Paul Ryan Schools Obama on Obamacare and Economics in Six Minutes (Video)

Congressman Paul Ryan explains the ‘real’ cost of Obamacare and budget gimmicks to President Obama.  “Hiding spending doesn’t reduce spending.”  He also adds, “If you think the American people want a government takeover of healthcare, I would respectfully submit you are not listening to them!”

Paul Ryan knows economics and the Obama team best beware – he will tear them apart!

 

Send In The Drones: Obama Spies On America

Via Investors.com

 

Privacy: News the EPA is conducting surveillance on farmers goes against our grain. Freedom means freedom of movement and the presumption of innocence. How can we have it if every move is monitored by government?

Nebraska’s congressional delegation sent a justifiably angry letter  to Administrator Lisa Jackson last week  complaining that her Environmental Protection Agency had exceeded its legislative and constitutional authority by conducting drone surveillance flights over Nebraska and Iowa farms looking for violations of the Clean Water Act.

“They are just way on the outer limits of any authority they’ve been granted,” said Nebraska GOP Sen. Mike Johanns, an opinion the bureaucrats rejected Friday in responding to the letter. The EPA argues that the courts, including the Supreme Court, have already authorized aerial surveillance, such as taking aerial photographs of a chemical manufacturing facility.

“Farmers and ranchers in Nebraska pride themselves in the stewardship of our state’s natural resources,” says the letter signed by Republican Reps. Adrian Smith, Jeff Fortenberry and Lee Terry, as well as Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and Johanns.

“As you might imagine, this practice has resulted in privacy concerns among our constituents and raises several questions.”

Smith, co-chairman of the Modern Agriculture Caucus and the Congressional Rural Caucus, said Tuesday the operations in many cases are near homes so “landowners deserve legitimate justification given the sensitivity of the information gathered by the flyovers.”

America is awash in surveillance cameras, from red-light cameras at intersections to cameras in and outside businesses. For the most part, we tolerate their intrusiveness if the pictures are triggered by actual lawbreakers or are in a public place for legitimate security purposes where the expectation of privacy does not exist.

But a drone flying over farmer Jones’ farmhouse seems a stretch that sets a dangerous precedent.

A federal policy promotes the use of drones by local law enforcement, and drone manufacturers are now pushing their products to the nation’s 18,000 police jurisdictions. This raises the question of whether drones will be allowed to capture information normally requiring a search warrant authorized by a judge?

Syndicated columnist and IBD contributor Charles Krauthammer calls drones instruments of war suited for war. They should not be used domestically, he says.

He notes that you can hear a police helicopter but not a drone over your house, and argues that “the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that’s been hovering over his house is going to be a folk hero in this country.”

This is not the crazy urban legend of black helicopters roaming about. “We’ve seen in some records that were released by the Air Force just recently, that under their rules, they are allowed to fly drones in public areas and record information on domestic situations,” says Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Association, who is looking into various government surveillance techniques.

Under current guidelines, information gathered deliberately or accidentally by military drones over the U.S. can be kept by the military up to three months before being purged.

They can also be turned over to “another Department of Defense or government agency to whose function it pertains.” Presumably that includes Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice.

“Our Founding Fathers had no idea that there would be remote-control drones with television monitors that can feed back live data instantaneously — but if they had, they would have made darn sure that these things were subject to the Fourth Amendment (protecting individual privacy),” Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, told Fox News.

It’s been said that those who sacrifice liberty for the sake of security will likely wind up with neither.

We agree with Mr. Krauthammer on drones surveilling American citizens: “Stop it here. Stop it now.”

For more click here.

Obama’s war on individual liberty

By William Murray via WMD  H/T Leslie Burt

The mandate drafted under Obamacare which forces church organizations to purchase health-care policies that provide for contraceptives and sterilization and abortifacient pills is just one small step toward Barack Obama’s hard-left goal of establishing a centrally planned society. The effect of the health-care mandates is more far-reaching than even critics first reported.

Under Obamacare, standards are set by bureaucrats, and all insurance policies must supply mandated services. Most likely the issue of contraception was the opening shot for Obama and his administration to soften up the opposition. The goal is rationing of care according to the “quality of life.” The quality of life concept is a leftist central planning goal that calls for “defective” babies to be aborted and care to be withheld in end-of-life situations to save government funds. As with central planning in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, health care will be available only for those who can continue to contribute to society. Moral issues are forgotten as they are not central to government.

Most conservatives point to Friedrich von Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” in the context of defending free enterprise. For example Rep. Paul Ryan is an expert on the works of Hayek and the economists of the Austrian School. But the thrust of “The Road to Serfdom” was not economic, but rather the loss of liberty under central planning. On moral issues Hayek wrote:

“What our generation is in danger of forgetting is not only that morals are of necessity a phenomenon of individual conduct but also that they can exist only in the sphere in which the individual is free to decide for himself and is called upon voluntarily to sacrifice personal advantage to the observance of a moral rule. Outside the sphere of individual responsibility there is neither goodness nor badness, neither opportunity for moral merit nor the chance of proving one’s conviction by sacrificing one’s desires to what one thinks right.”

At its heart Obamacare is a worst-case scenario of central planning, putting aside not only the will of religious organizations, but the self-determination of individuals as well.

There is no law forcing church organizations to supply contraceptives; this provision is not in the massive Obamacare law pushed through by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid. The mandate for contraceptives is a “rule” written by the Health and Human Services Department under the authority of the original bill. Obamacare gives HHS the authority to mandate virtually anything regarding health care. In the extreme, HHS could order that all costly attempts to save premature babies be stopped. Medicare already mandates that costly medical care for the elderly be restricted.

There are lists of approved Medicare services, and doctors may not prescribe anything that is not on that list for Medicare patients. This same central control is now becoming obvious in Obamacare. Central planning is not limited to just ordering individuals to buy insurance.

Going back to Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”:

“If the law says that such a board or authority may do what it pleases, anything that board or authority does is legal – but its actions are certainly not subject to the Rule of Law. By giving the government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable.”

Pay close attention to this portion of the above quote: “… a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable.”

Canada is defined as a democracy, but there is virtually no freedom of speech in that nation. Individuals have been fined for letters of opinion sent to newspapers. The courts there forced one man who was publicly critical of Islam to work in a mosque as public service. Democracy and liberty are not synonymous. It could be possible for an individual to have greater personal liberty under a monarchy than under a democracy whose bureaucrats have been given unlimited rule-writing powers.

The problem of the loss of liberty through central planning goes beyond Obamacare. Our Congress has abdicated its responsibility in many areas, giving the authority to bureaucrats to write “rules” that have the force of law, “rules” that if violated can bring about not only fines but prison time. The Environmental Protection Agency has jailed innocent land owners for such crimes as cleaning garbage from their property.

Oddly, conservatives have aided in the rush to central planning. Republicans in Congress have sworn off “earmarks,” thus giving Barack Obama and the bureaucrats the full authority to spend trillions of dollars a year as they see fit without congressional oversight. It is now Obama who decides which states get new bridges, not the Congress. Apparently, tea-party members believe that having Obama decide where to spend trillions of dollars is better than the “corruption” of congressmen trying to bring jobs to their districts. The tea party is unwittingly assisting in the creation of even more central planning.

The problem with Obamacare is not Obamacare. The problem stems from both major political parties moving away from the concept of individual liberty and toward central planning, whether it is George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” or Barack Obama’s attempt to control medical care for the entire nation from one central location in Washington, D.C.

We must heed the warnings of Friedrich von Hayek and dismantle the central planning monster we have created in Washington before it devours the last of our liberties.


William J. Murray is the chairman of the Washington, D.C.-based Religious Freedom Coalition and the author of seven books including “My Life Without God,” which chronicles his early life in the home of destructive atheist and Marxist leader Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the woman who filed the lawsuit removing prayer and Bible reading from America’s public schools. Having lived the Ayn Rand lifestyle, he has a unique prospective of the political candidates.

Alert! We must act. Obama is trying to shred the Constitution again!

By Judson Phillips via Tea Party Nation

Alert!  We must act.  Obama is trying to shred the Constitution again!

We all know an Obama presidency is hazardous to freedom and liberty.   He is now trying to bypass the Senate and impose a treaty on America that could shred the First Amendment.

 

This is very urgent and we must take action to stop it.

What is this crisis?

The crisis is something called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement or ACTA.

ACTA is an agreement that was signed on October 1, 2011.  ACTA is in fact a treaty but Barack Obama wants this agreement accepted as a “Sole Executive Agreement.”  Basically this means the constitutional provision that the Senate ratify treaties is thrown out and Barack Obama acts like a dictator.

ACTA is even worse than SOPA or PIPA.  ACTA creates a new international governing body which controls counterfeit goods, generic medicines and pirated copyright protected works.

ACTA gives Copyright holders the power to demand Internet Service Providers (ISPs) remove allegedly copyrighted material from a website without a court hearing.  It permits foreign governments to exercise control of ISPs in America.   Those who are supporting ACTA also want an Internet death penalty that would cut off Internet access for those who “offend.”   The only way to enforce such a mechanism would be to create an Internet ID that you must have to access the Internet.

Any claim of copyright infringement will require the ISP to remove the content from the website, without your constitutional right to your day in court.   Tyrants all over the world want to crush a free press and free speech.  Why would anyone think Barack Obama is any different?

Perhaps the most alarming part of this ACTA agreement is that it would create an international body that would supersede Congress’ authority.   Can you imagine having your rights for freedom of speech to be adjudicated by Iran and China as opposed to American courts?

Does anyone see the problems with this?

This is a Treaty not a “sole executive agreement,” so it must go to the Senate for ratification.  Even then, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the authority for laws regarding intellection property specifically to Congress and not to the President.

As we stopped the attacks on the Constitution by SOPA and PIPA, we must now see ACTA killed.

Call your Congressman and Senators about this today.  Your Senators need to demand the ACTA agreement be put to the Senate as a treaty so it can be voted down.

We also need our Senators and Congressmen to work to defund ACTA.   Congress must strip all funding for anything related to ACTA from negotiation to enforcement of it until we can get the Senate to officially reject this treaty.

Barack Obama does not like our Republic.  He would much rather be a dictator so he could simply do what he wants without bothering to ask we the people or getting the consent of our representatives.

Fortunately we still live in a Republic and America is still a free nation.

Call your Senators and Congressman today!

Amicus curiae brief challenging constitutionality of Obamacare filed by watchdog

By Jim Kouri via The Examiner

Obamacare is taking the nation on a forced march to a medical nightmare, say many experts.

Obamacare is  taking the nation on a forced march to a medical nightmare, say many experts.

A top “Inside the Beltway” group that investigates, exposes  and prosecutes government corruption filed an amicus curiae brief on February 13,  2012, with the United States Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of  the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare (United  States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., State of Florida, et  al.).

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for the Obamacare case on March 26, 27 and 28,  2012.

With its amicus curiae brief the non-partisan Judicial Watch maintains that the “individual mandate” provision of Obamacare, which requires every American  citizen to purchase health care insurance or pay a penalty, is unconstitutional,  whether considered under Congress’ commerce power or taxing power:

Petitioners are trying to defend a provision in an act passed by Congress  that exceeds its enumerated powers. Though Congress enacted this provision under  the Commerce Clause, Congress’ power under the  clause is not broad enough to compel Americans to engage in commerce by  purchasing a particular product.

Though Petitioners try to rescue the provision by arguing that it is valid  under Congress’ taxing power even if it is invalid under Congress’ commerce  power, a provision of an act that is not a tax may not be construed as a tax  merely to save it from being declared unconstitutional.

The watchdog group further argues that if the Supreme Court affirms  the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate, “it must be willing to hold that  Congress’ powers under the Commerce clause are plenary and unlimited, for there  remains no principled way to limit Congress’ power if it is stretched as far as  Petitioners (the Obama administration) ask.”

Demonstrating the importance of the legal battle over Obamacare, the  Supreme Court will hear five-and-a-half hours of oral argument, a rare allotment  of time in the court’s modern era.  The Supreme Court’s scrutiny will focus  on the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate. The court will  also consider whether other components of Obamacare could take effect even if  the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, among other issues.

In a December 14, 2010, editorial published in The Washington Post Attorney General Eric  Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued that the  individual mandate is essential to Obamacare: “Without an individual  responsibility provision (or mandate), controlling costs and ending  discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn’t work.”

“The President’s socialist healthcare overhaul is an affront to the U.S.  Constitution’s provisions for limited government,” said Judicial Watch President  Tom Fitton. “The time has come for the U.S. Supreme Court to put an end to  Obamacare once and for all.”

Credits:

NewswithViews

     Related Topics

Related articles