baltimore drug dealer who bragged that he “would take care of snitches by putting a hole in their head.” A YouTube video which includes a portion of the DVD has been seen over 350,000 times as of this writing.
Earlier that day, it was reported that the First “Lady” of the United States would ‘guest edit’ a website that includes sex tips from prostitutes. The website is owned by prominent Obama media advocate NBC Universal. It is nice to be able to read the First Lady’s views on ‘Why we all need our girl time’ alongside ‘Tips from the girls at the Bunny Ranch.’
At a fundraiser several weeks earlier, President Obama thanked ‘gay porn kingpin’ Terry Bean for organizing an event for the President’s re-election. Mr Bean helped raise more than $50,000 for the President Obama’s 2008 campaign. Mr Bean is the proprietor of Falcon Studios, Jock Studios and Mustang Studios, producers of approximately $10 million worth of all-male pornography annually.
In 2000, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in some measure because Americans were disgusted at the shame President B.J. Clinton had brought upon the Office of the President of the United States. Americans want a President and First Lady that respect the dignity that befits the Office of the President of the United States. President Obama would do well to remember that when he resurrects President Clinton to give the keynote address at the Democrat Convention in Charlotte.
Below are observations from my visit to Arlington National Cemetery.
The first impression that hits you when visiting Arlington National Cemetery is its vastness. Divided into 70 sections, spanning over 600 acres and interring almost 300,000 American servicemen and women, it is impossible to take in from any one vantage point.
Arlington is very park-like and serene. Though populated with officers corps initially, this is very much a people’s cemetery with officers interred beside enlisted men. I came upon the grave of a former Secretary of the Army and a Bronze Star recipient buried beside enlisted men with a standard tombstone adorned with a cross.
Arlington is very much an active cemetery holding around 100 funerals per week. I passed a family singing Happy Birthday and celebrating the birthday of their loved one, and a woman sitting quietly in a beach chair in the rain spending time with her loved one.
There is a series of long roads that begin at the base of the cemetery and wind their way to the apex of a steep hill where the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier rests. Engraved on the mausoleum is the inscription, “Here Rests In Honored Glory An American Soldier Known But To God,” acknowledgment that we are a religious nation at our core who take comfort in God in times of sadness and loss. Behind the tomb is a small museum which contains Medals of Honor for unknown soldiers fallen during World Wars I and II and the Korean and Vietnam wars.
The vastness of Arlington and the totality of the sacrifice is what imbues the visit with meaning. Whether fighting the Axis powers in World War II, 20th century communism or the Islamo-Fascists of the 21st century, every American interred at Arlington is united in his love of country and the freedom we hold dear. The totality of this awe-inspiring devotion should inspire the rest of us to fight every effort to ‘fundamentally transform’ America into something other than the freedom loving constitutional republic that we adore. We owe it to the men and women who rest here and their families who have sacrificed the unimaginable.
There are a number of pictures which accompany this post.
My favorite part of the Obamacare ruling is where Chief Justice Roberts ADMITS! that the Obamacare fine is not a direct tax but is not concerned because it does not cost that much.
(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal- ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that pay- ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un- lawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language— stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”— does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insur- ance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.
(c) Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a tax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It there- fore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to its population. Pp. 40–41.