PRESIDENTIAL PROS AND CONS: OBAMACARE

Note that President Obama starts his speech about 22 minutes into this video.

Do you still believe this guy? According to him, Obamacare is a great success and affordable. He doesn’t have a good record of telling the truth, unfortunately. Yet one of the candidates supports what Obama has done (She belongs in jail for lying, among other things.) and the other candidate doesn’t.

Hillary Clinton

According to Hillary Clinton, health care is a basic human right (from here).

That sounds great. Hence, we have a weeping, but gullible lady. What she does not see is a devil in the details. Someone has to pay for this right. When we force other people to pay for our “rights”, we have to enslave those people. That’s why there is nothing in the Constitution that says we have a basic human right to exploit other people to satisfy our own ends.

Think about it. Where do basic human rights stop? Food? Clothing? Shelter? Education? Job? A car? An Obamaphone? A fabulous vacation? Nevertheless, H. Clinton wants to build upon Obamacare.

As your president, I want to build on the progress we’ve made. I’ll do more to bring down health care costs for families, ease burdens on small businesses, and make sure consumers have the choices they deserve. And frankly, it is finally time for us to deal with the skyrocketing out-of-pocket health costs, and particularly runaway prescription drug prices. (continued here)

Donald Trump

With respect to the notion that health care is a basic human right, Donald Trump is not a Conservative. Nevertheless, he recognizes that Obamacare is a disaster.

DONALD TRUMP’S VISION

To view Mr. Trump’s position, visit https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

  • Repeal and replace Obamacare with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).
  • Work with Congress to create a patient-centered health care system that promotes choice, quality, and affordability.
  • Work with states to establish high-risk pools to ensure access to coverage for individuals who have not maintained continuous coverage.
  • Allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, in all 50 states, creating a dynamic market.
  • Maximize flexibility for states via block grants so that local leaders can design innovative Medicaid programs that will better serve their low-income citizens.

(continued here)

Analysis

Some Republicans in Virginia have fought Obamacare with surprising determination.

Unfortunately, some judges on Supreme Court contrived an excuse to find Obamacare constitutional. Therefore they allowed the expected time to happen. Obamacare is collapsing.

So what does H. Clinton propose? It is the usual Liberal Democrat solution. So that  they can fix the mess they made, she wants us to give incompetent and power mad leaders more power (see her factsheet).

Previous Posts In This Series

KEN CUCCINELLI ON A CONVENTION OF THE STATES

constitution1.pngAs one of Virginia’s most respected Conservatives and a legal scholar of note, Ken Cuccinelli opinion on a Convention of the States should carry some weight.  So here it is from the Cuccinelli Compass dated 02/01/2015.

The Controversial Convention of States‏

Dear Friend and Fellow Virginian,

One of the most unique and important discussions among constitutional conservatives is taking place right now in Virginia’s General Assembly.  It is the debate about whether the states (including Virginia) should exercise their rights to call an Article V Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution to limit the power of the federal government.

While I have good friends whom I respect on the other side of this debate, I support the effort of the states to call such a convention and I wanted to share my reasons with you.

I would note that there is a body that sits for nine months every year, “defining” our constitution, and sadly it seems to regularly undermine the original meaning of that sacred document… always seeming to grow the power of the central, federal government.  We call this body The Supreme Court of the United States.

We can continue to idly watch the Supreme Court and the federal government eat away at the constitutional foundation of this country, or the states that founded it can make an effort to limit the runaway growth in the power of the federal government.  Frankly, I don’t see – nor has anyone suggested to me – a viable alternative to the Convention of States.

The usual argument: ‘we just have to elect people who will rein in the federal government’ has not worked.  I would note that the Founding Fathers expected to be disappointed, and they tried to design a governmental system with checks and balances to curb the natural excesses of mankind, including a way to rein in the federal government when it got out of control.

Virginia’s General Assembly will vote to take the first step to rein in our runaway federal government in the next few days.  Your support is urgently needed!  The vote looks like it’s going to be very close.

Our Founding Fathers gave the states a method of proposing amendments to our Constitution to rein in the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.  Proud Virginian George Mason insisted that one day the federal government would outgrow its bounds, and when that day came, the states would need to have the ability to amend the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government.  An Article V Convention of States is the specific recourse he and our Founders put in the Constitution for that purpose.

I’d like to ask you to stand with George Mason and our Founding Fathers and tell your Virginia legislators to support HJ 497, HJ 499, and SJ 269!

Here are 3 Simple Facts that I Think Opponents are Getting Wrong:

  1. The States Control the Convention Process

A Convention of States was put in the Constitution for the express purpose of giving the states a way of limiting the federal government.  Under Article V it takes 34 states to start the convention process.  Then the states appoint the delegates to the convention.

No matter what Congress would like to do to influence or attempt to ‘control’ the convention, they have no authority to do so.  The convention can ignore anything Congress ‘says’ about the convention.

Finally on this point, and in my mind critically, 38 states have to ratify any proposals coming out of the convention before they become part of the Constitution – this is our ultimate ‘backstop.’  Put another way, at a time when Republicans control more state legislative chambers than ever before in my lifetime, only 13 legislative bodies (e.g., only the House of Delegates, even without the Senate, on behalf of Virginia) may block ANY proposed amendment.  Blocking votes are the most important, and there are more conservative states than liberal states; additionally, Republicans control approximately double the number of state legislative chambers across the country as Democrats right now.  That’s as good a backstop as we’re going to get – and don’t forget, the Supreme Court is out there whittling away our constitution and increasing the power of the federal government even as we debate this question.

The process is state-driven from beginning to end, and has numerous checks and balances to ensure its safety.  Our Founders knew what they were doing.

  1. Virginia is focusing on Amendments that Limit the Power of the Federal Government.

HJR 497 only allows a convention to consider amendments that will limit the power of the federal government.  HJR 499 only allows a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment.  This can be reflected in the qualifications of Virginia’s delegates. Your rights under the First, Second, or any other Amendment are not ‘up for grabs’ (compare that to the Supreme Court)!  The only people who need to fear a convention are the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

Remember, Virginia’s General Assembly will decide how delegates to a convention are selected, and while there are no absolute guarantees here, Virginia does have significant control of its delegates and a solid backstop in place.

  1. Who does and who does NOT support a Convention of States:

Opponents often accuse us of being supported by the likes of George Soros and Moveon.org.  This is not the case.  Have you ever heard any of them back it (I mean quotes from THEM, not someone who opposes it telling you ‘George Soros wants it’)?  Go look at their websites.  You will not find such support anywhere.

I’ve even heard things like ‘the NRA opposes it.’  If so, my understanding is that their lobbyist in Richmond is unaware of that fact… draw your own conclusions.

A wide range of conservatives support this effort, including people like Governor Bobby Jindal, Prof. Randy Barnett – the leading academic in the opposition to Obamacare, Mike Farris, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Colonel Allen West, Senator Ron Johnson, and Retired Senator Tom Coburn, just to name a few.  Countless other conservative leaders also support this effort.

I should note that I have never seen an issue that sees so many good conservatives on both sides.  But I want to ask you to stand with our Founders and the countless conservatives who have joined this cause.  Please contact your state legislators in the Virginia House and Senate and tell them to vote in favor of HJ 497, HJ 499, and SJ 269.

You can find out who your state legislators are here: http://whosmy.virginiageneralassembly.gov/

For liberty,

Ken Cuccinelli, II

News and Blog Articles

GET OUT THE VOTE FOR JEANINE LAWSON!

Here is an excerpt from Ken Cuccinelli‘s Cuccinelli Compass.

Cuccinelli Compass
Please join me in voting for Jeanine Lawson for Brentsville District Supervisor TOMORROW, Tuesday, December 23rd between 6 AM to 7 PM at your local polling location.

Jeanine has not only been a great friend, but a stellar voice for Brentsville District residents.

I know Jeanine will bring conservative leadership we can trust to the Prince William County Board of Supervisors.

Click here to find out where to vote between 6 AM to 7 PM TOMORROW.

In Liberty,

The Hon. Ken Cuccinelli, II

Ken Cuccinelli is also available on facebook.

THE PRIMARY VERSUS CONVENTION DEBATE DOES MATTER

English: The state seal of Virginia. Српски / ...
English: The state seal of Virginia. Српски / Srpski: Застава америчке савезне државе Вирџиније. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here is my belated commentary on a post at The Mason Conservative.

I CANNOT STAND The Primary vs. Convention Debate

Friends … IT DOESN’T MATTER!

Elections aren’t won or lost by the means of nomination but rather by the quality of the candidate, their campaigns, and the mood of the electorate.  Whether its 15,000 activists are a paltry 1% of the electorate in a primary, there is no guarantee one way or another.  Let me go back to 2001 and work our way forward:

  • 2001 (convention):  Earley (loss), Katzen (loss), Kilgore (win)
  • 2002 (primary):  Warner (win, unopposed)
  • 2005 (primary):  Kilgore (loss), Bolling (win), McDonnell (win)
  • 2006 (primary):  Allen (loss, unoppsoed)
  • 2008 (convention):  Gilmore (loss)
  • 2009 (convention):  McDonnell (win), Bolling (win), Cuccinelli (win)
  • 2012 (primary):  Allen (loss)
  • 2013 (convention):  Cuccinelli (loss), Jackson (loss), Obenshain (undecided)

(continued here)

Note that The Mason Conservative‘s post links to The Virginia “establishment” picks a fight with the tea party (Updated x2) at Bearing Drift: Virginia Politics On Demand.

So what’s my comment about?

In one respect, the The Mason Conservative is spot on. That is, if the argument is solely about selecting which Republican nominee can win, then it makes sense to look at the statistics and see what works. However, it is not the viewpoint of the Republican Party that matters. When we speak about politics and the political process, we need to first look at which processes best protect the liberty of our people. Which method of nomination comports best with a constitutional republic and best protects our rights?

Why do Establishment Republicans like primary elections? Primary elections favor the status quo, the people already in power. Effectively, when we have primary elections, we put The Establishment in charge of how political parties select their nominees.

Consider that Democrats and Republican politicians control the government. Establishment Democrats and Republicans like primary elections because they help to ensure their reelection and make third party movements next to impossible. Thus, primary elections help to make it difficult to throw the bums out, and that makes primary elections decidedly unhealthy for a constitutional republic.

On the other hand, when we have a convention, political activists retain full control of the process, and that is the way it should be. Why? Anybody can be a political activist. If we don’t like what the political activists in one political party are doing, we can always join a different party — so long as the government permits it.

Political parties exist to implement this part of the First Amendment: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That’s why government should have no say in how a political party selects its nominees. To protect those in power — if allowed to interfere — government can and will only corrupt the process.

Instead of holding primaries, we should allow for the possibility of at least two rounds in the general election. Why two rounds? Consider what can happen in an election with more than two candidates on the ballot. What if no candidate gets 50 percent or more of the vote? Do we actually know which candidate is the most popular? No. However, if we have a runoff between the two top vote getters, we can solve that problem.

With a runoff election, we could have avoided the mess we had in Virginia’s last gubernatorial election. Without a third party candidate in this race, the Republican candidate may have won, but without a runoff election we have no certain way of knowing. We just know that many Republicans feel cheated because they believe that the third party candidate, Robert Sarvis, pealed off votes that might have gone to Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate.

In addition, with the possibility of a runoff election, more people would risk giving third party candidates a second look. Thus, the Republicans and the Democrats might have to pay more serious attention to voters and party activists and less attention to their campaign donors.