Jul 31

Never Trump – Anderson Cooper Calls Trump a 5-year-old

Reason enough to never vote for Donald Trump.

Aug 22

Some Things Never Change – Jimmy Carter’s 1977 Energy Chat

CarterTelevised speech – April 18, 1977
Jimmy Carter gives his fireside-like-chat dealing with the nation’s energy crisis. He also speaks of the major political division in the country and the need to come together. It all sounds eerily familiar.

Aug 22

Isis being taken out by US Helicopters/Drones at night

isis

Aug 14

Scott Walker: Unqualified to be President

Scott Walker

Should there be a standard to be president of the United States? Should we the people have basic requirements for the leader of the free world? Of course the Constitution does require the person to be at least 35 years of age, a natural born U.S. citizen, and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. Those are the only requirements the people by law (the Constitution) have, but Americans over the years have had some basic standards that the Constitution does not make law. It could be said that the people of the United States for over 200 years required their president to be a white male. This standard has changed. The American people have set experience as a standard, though not the highest of our standards, we still except some type of government or military experience. Leadership is amongst the most important standards Americans look for in a leader. Finally, for over a century Americans expect their president to be well educated. 
Everybody knows that education comes in many ways. Be it the streets (by doing), college, or by studying on your own, we demand our leaders to be well-versed and knowledgeable in many areas. While knowledge and college go hand-in-hand, college is much more. I am not referring to the social experiences, the networking, and other such things that happen in college, I am speaking about the ability to take on an enormous task that will take years and successfully complete it. College is about adapting, stick-to-itiveness, initiative, and hard work. For some it means a high level of multi-tasking, with school, financing, budgeting, working, and being a 19 year old. For those who see it through to the end they are rewarded with a much better chance to get a job, and to make more money than people who do not go to college. Ambition and accomplishment along with hard work is everything America is about.
With this understanding, the citizens of the United States of America have not elected a president for more than 60 years who has not achieved the minimum of a college degree. In fact, only one president has been elected without a college degree since the 1800’s, Harry S. Truman. He was not directly elected in his first term, so you would have to go back to William McKinley in 1897 to find the last truly elected president without a college degree.
There are plenty examples of those who succeed without attaining a college like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, who made revolutionary changes to the world. With all due respect to 2016 Republican presidential candidate, Governor Scott Walker, you are no Bill Gates. Your overall lack of respect to the institution of education has been shown throughout your governorship and this can only be viewed as deriving from your college days and your inability to graduate from a higher institution.
Thus we the citizens of the United States of America set the standard of having a college degree at a minimum to become president of the United States. Call us snobs. Yet ,it is required to become a first grade teacher, it is required to become an officer in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, it is required and more to become an engineer, an architect, an accountant, as well as most high quality jobs in America.
Can’t we all agree that we want our leader to have this accomplishment?
So Governor Walker, go back to school, and come back when you are finished and then and only then can you sit with the likes of Dr. Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, George Pataki, and the rest of or college graduates.

Aug 06

Obama Speech on Iran Deal

obama iran

Aug 03

Growing signs Schumer will oppose Iran deal

Chuck Schumer is getting an earful from opponents of the Iran nuclear deal.

More than 10,000 phone calls have flooded his office line the past two weeks, organized by a group looking to kill the deal. Another group has dropped seven figures on TV in New York City to pressure Schumer and other lawmakers to vote against the plan. The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee has put its muscle behind an effort to lobby the New Yorker against it.

And Dov Hikind, a state assemblyman from Brooklyn, was arrested for disorderly conduct while protesting the deal outside Schumer’s office.

People who have spoken with the senior New York senator believe the pressure campaign is having an effect: They say there is a growing sense inside and outside the Capitol that Schumer will vote against the deal when the Senate considers it in September. The bigger question many have now is this: How hard will he push against it?

Schumer is one of about 15 Democratic senators who will decide the fate of President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal in Congress. The president can afford to lose no more than a dozen Democrats on the Senate floor, and as the next Democratic leader, Schumer may be the most critical of them all.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/schumer-nuclear-iran-deal-new-york-democrat-120912.html#ixzz3hjqcsLGU

Source: Growing signs Schumer will oppose Iran deal

Jul 16

Obama Begins 60-Day Campaign to Win Over Iran Deal Skeptics at Home and Abroad – The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama eagerly took on critics of the Iran nuclear deal on Wednesday, inviting question after question on an agreement he suggested that many of his political adversaries had not even read.

Mr. Obama used a formal East Room news conference to begin what White House officials said would be an aggressive effort by the president and his top advisers over the next 60 days to combat critics in both parties and to sell the Iran deal to members of Congress, the public and allies in the region.

While Mr. Obama is expected to win enough votes to sustain a veto of any legislation rejecting the deal, his goal over the next two months is to persuade enough Democrats to support the accord so that he can paint opponents as driven by politics rather than diplomacy.

He appeared to relish the fight as he adopted a bring-it-on demeanor and invited reporters to ask him more about the deal.

Full Article: Obama Begins 60-Day Campaign to Win Over Iran Deal Skeptics at Home and Abroad – The New York Times

Jul 15

Benjamin Weinthal: Iran will cheat and get away with it – NY Daily News

President Obama’s deal with Iran profoundly misjudged the revolutionary nature of the clerical regime in Tehran.

Iran’s rulers have demonstrated over the last two decades an unwavering tenacity to develop a nuclear weapons device. Put simply, the agreement reached on Tuesday merely manages the mullahs’ drive to make their nation into a nuclear-armed power.

While the deal will restrict Iran’s nuclear infrastructure for 10 years, in 2025, Tehran’s atomic scientists can dash to a deliverable bomb.

Obama conceded prior to the agreement that “in Year 13, 14, 15 . . . the breakout times [for a nuclear weapon] would have shrunk almost down to zero.” Indeed, the agreement’s details show that Iran’s pathway to a bomb was accelerated even below Obama’s calculus.

Full Article:
Benjamin Weinthal: Iran will cheat and get away with it – NY Daily News

 

Jul 15

Obama Press Conference: Iran Nuclear Deal

obama

Jun 29

Chief Justice Roberts Opinion on Health Care Law

 

It’s actually simple (after 2 pages). You don’t have to buy insurance, but if you don’t purchase, you pay a fine, 2.5% of pay $695 min. That part is collected by the IRS and thus a tax. He states: Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educa­tions.

Excerpts of Chief Justice Roberts Opinion

Today we resolve constitutional challenges to two provi­sions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010: the individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase a health insurance policy providing a mini­mum level of coverage; and the Medicaid expansion, which gives funds to the States on the condition that they pro­vide specified health care to all citizens whose income falls below a certain threshold. We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.

In our federal system, the National Government pos­sesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder. Nearly two centuries ago, Chief Justice Marshall observed that “the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted” to the Federal Government “is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.” In this case we must again determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess. Resolv­ing this controversy requires us to examine both the limits of the Government’s power, and our own limited role in policing those boundaries.

Cheif Justice RobertsToday, the restrictions on government power foremost in many Americans’ minds are likely to be affirmative pro­hibitions, such as contained in the Bill of Rights. These affirmative prohibitions come into play, however, only where the Government possesses authority to act in the first place. If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution.

Indeed, the Constitution did not initially include a Bill of Rights at least partly because the Framers felt the enu­meration of powers sufficed to restrain the Government. As Alexander Hamilton put it, “the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.” And when the Bill of Rights was ratified, it made express what the enumeration of powers neces­sarily implied: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Federal Government has expanded dramatically over the past two centuries, but it still must show that a consti­tutional grant of power authorizes each of its actions.

The same does not apply to the States, because the Con­stitution is not the source of their power. The Consti­tution may restrict state governments—as it does, for example, by forbidding them to deny any person the equal protection of the laws. But where such prohibitions do not apply, state governments do not need constitutional au­thorization to act. The States thus can and do perform many of the vital functions of modern government—punishing street crime, running public schools, and zoning property for development, to name but a few—even though the Constitution’s text does not authorize any government to do so. Our cases refer to this general power of govern­ing, possessed by the States but not by the Federal Gov­ernment, as the “police power.”

***

This case concerns two powers that the Constitution does grant the Federal Government, but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power. The Constitution authorizes Congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Our precedents read that to mean that Congress may regulate “the channels of interstate com­merce,” “persons or things in interstate commerce,” and “those activities that substantially affect interstate com­merce.” The power over activities that substantially affect interstate commerce can be expansive. That power has been held to authorize federal regulation of such seem­ingly local matters as a farmer’s decision to grow wheat for himself and his livestock, and a loan shark’s extor­tionate collections from a neighborhood butcher shop.

Congress may also “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Im­posts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1. Put simply, Con­gress may tax and spend. This grant gives the Federal Government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate. The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control.

The reach of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers is broader still because the Constitution authorizes Congress to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”Art. I, §8, cl. 18. We have long read this provision to give Congress great latitude in exercising its powers: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitu­tion, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demon­strated.” Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however, become abdication in matters of law. “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed. “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to en­force the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits.

The questions before us must be considered against the background of these basic principles.

****

The individual mandate requires most Americans to maintain “minimum essential” health insurance coverage.26 U. S. C. §5000A. The mandate does not apply to some individuals, such as prisoners and undocumented aliens.§5000A(d). Many individuals will receive the required cov­erage through their employer, or from a government pro­gram such as Medicaid or Medicare. See §5000A(f). But for individuals who are not exempt and do not receive health insurance through a third party, the means of satisfying the requirement is to purchase insurance from a private company.

Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a “[s]hared responsibility payment” to the Federal Government. §5000A(b)(1). That payment, which the Act describes as a “penalty,” is calculated as a percentage of household income, subject to a floor based on a specified dollar amount and a ceiling based on the aver­age annual premium the individual would have to pay for qualifying private health insurance. §5000A(c). In 2016, for example, the penalty will be 2.5 percent of an individ­ual’s household income, but no less than $695 and no more than the average yearly premium for insurance that co­vers 60 percent of the cost of 10 specified services (e.g., prescription drugs and hospitalization). Ibid.; 42 U. S. C. §18022. The Act provides that the penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(g)(1). The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its nor­mal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are sub­ject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certain threshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e).

****

The Government’s first argument is that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. According to the Government, the health care market is characterized by a significant cost-shifting problem. Every­one will eventually need health care at a time and to an extent they cannot predict, but if they do not have insur­ance, they often will not be able to pay for it. Because state and federal laws nonetheless require hospitals to provide a certain degree of care to individuals without regard to their ability to pay, see, e.g., 42 U. S. C. §1395dd; Fla. Stat. Ann. §395.1041, hospitals end up receiving compensation for only a portion of the services they pro­vide. To recoup the losses, hospitals pass on the cost to insurers through higher rates, and insurers, in turn, pass on the cost to policy holders in the form of higher pre­miums. Congress estimated that the cost of uncompen­sated care raises family health insurance premiums, on average, by over $1,000 per year. 42 U. S. C. §18091(2)(F).

In the Affordable Care Act, Congress addressed the problem of those who cannot obtain insurance coverage because of preexisting conditions or other health issues. It did so through the Act’s “guaranteed-issue” and “community- rating” provisions. These provisions together prohibit in­surance companies from denying coverage to those with such conditions or charging unhealthy individuals higher premiums than healthy individuals. See §§300gg, 300gg–1, 300gg–3, 300gg–4. The guaranteed-issue and community-rating reforms do not, however, address the issue of healthy individuals who choose not to purchase insurance to cover potential healthcare needs. In fact, the reforms sharply exacerbate that problem, by providing an incentive for individuals to delay purchasing health insurance until they become sick, rely­ing on the promise of guaranteed and affordable coverage.

The reforms also threaten to impose massive new costs on insurers, who are required to accept unhealthy individuals but prohibited from charging them rates necessary to pay for their coverage. This will lead insurers to significantly increase premiums on everyone.

The individual mandate was Congress’s solution to these problems. By requiring that individuals purchase health insurance, the mandate prevents cost-shifting by those who would otherwise go without it. In addition, the mandate forces into the insurance risk pool more healthy individuals, whose premiums on average will be higher than their health care expenses. This allows insurers to subsidize the costs of covering the unhealthy individuals the reforms require them to accept. The Government claims that Congress has power under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses to enact this solution.

The Government contends that the individual mandate is within Congress’s power because the failure to pur­chase insurance “has a substantial and deleterious effect on interstate commerce” by creating the cost-shifting prob­lem.

Given its expansive scope, it is no surprise that Con­gress has employed the commerce power in a wide variety of ways to address the pressing needs of the time. But Congress has never attempted to rely on that power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product. Legislative novelty is not nec­essarily fatal; there is a first time for everything. But sometimes “the most telling indication of [a] severe con­stitutional problem . . . is the lack of historical precedent” for Congress’s action…..

The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of com­mercial activity to be regulated. If the power to “regulate” something included the power to create it, many of the provisions in the Constitution would be superfluous…..

****

The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individ­uals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Con­gress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast do­main to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him.

****

Indeed, the Government’s logic would justify a manda­tory purchase to solve almost any problem.… To consider a different example in the health care market, many Americans do not eat a balanced diet. That group makes up a larger percentage of the total population than those without health insurance. Those in­creased costs are borne in part by other Americans who must pay more, just as the uninsured shift costs to the insured. Congress addressed the insurance problem by ordering everyone to buy insurance. Under the Gov­ernment’s theory, Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables.

People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures—joined with the similar failures of others—can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act.

That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. James Madison explained that the Commerce Clause was “an addition which few oppose and from which no apprehensions are entertained.” While Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause has of course expanded with the growth of the national economy, our cases have “always recognized that the power to regulate commerce, though broad indeed, has limits.” The Government’s theory would erode those limits, permitting Congress to reach beyond the natural extent of its author­ity, “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity anddrawing all power into its impetuous vortex.”

Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do. Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government.6 To an economist, perhaps, there is no difference between activity and inactivity; both have measurable economic effects on commerce. But the distinction between doing something and doing nothing would not have been lost on the Framers, who were “practical statesmen,” not meta­physical philosophers….. The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate com­merce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this un­derstanding. There is no reason to depart from that un­derstanding now.

****

The Government says that health insurance and healthcare financing are “inherently integrated.” Brief for United States 41. But that does not mean the compelled purchase of the first is properly regarded as a regulation of the second. No matter how “inherently integrated” health insurance and health care consumption may be, they are not the same thing: They involve different transactions, entered into at different times, with different providers. And for most of those targeted by the mandate, significant health care needs will be years, or even decades, away. The proximity and degree of connection between the mandate and the subsequent commercial activity is too lack­ing to justify an exception of the sort urged by the Gov­ernment. The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to “regulate Commerce.”

****

That is not the end of the matter. Because the Com­merce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.”

****

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earn­ing income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

****

Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insur­ance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Gov­ernment agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insur­ance, they have fully complied with the law.

Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance…. That Congress apparently regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws. It suggests instead that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citi­zens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance.

****

Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in §5000A under the taxing power, and that §5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it.

****

Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is … not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educa­tions. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchas­ing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.

****

Although the breadth of Congress’s power to tax is greater than its power to regulate commerce, the taxing power does not give Congress the same degree of control over individual behavior. Once we recognize that Con­gress may regulate a particular decision under the Com­merce Clause, the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear. Congress may simply command individ­uals to do as it directs. An individual who disobeys may be subjected to criminal sanctions. Those sanctions can include not only fines and imprisonment, but all the at­tendant consequences of being branded a criminal: depri­vation of otherwise protected civil rights, such as the right to bear arms or vote in elections; loss of employment op­portunities; social stigma; and severe disabilities in other controversies, such as custody or immigration disputes.

By contrast, Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the se­vere burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose—can impose. But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.11 The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain in­dividuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Be­cause the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.

Of course, individuals do not have a lawful choice not to pay a tax due, and may sometimes face prosecution for failing to do so (although not for declining to make the shared responsibility payment, see 26 U. S. C. §5000A(g)(2)). But that does not show that the tax restricts the lawful choice whether to undertake or forgo the activity on which the taxis predicated. Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax.

LA Times