Categotry Archives: Articles

Third Parties Won’t Save Our Country


Posted on by

Third Parties Won’t Save Our Country

(This article first appeared on American Thinker, September 4, 2014, and can be found at )

This upcoming November 2014 election is crucial for America and voting for a third party candidate will not achieve the victory.  To end the Obama “Rule by Decree” power grab, we have to wrest control of the Senate from the Democrats.  The only possible way to do that is for us all to unite and vote GOP.

Thirty-six seats are up for grabs in the Senate and all 435 seats in the House of Representatives will be contested.  Of those 36 Senate seats, 15 are currently held by Republicans while 21 are held by Democrats.  Clearly, the math is on the Republican side, as is the fact that the incumbent party typically loses seats in mid-term elections.

This November 4 election may well see the Democrat incumbents perform even more poorly than historical analysis might indicate because of the currently extremely low ratings of President Obama. Whether it’s his apparent bewilderment over what do to about the threat from ISIS, his “do nothing” policy towards Russian (I almost said “Soviet”) leader Putin, or his “deer in the headlights” reaction to the immigration invasion along our southern border, it is clear to even the most ardent Obama fans that his polling numbers are not encouraging for the Democrats.

CNN, normally a big fan of the President, called his ratings “underwater” and “stuck in a rut” with only 42% approving in their poll.

The Washington Post, another of Mr. Obama’s normally ardent supporters, asked, “Has President Obama bottomed out yet?” while pointing out that 58% of Americans disapproved of his handling of the immigration crisis and 52% disapproved of his performance regarding ISIS in Iraq.

A Gallup poll released August 28 found that 53% of Americans disapprove of the way Mr. Obama is handling his job as president, and that the number of those who strongly disapprove is more than double the number who strongly approve.

By comparison, at this same point (August of two years into their last term), George W. Bush had an approval rating of 54%, Bill Clinton of 62%, George Bush the elder of 68%, and Ronald Reagan of 61%.  I’m not sure it’s much consolation to the current occupant of the White House that he is doing better than Jimmy Carter who had an abysmal rating of 39%.

This November election could well change the course of history.  It might even be so critical as to decide the eventual fate of the United States and whether we remain a bastion of freedom or slip into the oblivion of universal entitlement, “Big Brother” government, and rule by decree rather than by the law of our Constitution, only to eventually dissolve into obscurity.

So, you ask, what’s my point?

My point is – the point is! – that one of the biggest obstacles to the Republicans regaining control of the Senate, and being able to stand off the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi cabal, are those who don’t understand the inescapable fact that the United States has a TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.

That’s right; count ‘em.  One – Republicans, two – Democrats.  There is no number three.  Whether it be the Libertarians, the Green Party, the American Independents, or whomever (take your pick –here’s a list of about 100 of them) – the other parties are simply not meaningful choices in the equation!  They can delude themselves into thinking that they offer a meaningful alternative, a reasonable choice to take a valiant step away from the mainstream political world and offer a wakeup call to America, but that’s all a fallacy.  More than a fallacy – it’s a fantasy!

In all of the 230+ year history of the United States, third party candidates for the Presidency have won a total of – are you ready? – zero elections.  That’s right, zero, as in none, nada, zip, zilch.  Not a single one.  And that even includes the Bull Moose progressive party of 1912 whose candidate was former President Teddy Roosevelt.  Even with a former President of the United States at the head of their ticket, they still lost!

Voting for a third-party candidate who drains votes away from a candidate who has a valid chance to defeat a liberal is the craziest so-called “logic” on the political landscape.  Those misguided people who vote for a candidate who cannot possibly win need to recognize that we in the USA have a two-party system.  If they don’t vote for the candidate of whichever of the two main parties is closest to their political point of view, then their decision is, with all respect, quite frankly ridiculous.

Most of you have probably heard the ancient proverb: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  That concept was first published in a Sanskrit treatise on statecraft dating from the 4th century BC. It’s been repeated thousands of times since, not least by Winston Churchill, who went so far as to say, “If Hitler were to invade Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”

If there’s an election in which a liberal Democrat backed by Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, and Ms. Pelosi is running for a Senate office and he’s opposed by a Republican, then by definition, the Republican is his enemy! And if you’re opposed to the Demo liberal, then he’s your enemy too, right?  Hence, by the almost inescapable logic that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, that Republican is your friend – so get out there and cast your vote for him.

I don’t care whether he or she is a Reagan Republican, a Rand Paul Republican or *shudder* a centrist, semi-liberal, barely-knows-how-to-spell-the-word-conservative Republican – she or he is a better choice than another chip-off-the-horrible-block Reid/Pelosi/Obama-ite.  He has to be better! Period.

I have no argument at all, none whatsoever, with enthusiastically supporting candidates in the primaries to oppose that “more-or-less-conservative” guy. In fact, those of us who want and stand for freedom and liberty in the USA should be trying our best to get the true conservatives into the final election.  But in the final battle, it’s one-on-one, them against us, and no time left for indecision.

The battle of the primaries is over!  The finalists are facing each other in November, and if you don’t cast your vote for one of the Big Two parties, you’re wasting it, tossing it in the toilet and flushing it away.

It’s about as logical as taking a shower with a raincoat on – you can pretend to yourself that you’re doing something meaningful, but in reality you simply are not. You’re wasting your time.  By refusing to make a rational, well-thought-out choice between the two real options, you are essentially abandoning your responsibility as an American by not voting for one who really has a chance to win.

To those of you who are considering voting for a third-party candidate, or maybe even not voting, I say:

Please!  I beg you!  As a vote-bearing citizen of the United States, stand up for what you believe in, but don’t forget the truth – the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Vote for the better of the two candidates, the one closer to being a true conservative, the one closer to the ideals and beliefs immortalized in the US Constitution.  He or she may not be your optimal choice – but he or she has to be better than leaving the Senate in the hands of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi apparatus. Give your vote to one who has a meaningful chance to get elected, and to return control of our Senate, of our government, of our freedom to the only party who comes even remotely close to the ideas and beliefs that our forefathers stood for.

And, for the most part at least, that sure as heck doesn’t mean to vote for the Democrats.

Voting Booths


An Open Letter to Those Who Think the ACA is a Triumphant Success:


Posted on by

I wonder how many people any of you have personally spoken with about Obamacare and how it has impacted them?  Not what stories you’ve heard on the mainstream media, or from the White House, or from some website called ACA Success – I mean that you personally have heard from those impacted.

I’m guessing not very many. I, on the other hand, have spoken with nearly 300 over the past few months, because I run a health benefits brokerage firm in California’s Silicon Valley, and I’ve been doing open enrollment meetings almost non-stop, explaining to people that their benefits have been reduced, their premiums have been increased, and hearing their responses. I did 5 meetings last week alone, meeting with nearly 100 people just last week, and I can tell you the expressions on their faces when the see what their new plans look like are very, very sad.

Premiums have gone up in most cases by a minimum of 20-35%, sometimes as much as 75-90%, and in almost every single case, benefits have gone done. The ones who are really crushed financially are those with more than 2 kids, because under the California ACA exchange, people now have to pay extra for every additional child (up to 3 kids under age 18, and with no limit for those between 18 and 25).

One man asked me with (literally) tears in his eyes, “How am I supposed to pay $1900 a month now when I used to only pay $1000 a month? And…and my benefits are worse!” Reality is – the new plans and premiums are horrible. Period.   What would be nice – but hasn’t happened yet! – is a true and accurate presentation of the facts of the enrollment to date in the new exchanges.

Take all the paid enrollees, subtract all those who were forced into the exchanges when their prior plans were cancelled by the team whose leader promised on July 16, 2009, in a speech to the American Medical Association: “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” Then tell us what the REAL enrollment figures are. No one has done that so far.

You can talk all you want about statistics but what I’d like to see are the facts. My experience in life is that when I ask someone for the facts – hard, solid, unadulterated facts – and they won’t give them to me, it means they’re hiding something. I realize that my personal experience in a 4 month long series of meetings with the small company employee workforce in Silicon Valley isn’t statistically large enough to represent the national experience. With an M.A. in political science and over 30 years in the health care industry, I realize that my sample isn’t a scientific analysis – but it is a real life, 100% true presentation of facts.

FACTS! Something that America is still waiting for the Obama administration to release. My bet is that the facts behind the ACA enrollment will not be released prior to the 2014 elections because the truth will not be kind to the administration’s claims of success and glory. But they could prove me wrong by just telling the truth. Why won’t they do that?

Jefferson_flag_capital 518

Why Has The ObamaCare Enrollment Failed?


Posted on by

Why Has The ObamaCare Enrollment Failed?

It’s not because of errors in the rollout. It’s not because the website was horrible. It’s not because the Republicans opposed it.  It’s not because the Democrats passed it through political maneuvering that bypassed the normal procedural process of the US Senate.

The reason is more at the heart of the entire rationale and justification that Mr. Obama and his people advanced from the very beginning of their campaign for health care reform.  Namely, it is because the facts that were screamed at us by the Obama Administration and their supporters both in the political world as in the main stream media were fallacious from the very start.

The statistics that Obama and his cronies were so fond of quoting back when they were pushing for passage of health care reform were that approximately 15% of Americans were uninsured. Unfortunately that was merely a shadow of the actual truth. Leaders of the health care industry tried to tell the Obama-ites that, but the main stream media shouted down the blasphemous cries of the people who really knew the facts about the numbers.

Of that 15% of our population, those 45 million uninsured that we heard about ad nauseum, nearly 1/3, or 15 million could have afforded care and were qualified to get it based on the insurance underwriting procedures then in place, but just didn’t want it. They had no interest, didn’t feel they needed it, so they didn’t buy it. Nothing much has changed – they still don’t want it and they haven’t bought it.

Another 1/3 of that oft-quoted number, another 15 million, were already qualified for government supported medical insurance programs such as MediCal and Healthy Families (in California) but had so little interest that they simply hadn’t bothered to apply! That 15 million still aren’t interested and still haven’t bothered to apply.

The final 1/3, the last 15 million of the “famous” 45 million, who either couldn’t afford it or couldn’t qualify for it, were truly in need. What is the biggest surprise to me (I’ve been in the health insurance industry for over 35 years) is that less than 1/2 of those who I fully expected to be very excited about and to enroll in with alacrity haven’t done anything either. Perhaps as time passes they may, perhaps the system may get easier to navigate, or the “mandate penalty tax” may motivate some – but by and large the result has been what America has seen for many years in many instances.

The proverbial bottom line is that government legislation – whether it be banning alcohol or marijuana, dictating speed limits, or mandating health insurance – can’t force people to do something that they simply don’t want to do. It’s as simple as that.  Americans don’t want ObamaCare, and all Mr. Obama’s whining and crusading and main stream media support can’t change that hard fact, not even one tiny little bit.

Obamacare question

The President Who Cried Wolf!


Posted on by

“The boy President who Cried Wolf”

When angry, count ten, before you speak; if very angry, a hundred.”
― Thomas Jefferson


All the world remembers last September when President Obama proclaimed that Syria, by launching gas attacks on their own people, had crossed a “red line” which America would not tolerate. The President then went on to announce that he had “determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.”

This was a clear and powerful statement by the President, one which reverberated across America and indeed the world, giving notice that there was a point at which we would not back down.

Unfortunately, it proved to be a rather hollow statement. As of this date, nearly half a year later, the situation in Syria is unresolved, and Mr. Obama’s statement proved to be on the edge of completely meaningless.  Syria missed the December 31 deadline to remove the most dangerous of their chemical weapons, then missed the second deadline for removal of weapons on February 5. They’re now over a week past the March 1 timeframe which Russia promised Syria would achieve in moving towards the final steps in the negotiations to remove their chemical weapons as concluded last fall.

Now, six months after his famous – or will it go down in history as infamous? – “red line” speech, he is again threatening sanctions, this time against Russia herself!

I can just imagine how Russian President Putin is quaking in his shoes after hearing Mr. Obama’s threats to “impose a cost” on Russia for its incursion into the Ukraine?

Or is it more likely that, having watched Mr. Obama’s blustering approach to the Syrian issue which accomplished next to nothing, Mr. Putin is probably chuckling softly to himself, convinced that the threats he’s hearing from the White House are about as meaningful as the ObamaCare websites were functional back on October 1.

That’s the problem with making big bombastic statements which are followed up by inaction – you set a precedent for the future, and people stop listening when you make threats.

I guess no one ever told Mr. Obama the story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”


Barack Obama is Not a Liberal


Posted on by

I am disgusted by the Democrat refrain that Barack Obama is the “savior of the middle class.”

The true saviors of the people of America were our Founding Fathers who created this nation.

They broke away from the record of virtually all previous human civilizations since the dawn of history which were ruled by the elite for the benefit of the elite. Whether in Europe, Africa, Asia, or the Americas, for countless centuries the elite ran things for themselves while the vast bulk of the population existed merely to serve their needs. Does anyone think that the rulers of Babylon, Egypt, China, Japan, the Incas, the Aztec, the Mayans, the Mali Empire, the Roman Empire, the European kings of the Middle Ages ran their countries for the benefits of the “common man?”   If you do, I would suggest you go back and study your world history, for they most emphatically did not.

It was only with the creation of the United States did that change.  Only in America was a government first instituted with the primary goal being that of preserving the rights and freedoms of the common citizen.

Our Constitution established a national government of the people, for the people and by the people. Our Bill of Rights guarantees the rights of Americans to freedoms such as the Freedom of Speech, of the Press, of Religion, to Keep and Bear Arms, from Unreasonable Search and Seizure.  The Founding Fathers crowned their creation of that Bill of Rights with the 10th Amendment’s clear and unambiguous statement that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Constitution both protects the people from the potentially abusive power of the government while simultaneously protecting the individual states from that same potentially abusive power of the federal government.  The individual states banded together to form a union, but with the 9th Amendment to the Constitution they sought to preserve their own integrity, to ensure that their rights were not usurped by the federal entity of which all states became sovereign members.

Why did our forefathers include this guarantee that the ultimate power must reside with the states?  Because they knew that the smaller state governments were closer to the people, and they feared the intrinsic propensity of any governing entity to unceasingly strive to increase its own power.

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter written on May 27, 1788 to Edward Carrington, a Virginia delegate at the Continental Congress warned:

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”

How right he was!  Thus by seeking to eliminate areas into which the federal government could expand (by reserving everything not specifically granted to the federal government to the states) the Founding Fathers hoped to prevent that “natural progress…of the government to gain ground.
Sadly, year by year, decade by decade the size of the government grows, and the rights of the people are eroded.

If you find that government expansion odious, then you should blame Mr. Obama as much as any other American President, for in nearly everything he has done, he has been striving to expand the power of the state.

Definition of a Liberal

What, you may ask, is a liberal?  The Encyclopedia Britannica defines liberalism as:

“A political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.”

When he was elected, Mr. Obama was called a liberal by nearly everyone, Democrats, the mainstream media, Fox News, the Republicans, the Tea Party. You name ‘em – they called him a liberal.

I submit that Mr. Obama is not a liberal at all. Has the history of his five years as POTUS been characterized by enhancing the freedom of the individual?

Definition of a Statist

On the contrary, he is a “statist,” one who believes in “statism.” Definitions of the term vary from that of as “the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty,” to that provided  by Miriam-Webster online  as “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.” Either one characterizes Mr. Obama’s term quite well.

Consider the following:

  • 2009’s $787 billion Stimulus Plan,
  • Obamacare,  which widely expands government control over the entire health care industry
  • NSA’s PRISM program, which allowed highly intrusive surveillance without warrants or other judicial authorization
  • Authorization to have US citizens killed by drones without ever even being accused of a crime,
  • Appointments of “czars” (presidential appointees who oversee certain government policies or areas of which he has appointed well over 40 so far),
  • Presidential issuance of governmental “decrees” (164 declarations of law or policy so far which have been neither passed or approved by Congress),
  • Threats to issue more decrees (on FDA actions, on public land use, on gun control)

How could anyone possibly reconcile PRISM, drone killings, “ruling by decree” or forcing  Americans to purchase healthcare against their will with the Britannica’s definition of liberalism as protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual?  One simply cannot.

Mr. Obama is actually pursuing a course of policy precisely opposite to that of true liberalism. He is dramatically increasing both the size and scope of the Federal government, and thereby increasing its power over the lives of each and every one of us.

Perhaps those who proclaim themselves to be “progressive liberals” should consider becoming constitutional conservatives rather than following the path of the Statist Obama.  It is Obama who erodes our rights while massively expanding the federal government and its power.

It is conservatives like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Mark Levin and others like them who fight to preserve our rights, who strive to prevent the massive grab of power by the Washington bureaucracy.

This Obama Policy of Statism is not new, nor am I the first to recognize it.

Forbes magazine in a column by Charles Kadlec soon after Mr. Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address commented extensively on what Mr. Kadlec called “President Obama’s Blueprint for Expanding Government Power”.

Oliver Stone blasted Mr. Obama for having made America into an Orwellian State.

Edward Crane of the Cato Institute branded Obama a Statist, not a socialist.

Sadly, it is a problem that is growing, not diminishing. Americans need to band together to elect to both the Senate and the House of Representatives those with the courage and determination to fight back.

While it would be nice to say something as simple as “Vote Republican” it is unfortunately not that easy.  RINO – Republican In Name Only – is a relatively new term, but one which well describes many who run on the GOP ticket.

2014 Election is Critical

The 2014 elections are less than a year away, and time inexorably marches on.  We must march together to wrest control of the Senate away from those who aid and abet this Presidential power grab while ensuring that the House of Representatives grow into an even more effective bastion against Mr. Obama’s statist goals.

  • Study the platforms of the candidates
  • Seek out and support those who stand for individual freedom
  • Embrace and encourage those who strive to reduce rather than increase the power of the government
  • Do whatever you can to help elect those who are willing to stand up for what they believe in – not cave in to pressure from the Old Guard establishment

America needs leaders committed to advancing the cause of freedom, to preserve our inherent rights, and to achieving meaningful conservative goals, not pseudo-leaders committed to little more than getting re-elected.

tanks on call

Obamacare: One Calamity after Another


Posted on by


A Presidential Decree is Sanctified by What Part of the Constitution?

Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight of the United States Constitution provides the Oath of Office of the President of the United States as follows:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article One, Section one of the Constitutions specifically states that “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”  There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the President the power to legislate.

On November 14 President Obama issued another of his many Presidential Decrees.  He announced that he was authorizing insurance commissioners of all the states across our nation to ignore the provisions of the Affordable Care Act banning non-compliant medical insurance plans.  Each insurance commissioner was empowered to require the insurance companies in their state to revoke cancellations and allow non-compliant plans to continue through 2014.

I suppose one has to give some credit to Mr. Obama for trying to rectify at least one of the many problems endemic to the Affordable Care Act which are devastating Americans.  At the same time, though, we must ask: “Where did he get the power to allow plans specifically banned by his signature health care act to continue in force, even though such plans are specifically forbidden by law?”

Even the courts agree!  On August 13 of this year the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled against President Obama for failing to obey a 2002 statute requiring the executive branch to take final action on the certification of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a nuclear waste site.  Judge Brett Kavanaugh ruled that “Under Article Two of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the president must follow statutory mandates.”

Is advocating the breaking of a law passed by Congress and signed into law by the President himself considered to be “upholding and defending the Constitution?” I think not.

White House officials said that Mr. Obama does have the power to issue this decree, citing the President’s decision to defer removal of immigrants who came to the US as children.  Let me get this straight:  Because he issued an illegal and constitutionally unjustified decree earlier, that gives him the power to issue another illegal and constitutionally unjustified decree now?

Cancelling the Old “Bad” Plans

While Mr. Obama says that the reason many of the old “pre-ACA plans” are being cancelled is because they were bad plans, plans that didn’t provide the kind of coverage that people need.  That is a topic for an entire article, so we won’t address that claim here, though many would strongly disagree with his contention, as pointed out here, here, and here.

The reason so many people are so very angry that their “old” plans are being cancelled is because the people like their old plans.  If they like them, who is Mr. Obama to tell them that their plans are bad.

Isn’t this supposed to be a free country where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness matters?  If you’re happy with your medical plan, isn’t it absolutely wrong for the government to in essence tell you, “Sorry, you don’t know what you’re doing. You’re apparently not smart enough to realize that your old plan is really a bad plan, so we’re going to make that decision for you.” (Even though the President repeatedly promised you could keep them).

The arrogance is despicable.

So Obama has supposedly issued his decree to “correct” the problem.  But…not really.  What he did was pass the blame along to the insurance commissioners so that now he can say, “It’s not my fault – it’s their fault.”

Industry and Insurance Commissioner Responses

Response to Mr. Obama’s “fix” has been less than positive.

“I’m sure he has all sorts of reasons he made the decision he made,” said Monica Lindeen, vice president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).”But from a practical standpoint, for commissioners all across this country, it really did turn our lives upside down.”

“Changing the rules after health plans have already met the requirements of the law could destabilize the market and result in higher premiums for consumers,” said Karen Ignagni, the president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group in Washington.

In a statement concerning Obama’s announcement regarding policy cancellations and the role of state insurance regulators, South Dakota State Insurance Director Merle Scheiber may have summed up the feelings of most state insurance commissioners when he said:

“The Division of Insurance is sorting through the logistics of how this announcement will impact insureds and carriers. The President’s new direction requires a detailed analysis in order to identify the best options for consumers and businesses. We will do what is best for [our citizens] and are demanding more details regarding this policy change.”

Arkansas’ Insurance Commissioner Jay Bradford and Washington state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, both Democrats, have said that they’ll decline to implement the President’s fix, while Oregon has left it up to the insurers, neatly sidestepping accepting the responsibility for making a clearly controversial decision.

In their official statement, the NAIC warned that changing the rules this late in the game creates uncertainty, threatens to undermine the market and may lead to higher premiums and greater market disruption in the future.

The NAIC concluded, “This decision continues different rules for different policies and threatens to undermine the new market… In addition, it is unclear how, as a practical matter, the changes proposed by the President can be put into effect.”

Fiscal Impact on Administrative Costs

Soon after the passage of Obamacare insurers began working on ways to bring their plans into compliance with the new law.  No one knows how much that compliance effort has cost, but you must include the cost of:

  • closing down all the old non-compliant plans
  • designing and implementing a new array of Metal Level plans
  • hiring & training new employees to administer the new plans
  • supporting the old plans through January 1, 2014

The numbers surely run into the multiple billions.

Furthermore, keep in mind that just like all business operations, insurers have a target market.  They design a portfolio of plans to fit the needs of that target market.  Just like an auto maker makes a line of cars to sell to its target market, and a computer manufacturer makes a line of computer to fit its target market.

Neither the automobile nor computer nor insurance industry – or probably any other! – creates a second line of products to compete with themselves.  Now President Obama, with less than 45 days notice, expects the insurers to revamp their entire systems and maintain two separate and distinct product lines.  That will leave the old non-ACA compliant plan portfolio which aren’t based on the Metal Levels, and the new ACA plans which are based on the Metal Levels in direct competition against one another for the same target market.

Insurers also expressed concern about the cost of reinstating policies that had already been purged from their computers and that had not been included in negotiations with doctors and hospitals.  Carl McDonald, an analyst with Citigroup, said the president’s plan created an “enormous administrative burden” for insurers and predicted many would choose not to extend coverage.

“The complexity of trying to uncancel millions of canceled individual policies with only six weeks left in the year is staggering,” he wrote.

Crushing the Risk Pool

Insurance is a moderately complex but eminently logical means of sharing a risk. Here’s the concept:

  • Take a group of people (the insurance term is “a pool”) all of whom share a common concern, such as a car accident, a fire, or a medical claim
  • That group of people sharing the same risk comprises a “Risk Pool”
  • The number crunchers calculate the expected number of claims in the risk pool, how many people will have claims and how much those will be
  • Based on those expected claims payments, you determine how much each member of the pool needs to contribute into the pool to pay all expected claims. That amount is the insurance premium
  • If you have fewer claims than expected, the premium goes down
  • If you have more claims than expected, the premium goes up
  • If you remove a large number of people who have very low claims from the risk pool the average cost of claims in the risk pool inevitably goes up, which in turn pushes the premium up

When the number crunchers calculated the premiums for the new Obamacare exchange plans they knew that they would have a large number of people who had not previously had insurance.  After all, that has always been one of the huge benefits to Americans touted by Mr. Obama.  Millions without insurance, people who either couldn’t afford it or couldn’t get it due to poor health – will now get coverage.

Let me pose a question. If you hadn’t had insurance for years, and hence hadn’t been able to see a doctor for either checkups or for treatment of existing problems, what would you do as soon as you got coverage under the new federally subsidized Obamacare plan?

You’d go to the doctor, wouldn’t you?  That seems obvious.  Which means that those millions who are newly insured will have higher claims than the average American, right?  That’s the goal of Obamacare, to get coverage for those who haven’t been able to get it before, so they can go to the doctor!

For the past two to three years, the actuaries have been figuring out what the premiums have to be for this new risk pool being sold in the exchanges.  The new Obamacare Exchange Risk Pool which was expected to have two groups of people in the risk pool:

(1) those relatively few who haven’t had insurance in the past and can be expected to have higher than average claims and,

(2) those who comprise the vast majority and who’ve been insured under their own plans for years, who’ve been seeing their doctors year in, year out, and can be expected to have fairly average claims.

When you pull the second group out of the above equation as Obama’s decree did, catastrophic claims and ensuing skyrocketing premium rates loom.

This Outrage is Widespread

The New York Times pointed out that insurance carriers who are new to the market could be particularly hurt by the proposal, with many people choosing to stay with their existing plans because they are less expensive rather than what’s available on the exchange.

The larger and potentially devastating overall impact of how removing the healthy from the risk pool could affect everyone in the country was addressed in a November 19 Wall Street Journal Op-ed by Marco Rubio.  Senator Rubio pointed out a memo from HHS that including the following comments on this concern:

“Risk corridors are…used to mitigate an insurer’s pricing risk. Under ObamaCare, risk corridors were established for…three years as a safety-net. While risk corridors can protect taxpayers when they are budget-neutral, the president’s action now exposes taxpayers to a [financial] bailout of the health-insurance industry if and when the law fails.”

On Nov. 14, the American Academy of Actuaries issued a press release saying that President Obama’s plan to reverse health-insurance cancellations “could lead to negative consequences for consumers, health insurers, and the federal government.” More specifically, the academy said, “Costs to the federal government could increase as higher-than-expected average medical claims are more likely to trigger risk corridor payments.”

Point after point, problem after problem, from a law that a November 20, 2013 CBS News poll says 93% of Americans believe should be either repealed or changed, including 72% of Democrats!

Seriously, isn’t it time we got rid of this monstrosity?  Meaning the law – not the President.

Obamacare questions

Comprehensive Reform for Lobbyists


Posted on by

On Oct. 17, President Obama declared victory over the Republican Party after a contentious government shutdown and debt ceiling debate. In a moment of doublespeak remarkable even for Mr. Obama, he proceeded to promise a three pronged economic agenda for the last quarter of 2013.

He pledged to enact a budget (his code word for raising taxes) and a new farm bill, which would expand the food stamps program and institute massive subsidies. In addition, he promised comprehensive immigration reform before the end of this year. It is not a stretch to link this promise to the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” bill which Mr. Obama has repeatedly hawked.

In the same speech where he revived his push for the immigration bill which was openly and unashamedly written by lobbyists and Washington insiders, the President also attacked lobbyists, saying “all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists.” He was presumably including the very ones who helped write his immigration bill.

On Oct. 7, 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama declared, “We’re going to have to change the culture in Washington so that lobbyists and special interests aren’t driving the process.” As the immigration reform was authored earlier this year, quite the opposite occurred. The president sat down with business and labor leaders to craft a bill that could benefit them, rather than us.

This lobbying was somehow spun as a positive! The “Gang of Eight” crowed that the bill would have the support of labor and business, and the media gushed about how the bill would surely pass with such a storm of support. Essentially, the corporations and unions were given the opportunity, behind closed doors, to not merely make demands but to actually help write the bill. In exchange, Congress could count on their support.

I don’t blame these lobbyists. The proposed immigration overhaul would have a massive effect on our labor economy, directly affecting the interests of businesses and unions across the nation. It is entirely in their interests to promote their organization. The problem rests on the tendency of the Obama administration, though this did not start with him, to push these massive overhaul bills.

The immigration overhaul is over 800 pages long. Similarly, both the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul and Affordable Care Act (ACA) were massive pieces of legislation. Moreover, the size of these bills is not determined just by this page count. While the ACA is over 1,000 pages, the bureaucratic regulations written for its implementation have broken the 20,000 page mark.

It is the size and lack of transparency of these bills that attracts lobbyists and special interest groups like flies. With a bill of 1,000 pages, it is not obvious to the public, or even to many Congressmen, when a lobbyist has written in a provision or two.

Let us briefly examine an example. The ACA does not seem like the sort of legislation that would concern the National Rifle Association (NRA). Yet, somehow, Title X on page 2,037 of the ACA, contains five provisions concerning conversations about guns with doctors. It is difficult to imagine how this came to be. The NRA is a powerful conservative group which did very little to oppose the ACA. Is it such a crazy suggestion that the NRA was allowed to add these provisions to ensure that they would not work to defeat the bill? Perhaps the truth of the matter is not quite so incriminating, but the role of lobbyists in crafting legislation is well documented. The larger the piece of legislation the more ripe it is for such manipulation.

This immigration bill that the President has promised to push through Congress is officially dubbed “The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013”.  It joins Dodd-Frank and the ACA as another example of the massive, far-reaching overhauls pushed by the Obama administration as their answers to America’s ills. The hordes of professional lobbyists see in this proposal endless opportunities for themselves and their well-paying clients.  Unsurprisingly, they have joined in the frenzied, whole-hearted effort to see its hundreds of pages become the Law of the Land.

Once again, we risk having a massive piece of legislation, one holding a very significant long term impact on the American public, and yet written predominantly behind closed doors, rushed through. I ask you, “What is the big rush?”

This is not the way the Constitution intended for legislation to be enacted. Our Founders feared the power of special interests and warned against allowing massive, multi-facetted bills to be pushed through Congress. This reckless, imprudent process both denies the transparency needed to understand the content of these bills and simultaneously allows lobbyists to include whatever self-serving provisions they desire.

As this article is being written, the Obama administration promises on its own website, “an unprecedented level of openness”, and proclaims that “Government should be transparent.  (emphasis is theirs) Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.”

While Mr. Obama has outwardly rejected lobbyists both during his 2008 campaign for the Presidency and in his recent speech now in 2013, his call for the urgent passage of immigration reform is really just a call for one more colossal, lobbyist-ridden bill. As Nancy Pelosi said about the ACA, we have to pass it to know what is in it.

As curious as I am about this immigration overhaul, I am certainly not curious enough to pass it before we understand it.


Clueless In Washington


Posted on by

It seems like every time something scandalous happens that surprises Americans, President Obama claims to be just as surprised as the rest of us. How can that be?  The President of the United States is supposed to be the “most powerful man in the world.”  How can he be so completely clueless?


Every American remembers the 11th anniversary of 9/11 last year when terrorists attacked the US compound in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans including US Ambassador Chris Stevens.   If we are to believe the official Obama administration statements, no one in the administration, including Barack Obama, knew what was happening as it happened, or even to this day can tell us what happened, who did it, or why.  Sounds kind of like Christopher Columbus’ first voyage to the New World.  Before the trip he had no idea where he was going, on the trip he had no idea where he was, and after the trip he had no idea where he had been.

We all know the litany of misstatements and finger pointing that followed the murders so there’s no need to repeat that trail of obfuscations here. It is worth pointing out a key point which was made by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about President Obama in a statement to CNS news on February 29, 2013.  “He was in regular communication with his national security team directly, through them, and spoke with the Secretary of State at approximately 10 p.m. He called her to get an update on the situation,” said Carney.

Considering that the attack began at approximately 5 pm, one has to wonder how and why it took the President five hours to call Secretary of State Clinton to ask what was going on.  In this 21st century of technological omnipresence, with drones, observation satellites, cell and satellite phones, laptops and tablets that connect to everyone, everywhere, why didn’t someone tell him?  How could it possibly have taken five interminable hours for someone – maybe the Secretary of State – to have called or even dropped by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to say, “Hey, Barry – have you heard what’s happening in Benghazi?”

Is the problem (1) that the President is so disconnected with his team that they don’t feel like they should keep him up to date, (2) that he hasn’t made it clear to them that if and when American lives are endangered they’re supposed to tell him about it, or (3) that neither Mr. Obama nor his advisors want the rest of America to know what they knew or why they did nothing to save those who lost their lives in Benghazi?  Any of those three answers is completely unacceptable.

Fast & Furious

Beginning in 2009, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) instituted a sting program called “Fast and Furious” which sold assault weapons in the US to buyers suspected of selling them across the border into Mexico.  The ATF hoped to track the firearms to Mexican drug cartels, but somehow lost track of many of the weapons once they entered Mexico.  At least two of those “missing” weapons were used in a Dec. 14, 2012 firefight that left Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry dead.

The Los Angeles Times presents an in depth compilation of 46 stories published from February 2, 2011 to October 15, 2012 recounting the incredible ineptitude and horrible consequences of this ill-conceived operation by the ATF.  The Times coverage culminated in a six part presentation of the emails, documents and other paper trail revealing the entire SNAFU.

President Obama claims he never knew anything about the scandalous outcome of this failed sting operation.  Incredibly, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, US Attorney General Eric Holder joins the President in a denial of any knowledge whatsoever about the 15 month long operation.

These reprehensible denials by both Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder only magnify the tragic death of Agent Perry and at least one more US law enforcement officer, ICE agent Jaime Zapata. Americans have a right to question President Obama’s claims that he never knew anything about it.

Mr. Obama is the President. Mr. Holder is the head of the US Department of Justice.  How can either of them not know what their people are doing, and if they don’t, how can they be trusted in those positions of leadership?  If the CEO of a major corporation doesn’t know what his key people are doing, and they screw up – the CEO is going to be scanning the “Help Wanted” ads.

NSA Phone Tapping – Here and Abroad

On October 23, 2013, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that Obama had assured German Chancellor Angela Merkel that the United States “is not monitoring and will not monitor” the communications of the chancellor. Carney made his comment in response to information contained in an NSA document provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The document, cited by the Guardian, which claims to be the world’s third most widely read online offering, further indicated that the NSA monitored the phone calls of at least 35 world leaders.

When Ms. Merkel called Mr. Obama last week to ask him about the Guardian’s reports, he assured her that he wasn’t aware of the phone surveillance regarding her, and that if he had known about it, he would have ordered that it be stopped.

There is the disconcerting comment of an NSA official who dissented, stating that not only did Mr. Obama know about NSA surveillance of Chancellor Merkel, he encouraged it.  Still, who would choose to take the word of an anonymous NSA source over the statement of the President of the United States?

Once again, President Obama’s common response:  “I didn’t know.”  Sounds like a familiar line.

Obamacare Launch

As detailed by this writer two weeks ago, the Obamacare launch was not exactly the picture of perfection.  In the two weeks since, things have moved from bad to worse.  I willingly grant that the massive launch failure is not in and of itself comparable to Benghazi, Fast & Furious, or the unsettling accusation of a faux pas by the NSA in eavesdropping on Chancellor Merkel’s phone calls.  There is, however, one component of the media circus which most definitely is similar to Mr. Obama’s statements about the three other episodes mentioned above.

In answer to obvious questions about how this could have happened such as:

  • Why the nation that started the computer revolution in Silicon Valley hired a Canadian company to design the website,
  • How 3 ½ years of lead time didn’t give them sufficient advance notice to test things properly,
  • Why HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wasn’t on top of the entire project,

Ms. Sebelius said in an October 25 interview on CNN that “President Barack Obama didn’t hear that there [might] be problems with the sign-up portal for his signature health care law until it went live.”

Mr. Obama apparently – once again! – knew nothing.  He had no idea there might be problems lurking around the corner, right up until the very day of the launch!

Clueless, or…?

Surprise, surprise.  It seems like every time he faces a potential scandal, even when it’s one of his direct subordinates (Secretary of State, Attorney General, Secretary of HHS) who drops the ball, and the American people ask him why, Mr. Obama’s response is “I never knew anything about it.”

Or…he could be lying to us.

Speak Out
for America!

This last part of this article is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART!

On this site, the message brought to you by The Austin Heller Project in late August about Obamacare concluded with a brilliant, incredibly insightful plea for your help, your awakening, your voice to join with your friends and neighbors to speak out for America.  (No, I did not write it!) Now, more than ever, it is a message that must be heard, must be spread, must be shouted from American to American if we ever hope to bring to a halt the rampant insanity that spreads across our nation from those who seek to destroy it. Here is that message:

“It has always been a cliché to call or write to one’s representatives, but with social media, we can do much more than send letters and emails. Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee all have Facebook and Twitter accounts: Reach out to them!

Here is a handy list of House Republicans who support freedom and liberty.

Here is a list of like-minded Senators.

“Millions of people have social media accounts. It is our duty, to ourselves and to our children to spread the message via social media, both by posting about the dangers we face and by sharing the message of those who are actually representing our interests.

“With today’s technology we can do more than just reach out to our elected representatives. We can spread awareness to our friends and relatives, to urge them to join their voices with ours.

“If it becomes clear that we the public want a return to the ideas and beliefs that made America great, how can our Senators and Congressmen fear what some in the media claim will be a negative public response to standing up and fighting?

“Even if our calls go unheeded, we must make a stand and demonstrate our opposition to massive government expansion and in favor of the guarantees of Liberty that our Constitution enshrines.  We must speak out against irresponsible and unaccountable leaders, and work to elect those who are both responsible and accountable.

Please send this plea for action to your friends, your neighbors – to anyone and everyone who you believe wants to Speak Out for America. Send tweets. Post on Facebook. Talk about Freedom.  Make yourself heard!

Jefferson_flag_capital 518

Freedom, Liberty, and Independence: Under Fire!


Posted on by

The love of freedom, liberty, and independence are three of the primary principles that inspired our Founding Fathers to break away from Britain and establish these United States of America. Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams and many more, after enduring years of oppressive rule by King George III, banded together in a courageous battle against the overwhelming forces of one of the most powerful nations on earth.  They risked everything to create this Republic for themselves and their posterity.

Now, more than ever before in the history of the United States, our freedom is terribly threatened.  America is under attack by those chief goal is to accelerate the ever expanding size and power of the federal government.  Flying in the face of our Constitution, ignoring the specific limitations on government power guaranteed to us by that Constitution, these usurpers seek to replace our cherished Republic with some fallen remnant that will bear little resemblance to that which we hold dear.

We, as American patriots, must reach out to one another, must unite to find and support men and women of courage to help all of us bring an end to this assault on our freedom. We must band together to cast from office those who would destroy the long sacred traditions of independence and liberty that were so fundamental to the creation of these United States, and by so doing secure for ourselves and our posterity the endurance of the greatest nation ever to exist on the face of our planet.


All Americans are Immigrants


Posted on by

Associated Press, October 23, 2013:
“Man discovered in attic; lived hidden for five years eating food, wearing clothing belonging to homeowners.  US District Court rules homeowners must allow him to stay and must adopt him into their family!”

Did you raise your eyebrows at that?  I hope so, though it’s not a real news report.  Yet isn’t this what America is really doing with illegal immigrants?

They have come to our country against our laws, are further violating those laws every day that they are here, yet the courts insist that we provide them free medical care (as cited here  and here), food stamps, in many states drivers licenses (California, Colorado, Illinois, and Connecticut among others), and in other states college tuition assistance.

What is the Cost to Taxpayers?

Obviously, since no one knows for sure how many illegal immigrants there are in the US, it’s impossible to pin down precisely the true cost, but it is generally accepted that there are approximately 11.5 million people here in the US without proper legal status.

The Heritage Foundation issued a report earlier this year which estimated that the US currently provides nearly $25,000 a year in assistance to the average illegal immigrant but gets less than $11,000 in tax revenue in return. Heritage further estimates that if we grant citizenship to all of those 11.5 million, the annual expense will leap to an average of $43,900 in giveaways while tax income from those same folks will increase to only $16,000 per person.  So we increase our income by a mere 45%, while our costs go up a whopping 76% to $504 billion per year. Not exactly a recipe for financial success.

Good or Bad for the Economy?

There is much discussion about whether illegal immigrants help or harm the US economy. The New York Times makes the point that since illegal immigrants are often willing to work for lower wages, they create more competition for lower paid jobs, and hence result in lower wages for those American citizens in that sector of the workplace.

The same Times article goes on to suggest that the presence of more lower paid, non-specialized workers actually benefits more highly skilled workers since employers then hire those skilled workers for highly skilled positions which pay more.  It’s a two-sided coin, with many proponents arguing each point of view.

On one site alone,, there are twelve different articles posted, six from each side, while a Google search for “economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States” returned 735,000 hits. Clearly, with that much debate and such a plethora of data it is not within the scope of this article to arrive at an inarguable conclusion to the question.

The Key Word is “Illegal.”  

As most of us know, illegal means “not sanctioned by or according to the law.” In a nation of law, which the US is supposed to be, things that are illegal are not supposed to be allowed. I would suggest that to intentionally condone illegal activities because of the belief that such activities might be good for the economy of the nation is, on the very face of it, a bad thing to do, and can set a very negative precedent.

Some might argue that this an unfair comparison, but would anyone suggest that it is appropriate to teach a child that doing something that’s against the law is okay because it brings financial benefits to the child’s family?  I would hope not.

The law is the law, and we should either obey or change it. Yes, there are laws that are unjust, and when we feel that they are, we must change them through the proper legislative procedures of our nation.  But before we go about changing the existing law we must first take powerful steps to prevent the massive abuse of whatever changes are implemented.

Illegal immigration costs taxpayers billions. Granting citizenship to the 11.5 million who are here in the US now will increase the cost to taxpayers by billions more. When a person comes to the US and lives here without following the proper legal procedures that person is breaking the law.

What Can We Do?

The first step – before we even begin to start thinking about changing America’s immigration policy – is to stop future illegal immigration.  Before we even begin to address the problem of how to deal with the 11.5 million who are already here illegally (which is really the point of the current Immigration Reform Bill put forth by the so-called Gang of Eight) we have to make absolutely, positively, unerringly certain that we have secured our borders for all time to come. We cannot allow that number to continue to grow, now or ever.

On October 17, President Obama said that he wants to pass an immigration bill by the end of the year.  That’s two months, nine days from now. Two months, nine days. That is not a lot of time to calmly, carefully analyze a massive and immensely complex issue that has perplexed our nation for decades.

We’ve been down that path before!  During the Reagan years we first “fixed” illegal immigration with “amnesty” and a promise to secure our borders, than six more times in the ensuing years followed it with other similar legislation.

The Seven Amnesties Passed by Congress

1. Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), 1986: A blanket amnesty for some 2.7 million illegal aliens
2. Section 245(i) Amnesty, 1994: A temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens
3. Section 245(i) Extension Amnesty, 1997: An extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994
4. Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty, 1997: An amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America
5. Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA), 1998: An amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti
6. Late Amnesty, 2000An amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty, an estimated 400,000 illegal aliens
7. LIFE Act Amnesty, 2000A reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty, an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens


Sadly, the promise to secure our borders failed to come true, and now we find ourselves once again facing the same massive and incredibly challenging problem all over again.

We need to make sure that when we finally wrestle this highly emotionally charged and controversial issue to the ground and gain control over it, we don’t find it reemerging like some horrific phoenix from its own ashes, five, ten, or twenty years hence.

Let me repeat:  Secure the borders, then make whatever changes we, as a people, deem appropriate. Secure, then explore change; not make changes, then secure. And it would then follow as the day the night that whatever changes we may deem proper will be implemented looking forward, not back into the past.  The past is immutable, unchangeable, and we should only move forward, not fall backwards.

Americans are All Immigrants

Let me pause to emphatically stress that I am not at all even remotely opposed to immigration. If America didn’t welcome immigrants to her shores, I’d be living somewhere in Germany or Ireland right now.

In the 1850s my maternal great-great grandparents came from Germany.  In the 1890s, two other sets of great-grandparents came, one pair from Germany and one from Ireland.  None of them were welcomed with open arms by all of their new neighbors. The Germans were often called “Dutch,” the Irish usually “Paddy,” neither of which was a term of endearment.  But they all were immigrants, and they all eventually settled in and became part of the “Melting Pot” that is America today.

In actuality, all Americans are descended from immigrants. Some are from families that came to our shores as long as 25,000 years ago from the other side of the Bering Land Bridge in northeast Asia.  Others came in the last decade or two and will add their children to the wonderful panorama of American life, but all are either born of immigrants or are immigrants themselves. No other nation on Earth boasts such a widely varied, such a magnificently diversified heritage. America today welcomes immigrants from every nation on the face of our planet: we always have, we always will.

But we must never forget that America is a land of laws, and in order to remain true to our heritage, we must adhere to our laws, not ignore them when some find them inconvenient. That’s the American Way.

What is the Big Hurry?

In late August of this year  the Obama Administration expressed the urgent, immediate need to launch a missile strike by US naval forces “within the next two to three days” against Syria.  The problem that was so time critical was to punish the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, for his egregious use of chemical weapons in an attack upon the rebel forces vying against his government.

In an article on August 28, this author asked the question, “What is the Big Hurry?”, counseling patience and the hope for unity with our allies in spite of the urgency to move ahead on our own cited by Mr. Obama and his advisers.

Now, nearly two months later, no strike has been launched. Great Britain decided there was no big hurry.  France said they’d prefer to wait for the UN analysis. As the international consensus that Mr. Obama and his team had thought existed for his “immediate strike” evaporated, his “Big Hurry” did so too.  Perhaps Mr. Obama read our work and was inspired to a more rational and reasoned approach than his rampant calls for warlike action.

That’s what he should do now with regards to the immigration issue. Slow down, take the time to explore all options and all possible outcomes, not rush into it because he wants to get it done by December 31.  As previously mentioned, this is a problem that has existed in our nation for decades, and while we should most definitely address it, there is no “Big Hurry.”

Three and a half years ago, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, referring the fledgling Affordable Care Act, told Americans “we must pass it in order to see what’s in it.”  That was another time when Mr. Obama’s administration proclaimed that we were in a “Big Hurry.”  Sadly, the ACA was passed, and we are day-by-day finding out that it contained much that Americans found to be…less than what they had promised.

“If you have a plan that you like, you can keep it.  Period.  No matter what.”  Barack Obama, July 16, 2009.

“My plan will save Americans $2,500 a year on health care.”  Barack Obama, July 20, 2009.

As pointed out last week in this space, neither of those promises has proven to be true.

Was the hurry to pass the bill really because that was the best way to find out what was in it?  That seems an unlikely methodology to really understand anything; adopt it, then figure out what it means.

I would suggest that the real reason for the “Big Hurry” to pass Obamacare was either or both of the following: (1) that there were provisions the administration didn’t want us to know about, or (2) because the 2010 mid-term elections were rapidly approaching and Mr. Obama was afraid that he was about to lose his majority in the House. If it were this latter point that scared him, he was right to be afraid. The Republicans did wrest control of the House from the Dems, and Obamacare would almost surely never have made it out of the newly reconstituted Congress in 2011.

Maybe this time we should look inside the Immigration Bill that he’s in such a hurry to pass and find out what it really says before we let it come to a vote.

With any luck, leaders like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and others who stand for reason, logic, and the values defined in the US Constitution, values expressed by men like Thomas Jefferson 250 years ago, will fight for that well thought out approach.

All Americans are Immigrants

1 2 3 4