Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

CNSNews posed a question to the power happy “capo” of Obama in the House of Representatives that illustrates the extent the left has shredded the Constitution to accomplish the power grab of Obama and the Democrats.
The following is a direct quote from a CNS reporter that asked what Constitutional authority the Congress had to demand that Americans buy health insurance or be fined.

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a “serious question.”

Currently, each of the five health care overhaul proposals being considered in Congress would command every American adult to buy health insurance. Any person defying this mandate would be required to pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.

In 1994, when the health care reform plan then being advanced by President Clinton called for mandating that all Americans buy health insurance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studied the issue and concluded:

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Later on Thursday, CNSNews.com followed up on the question it asked Speaker Pelosi by sending written questions for the speaker via e-mail to her Spokesman Elshami.

“Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked the speaker’s office.

“If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?” CNSNews.com asked. “If so, what is that limit?”

Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’” The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”

This is the most preposterous part of the contention/argument. Insurance company’s are presently forbidden to be domiciled in one state and sell in other states. That is what keeps the price of health insurance artificially high. If the Congress passed a law eliminating the provision that forbids a person in New York from buying a health insurance policy in any other state. This would create more competition and reduce the premium prices. There is no interstate commerce in health insurance now because of government prohibitions!

Further more, Doctors are licensed by the State not the Federal government. Where is the interstate commerce here?

The capitation clause of Article I of the United States Constitution, reads “[n]o capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Capitation here means a tax of a uniform, fixed amount per taxpayer. Direct tax means a tax levied directly by the United States federal government on taxpayers, as opposed to a tax on events or transactions. The United States government levied direct taxes from time to time during the 18th and early 19th centuries. It levied direct taxes on the owners of houses, land, slaves, and estates in the late 1790s, but cancelled the taxes in 1802.

The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, outlawed the use of the poll tax (or any other tax) as a pre-condition in voting in Federal elections. The 1966 Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections extended this explicit enactment as a matter of judicial interpretation of a more general provision, ruling that the imposition of a poll tax in state elections violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Today we are facing a tax more heinous than a poll tax. WE all know that since the poll tax was abolished and made illegal, some (at times many) people still do not vote. Also, everybody does not get sick. Particularly the young adults who have not entered the years of debilitating and sometimes fatal diseases like hypertension, diabetes and cancer. Why should we force these people, who a large portion of the uninsured, to get insurance or be fined?

Americans who fail to sign up for a medical plan after health care overhaul takes effect could be hit with fines of up to $3,800, according to a new proposal circulated Tuesday by a senior Democrat.This would be included in the Baucus’s bill that is currently slated for a vote sometime before Christmas.



“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” said a 1994 report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

“An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique,” reads the report. “First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

And the most odious thing about this whole fine,aka TAX, is that it would be the IRS that collects the fine! Not the state or federal law enforcement people or the courts. And there is another provision floating around Congress that the fine would be automatically taken out of a person’s bank account. What about those people who do no have $3,800 in their bank account. Will we once again establish Konzentrationslager /gulags or debtors prisons?

When Obama ran for president those close to him and his rich, socialist friends like George Sorros, knew full well that this was a born and bred socialist they were backing. But the electorate who put him in the White House thought he was the savior that would clean up corruption in Washington, and enhance the great country they lived in.

Now we know that he is not the "messia" who will make this country great  and clean out the corruption in Washington. He is in the bed with the corrupt organization ACORN and the "thug" run SEIU union. In fact SEIU has briefing regularly in the White House!

It appears that more than 52% of Americans voted for a Marxist socialist who detests the free enterprise system and feels the Constituttion we live by is a flawd document that does not address redistribution of wealth. A hallmark of a man who thinks of Socialism as the only way to run a country! Take from those who earn and give to those who are on the government dole!

His legislative proposals have been nothing short of trying to dismantle the free enterprise system and concentrate the powers that are granted in our Bill of Rights and from GOD to the Federal government.
 The more his dangerous agenda unfolds, from Mirandizing battlefield jihadists to scrapping our missile defense systems to unilaterally disarming our nukes when rogue nations like IRAN, North Korea are nuking up, tohis emasculating the CIA by letting the Attorney General investigate and possibly prosecute CIA members who were doing their duty, and attacking the salariest of middle- and upper-income earners.I hope this will bring more Americans to oppose his blueprint for Socialism!


But, remember Obama has been groomed for and anticipated this moment for decades, and will not abandon his ambitions -- no matter how much resistance he encounters from the American people -- because in the end, he believes, like all radicals, that he knows better than the people what is in their best interests.
And if you doubt he is a page right out of Alinsky's" Rules For Radicals". I want you to reflect on his interview Sunday with George Stepanopolus.When George asked him if he thought the tax on those who fail to buy health insurance was a tax? He followed Alinsky's fifth rule:" ridicule your opponent".
When he was told by Stepanopolus  that he had looked up the deffinition of a tax in the Marion Webster dictionary. Obama replied that if he had to look the word up, "that indicates to me that you are stretching a bit"! He then said, "you can't just make up that language and call it a tax increase!"
He compared the fine to buying auto insurance, which any right thinking man would not make that comparison.  Obama talked over Stepanopouls questions and flatly denied that if you do not buy health insurance there will be a tax imposed. Mr. President we can read!!!

There are 12 rules for radicals, but I will just list the first five to give you an idea of what we fcaewith the " fox in the hen house"!
Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. Here are the rules to be aware of:

RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

Americans WAKE UP!! Your life depends on defeating this man!!

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), a physician who chairs the Republican Study Committee, said he’s actually read the 1,018-page bill that emerged from the House Ways and Means Committee, and he called it “medical malpractice.”

“This is the farthest reach of government in decades,” Price said. “This debate is not about health care, it’s about freedom. We should write into law that patients, families and doctors make medical decisions, not the government,” Price said. “We’ve got to solve the challenge of lawsuit abuse.”

Despite Obama's protestations that "HIS" bill will not include money for abortions. All the House bills and one of the Senate bills includes language that would provide funding for private organizations for abortions.

President Barack Obama’s assertion that the Democrat-backed health care overhaul would not publicly fund abortions is “demonstrably false and extraordinarily misleading,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) told the conservative Values Voters summit on Friday.

Smith predicted that abortions would increase by as much a one third if the Democrats’ health care legislation is enacted.

“Never have I been more concerned about the promotion of abortion coming out of the White House,” Smith said. “The unborn child and his or her mother are more at risk now than ever, since Roe v. Wade itself.

A recent Gallup poll showed a majority of Americans are pro-life and abortions have been declining, Smith said. “Against all that, the abortionists teamed up with Barack Obama, the abortion president, to coerce you and I to support abortion” with federal tax dollars, Smith said.


The former president of the American Medical Association, Dr. Donald Palmisano, a surgeon, warned that if the Obama administration did not slow down on its drive for a government-led health care overhaul, the treatment choices available to patients would be undercut.

He added that the president’s “public option” plan in particular would be a disaster for patients and medical innovation.

“When it comes to health system reform: slow down. Patients’ lives are at risk,” Palmisano told reporters at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. “Today, in America, we have the best health care system in the world – a system that provides urgent, preventative, and long-term care in every community at all hours of the day.
"The health care system is never closed in the United States,” he said. Let’s put the patient in control, with the doctor as trusted adviser,” he said. “Let’s not lose the liberty that is our right as Americans.”

“On health care, we must stand firm for no further diminution of protection of the unborn child and no further expansion of culture of death,” Smith said.

Although, for me, abortion is a moral issue not a right. There are many people who believe it is a right " to choose" and I respect their opinion. They are wrong in that it is not a rirght given by the Constitution or Bill or Rights, but a LICENSE to remove the baby from what should be the safest place in the world. The mother's womb!
But by giving the government, specificaly the president the control over all of our nealth care should ring alarm bells for anyone who appreciates and wants to protect our personal freedoms.
 
The health care bill under consideration in the House of Representatives would give President Obama the authority to name a new federal “Health Choices Commissioner” who would have sweeping power to govern the health insurance plans offered in a so-called "exchange" where millions of Americans would get their health insurance if the bill is enacted.


These powers would include deciding which treatments are covered, which companies can participate, which states can run their own exchange, and enrolling individuals into the public exchange.
The Health Choices Commissioner would establish “the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefit plans during each plan year,” according to page 84 of the 1,018-page bill. That means the commissioner would determine what benefits the participating insurance companies must offer participating customers in the exchange.


The commissioner would also set rules for insurance companies to participate in the health insurance exchange, and establish criteria for individuals to receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance in the exchange, according to section 142 on page 42 of the legislation.
Further, the commissioner would have the authority to establish “automatic enrollment” of individuals who qualify for the health insurance exchange.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) believes giving one bureaucrat this much power over the health insurance of Americans is among the least noticed provisions of the legislation.

“The American people want two things from health care reform: lower costs and more choices,” Boehner said in a statement. “Yet Democrats have done exactly the opposite coming up with a bill that actually raises costs--increasing the deficit by $240 billion--and letting a new federal bureaucrat make health care decisions that should be left to patients and their doctors.”
The legislation also gives the commissioner power to determine who can participate and under what conditions.

And if you could trust the leadership of the Democrat party before this attack on 1/6th of our economy. You should be convinced that by now they will say anything and do anything( even go to bed with ACORN and SEIU) to gave absolute power!
This interaction with Speaker Pelosi illustrates the duplicity of the Democrats and some RINOs.

"While many pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives say they will not vote for a health care reform bill unless it explicitly prohibits federal funding for abortion through insurance plans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has declined to state whether the final legislation should address the issue.

On the July 26 edition of CNN’s State of the Union, for example, host John King asked Pelosi: “If this bill passes and there’s a public option, should that public option cover abortions?”

Pelosi said: “That’s not--that’s not the issue. The issue is people go out there to--we’ll be working on that issue. But that’s not the issue to people like me. And it should be an issue for the 60 million Catholics in the USA and all Christians and Jews that beleive in the Commandment "Thou shal not kill"!

We must stop this atrocity masked as a welfare reform from happenening. Write, call and email your representatives in Washington, an go to TEA partys and rallys, and we will stop this abomination from happening!!

Harold D. Laswell, one of the outstanding political theorists of the last century said: "The sine qua non of Chicago politics is power, getting it and keeping it. Everything else is incidental. Even corruption is a byproduct of power and is functional only if it enables you to stay in power. In Chicago politics, you don't make waves, you don't back losers, and you 'don't talk to nobody nobody sent.' Chicago politics is always about hierarchy and centralization".

The most famous and in some circles, notorious politician to occupy a position of power in Washington is President Obama. He came into the Oval Office on a wave of promises to run an honest and open government that would reduce the profligate spending that the incumbent Republicans were doing. He also said he would get us out of Iraq and win the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, and many more unfulfilled promises.
So now his approval rating according to the Rasmussen poll is in the vicinity of 46%.Much lower than Clinton or Bush had at this time in office!

As a result there is a lot of talk about the resurgence of the Republican party in 2010. This is because of the dissatisfaction of not only Republicans, but Independents and many Democrats. There is great discontent in our nation, and many say the next election could be a "house cleaning" of Democrats who presently control both Houses of Congress.
I say it will be very difficult if not impossible for the following reasons.

The United States Congress particularly the House of Representatives and its members appointed in proportion to state population was designed as the branch of government that answered directly to the people. The federal judiciary, appointed for life to positions of great power, are largely beyond reach of the electorate, barring misconduct or malfeasance; similarly, the executive branch the President was created to wield executive authority, to be a leader and a figurehead, less influenced by changes in popular opinion. But the Congress was supposed to be different: the House of Representatives and eventually the Senate, after 1913 ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution is elected directly by the popular vote of the people, and was designed as a check on both judicial and executive power (Mayhew, 1974).

Unfortunately, one simple electoral reality has significantly limited the U.S. Congress as a true "voice of the people": specifically, the fact that incumbents are almost universally re-elected. The factual truth is that once an individual is elected to Congress especially to the U.S. Senate he or she will generally retain that seat as long as they wish to continue occupying the office.
Going back at least a century, the single greatest advantage in any Congressional election was being an incumbent; that is, having already been elected once previously. In the 2004 election cycle, for example, the re-election rate for sitting members of Congress was a stunning 98.8%; as one writer noted, such an undemocratic, iron-fisted hold on the power of the status quo might have "made even Soviet politicians blush"
In fact, ironically enough even though the British House of Lords one of the Houses of Parliament consists entirely of members appointed for life, it nevertheless "has more turnover than the U.S. Congress" (Gear, 2000). In short, the power of Congressional incumbency functions to undermine the American system of democracy; it is simple common sense to point out that, if the sitting legislator is almost guaranteed to be re-elected, the election is de facto invalid.

A Congressman can gerrymander his district to make it even more likely that he'll win the election in the next cycle. In other words, "the parties get to draw the districts, which lets them choose precisely which voters will be allowed to choose candidates in November" (Gear, 2000). This "nearly universal gerrymandering of congressional districts to provide safe seats for members of both parties" is a particularly pernicious practice, because once the district is gerrymandered, it becomes politically meaningless; unless there are major shifts in demographics, the electoral outcome is virtually certain for that district.

These are the realities of the current electoral situation in American Congressional elections: because of financial issues, media saturation, and rampant gerrymandering of districts, incumbents almost always win re-election, with the elections themselves thus rendered almost meaningless. Solving the problem will not be easy, since any attempt at reform can potentially run into Constitutional protections of free speech.

It is,(OR SHOULD BE) for example, impossible to bar local media from extensively covering local politicians; for that reason, eliminating the incumbency advantage will never occur. However, reforms could be instituted, particularly in terms of campaign financing laws and fairness in media coverage, that could make some headway into returning Congressional elections to what they were designed to be the voice of the people as they chose their representative leaders.But there is little chance of this happening wuth the Democrats in power.

With the vast majority of races either non-competitive or barely competitive with so many races barely even being contested by the opposition party a significant number of the House elections simply don't matter in terms of which side controls the legislature. "The struggle for control of the House centers on 20 to 30 competitive districts such as Lansing, Mich.; Montgomery County, Pa.; suburban Chicago; and a district around Muskogee, Oklahoma. The 200 million Americans who live outside the battleground districts are just spectators" (Weiser, 2000).

The attitude of both major parties the willingness to abandon most districts and states as non-competitive raises an immediate question: is their basic premise supported by factual data? The unfortunate answer is clearly yes. Since at least the 1970s, re-election rates for members of the House of Representatives has never fallen below 90%; the figure has been the same for the Senate since the early 1980s (Merriner & Senter, 1999, p. xxi). The more recent statistics can only be described as stunning: in the 2004 elections, 401 incumbent members of the House of Representatives ran for re-election; of those 401 that sought to return to office for another term, 396 were successful. A mere five failed to win re-election. The picture is even bleaker in the Senate: in 2004, of 26 Senators up for re-election, 25were successful!Source: Nico Macase of Helium.com

Despite the lengthy explanation of how members of Congress have the power to be re-elected. I hope and pray that despite their power and influence.And they are very powerful with unions like SEIU and ACORN able and ready to do their intimidation at the polls. Despite this with the polls showing a less than 30% favorable rating of Congress, it is possible the electorate will throw many Congressman and Senators out at the nwxt election.
This is because the majority of Americans velieve they have betrayed the trust of those who elected them! The "nanny state" is not what America needs or wants!
The projected deficit of $13 trillion and the slush fund of taxpayers money that has gone to Obamas friends, is enough reason to "throw the bums out"!

"With respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age..." --Thomas Jefferson

WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE THREE SEPARATE PARTS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.they list the Executive, Legislative and the Judicial.
But I believe there are three other levels of power and influence that make things happen or conversely stop things and ideas from occurring. I will explain this theory,that you will not find in any civics or government studies books, but I believe they exist.
With more than 1.8 million civilian employees, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service is the Nation’s largest employer.

First you have the Executive branch and all the people who support and advise the president, This group even includes 44 Czars that are not confirmed by the Senate, are accountable to no one except the president!The President also makes around 2,000 executive appointments, including members of the Cabinet and ambassadors, which must be approved by the Senate!

Today, the executive branch consists of well over 3 million people who work in one of three general areas: the Executive Office of the President (EOP); the cabinet and 15 executive departments; and an extensive collection of federal agencies and corporations responsible for specific areas of the government, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Postal Service.

The second level of government is the Legislative and Judicial, and I deliberately lumped them together because since FDR packed the Supreme Court with Progressives, the Supreme Court has acted in the capacity of making Law! Roe vs Wade being a perfect example.
Each Member of the House of Representatives and the Senate have employees that comprise their administrative staff. These are the bureaucrats that are part of the 150,000 Federal Employees that comprise 30 agencies.
It is a fact that their are presently 74 Congressional Staff employees who are relatives of Congressmen/women and Senators.This is the third level of government I believe.

Each member of Congress has a office budget allotment which provides enough money to hire a sizable staff both in Washington, D.C. and back home in their states or districts. These staffers assist members in their efforts to be effective, well-liked representatives. In addition to money for staff, members of Congress also have travel allowances for trips between Washington and their constituencies as well as for trips inside their states or districts. One of the most widely recognized "perks" of House members and Senators is the ability to send postage-free informational letters or announcements to their constituents on a regular basis.

The Congressman and Senators are so busy attending Cocktail Party's given by foreign embassies and high roller Lobbyists, campaigning for re-election and attending Committee meetings. They hardly have time to take the hundreds of "junkets" that Congressional elected officials take each year to foreign and exotic places.
They hardly have time to read, much less write the Bills that are presented for votes in the Chambers of the House and Senate.
That is where the invisible part of our Federal government operates. The "staff" put together the thousand page Bills that are presented to their "bosses, the elected Congressman and Senators to vote up or down.

The power that these apparatchiks comes into play at this point. The staff know what they put into the proposed legislation and they make their recommendations to vote either for or against based upon their own biases and philosophies, not whether the proposed bill is good for the Republic and the economy. Many of the executive departments and independent agencies employ legislative counsels who are charged with the drafting of bills. These legislative proposals are forwarded to Congress with a request for their enactment.

The drafting of statutes is an art that requires great skill, knowledge, and experience. In some instances, a draft is the result of a study covering a period of a year or more by a commission or committee designated by the President or a member of the Cabinet. The Administrative Procedure Act and the Uniform Code of Military Justice are two examples of enactments resulting from such studies. In addition, congressional committees sometimes draft bills after studies and hearings covering periods of a year or more.Source:Library of Congress, Thomas

In the United States, the civil service was established in 1872. The Federal Civil Service is defined as "all appointive positions in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, except positions in the uniformed services." (5 U.S.C. § 2101). In the early 19th century, government jobs were held at the pleasure of the president — a person could be fired at any time. The spoils system meant that jobs were used to support the political parties. This was changed in slow stages by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 and subsequent laws. By 1909, almost 2/3 of the U.S. federal work force was appointed based on merit, that is, qualifications measured by tests. Certain senior civil service positions, including some heads of diplomatic missions and executive agencies are filled by political appointees. Under the Hatch Act of 1939, civil servants are not allowed to engage in political activities while performing their duties.

The U.S. civil service includes the Competitive service and the Excepted service. The majority of civil service appointments in the U.S. are made under the Competitive Service, but certain categories in the Diplomatic Service, the FBI, and other National Security positions are made under the Excepted Service. (U.S. Code Title V)

U.S. state and local government entities often have competitive civil service systems that are modeled on the national system, in varying degrees.

As of January 2007, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service, employed about 1.8 million civilian workers. The Federal Government is the Nation’s single largest employer. Although most federal agencies are based in the Washington D.C. region, only about 16% (or about 288,000) of the federal government workforce is employed in this region.

There are over 1,300 federal government agencies. Source: Wikapedia