"Rights" Misused Again - DOMA & Speaker Boehner

 Over at the the Huffington Post they are trying to paint the GOP House leader as a bigot for following his oath of office, while playing the President as their knight in shining armor, even though the president will not clarify his position on gay marriage (in the past Mr. Obama has stated that he does not support gay marriage, then he did,). From the Huffington Post (Link)

"That's why I was shocked to hear that Speaker John Boehner decided to use our tax dollars to intervene and stand up for DOMA to deny LGBT Americans the rights they deserve. This is discrimination -- plain and simple."

You were shocked!  I was shocked that the Obama government used our tax dollars to sue our states for doing the job Mr. Obama won't do. 


While there are many rights that individual Americans have, there are only a few "rights" that are protected by the rule of law.  If you study the US Constitution, and including the Bill of Rights along with the rest of the amendments, you will be unable to find marriage mentioned at all.  There is a reason for this. Many natural and "implied" rights cannot and should not involve government's heavy hand to interfere with individual adult choices. And there is a reason for this.  We need only look at the state of the economy to know how well government meddling works.

Our government was founded around a mostly 'hands off' philosophy (where individuals are concerned) unless one infringes on the "protected rights" of others.  And now, some are begging government to be the decider of who can marry whom. It boggles the mind.

But as much as some people wish that their particular issue was protected by law, the plain fact is many are not.

But married people have no more actual "protected rights" than anyone else.  That is why I believe using the word "rights" when discussing gay marriage is more of a propaganda tool than an actual "right" that should be protected by law.  Those special treatments that a married couple enjoy are the result of centuries marital disputes and contract law where the aggrieved parties seek a resolution through the government.  Politicians pandering to a large voting block have enacted many marriage friendly laws.  But today, we are much more enlightened about different lifestyles and can offer the same laws covering property and other issues that arise to cover gay and lesbian couples that would be unheard of in decades past.

If you want a "right" to gay marriage, I recommend a Constitutional amendment  to add the right.  It would then be protected by government.

ObamaCare's Cruel & Unusual New Taxes

The Orwellian Affordable Care Act (ACA), un-popularly known as "ObamaCare", was advertised as saving money for health care in the United States of America.  Imagine the shock when people learned that it would cut $500 Billion from Medicare, something the Democrats railed against GOP Congresspersons throughout the 1990's.


Not only is it cutting Medicare, but it is increasing taxes everyone, including the middle class (who were promised no tax increases by Candidate and then President Obama). The Americans for Tax Reform  (ATR) has published a list of 17 new taxes that become effective over a period of years (listed HERE). Some are already effective, keep reading... 


Of the more egregious money saving maneuvers, an Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals, "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS (ATR). Personally, I fail to see how this will save anyone anything, including lives or money.  It looks suspiciously as though the political class is trying to punish charitable organizations.  You know, the competition.

The “economic substance doctrine” gives the IRS the power to arbitrarily disallow legitimate deductions.  Isn't that a power we all would like to have?


And then there is the "Tax on Innovator Drug Companies".  What does that say to you? ATR describes it as a "$2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year."  So, if a business that creates and manufactures life saving or life improving or other medications, and has the politically incorrect result of making a profit, Obama is going to take some of it from them.  That sounds like a protection racket, where the business must pay a thug to protect his/her business from that same thug.


How does raising taxes on Blue Cross/Blue Shield lower the cost of insurance?  Anyone who is vaguely aware of how business works would understand that when their costs go up they pass it on to their customers.  Who doesn't know that?


With the "Medicine Cabinet Tax", ObamaCare punishes you for buying nonprescription medications.  Yeah, that will save me a wad of cash.. not.  Maybe US Rep. Pelosi really didn't read it?


Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 began in 2012, so don't be surprised when it shows up on your W-2 at the end.  ATR describes it as a "Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns". I believe them.


These are just a few, along with some others, of the new taxes that have already taken effect.  There are other new taxes,  such as a tax on tanning parlors (tanning beds are health care related?), and plenty more to come after the presidential election (How did that happen?).


You can see all of the ACA taxes, with references to the relevant paragraph in the ACA, at ATR's webpage, here.

Getting Bin Laden: Go, Don't Go From President Clinton?

President Clinton questions whether presidential candidate Mitt Romney would make the tough call to kill Osama Bin Laden. I find the decision to use Mr. Clinton to be really weird because it was President Clinton who failed to make that very same decision while he was president.

In the book, Dereliction of Duty, Lt. Col. Robert Patterson* describes the situation when our forces had "eyes on" Osama Bin Laden in 1998. A two hour window to hit him with a cruise missile (the president's second favorite toy) or let him go.

Describing the incident, Col. Patterson says the president was unreachable for an hour after the NSC Director, Sandy Berger, was informed of the situation and tried to contact the president for instructions. When they finally did contact the president, he wanted more study, more time to be sure. You know, hash it over with the Secretaries of Defense and State for a while.

That is the thing about tough decisions, one normally doesn't get a lot of time to mull it over (that's what makes them tough).

The rest is history. Instead of being dead, Mr. Bin Laden arranges the murders of 3000 Americans, stunts the US economy, starts a war, and has the US government and others chasing him for 10 years.

Dear President Clinton. Thank you for your service.

Here is the paid political advertisement by former President Clinton.





*Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, one of the president's Aides from May 1996 through May 1998, carried the "nuclear football" for President Clinton, among other duties.

Paul Krugman. Can We Talk?

Op-Ed Columnist Paul Krugman asks,

"So, can we talk about the Paul Ryan phenomenon?

(The Gullible Center, NYT, Published: April 8, 2012)

He seems to have a problem with Senator Paul Ryan, describing him like this ...

"He’s a garden-variety modern G.O.P. extremist, an Ayn Rand devotee who believes that the answer to all problems is to cut taxes on the rich and slash benefits for the poor and middle class."

Extremist?

This is pretty good for conversations around the kool aid trough, but people with common sense know better.

Let's say that a common sense definition of "extreme", in reference to politicians and politics, by an example. Can we say that if you propose a budget and even your own party will not vote for it is "extreme"?

The president's 2011 budget proposal received 0 (zero) votes from Senate Democrats or Republicans. Here

The president's 2012 budget proposal received 0 (zero) votes from Senate Democrats or Republicans. Here

On the other hand, if you are supported 40% of the US Senate and most of the US House of Representatives, may be you are not so extreme. Paul Ryan's budget received 40 yeas out of 97 in the US Senate (Here) and picked up 235 votes in the US House (Here).

It was a party line vote in the Senate, and 4 Republicans voted against it in the House, but still, it received a lot more support than 0 and that doesn't Look so extreme to me.

Mr. Krugman illustrates the intellectual irresponsibility of the left in America today.