States’ refusal to establish exchanges could undo Obamacare

The Daily Caller:  The Obama administration is waiving the deadline for states to establish a health insurance exchange in accordance with Obamacare, reports The New York Times. But it should not be taken as a sign of deference to the states, or a willingness to be flexible; it should be taken as a sign of desperation.

The announcement is in fact an attempt by the administration to shore up the health care law’s inherent weaknesses and to cajole states into enacting a federal scheme. Contrary to what the feds now claim, the latest and most glaring weakness of Obamacare is that it was crafted to depend on states to establish health insurance exchanges. These exchanges are meant to be the vehicles for the distribution of tax credits and subsidies to buy qualified health insurance plans.

If a state refuses to set up an exchange, and so far 25 have refused,the federal government must step in and create one. However, the law does not authorize tax credits and subsidies to flow through federally created exchanges, only those created by states. An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule issued in May 2012 attempted to fix this problem — initially dismissed as a “drafting error” — by extending credits and subsidies to federal exchanges and so-called “partnership exchanges,” which a number of states have indicated they will adopt.

But the law’s plain meaning, and Congress’ intent, cannot be swept aside by a rule issued by the IRS. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is challenging the IRS in federal court over the rule and the case will likely end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. It has huge implications. If federal exchanges cannot facilitate tax credits and subsidies, they also cannot be used to impose penalties on employers that fail to comply with the law’s “employer mandate” — a fine of $2,000 per employee per year. States that refuse to set up an exchange could therefore shield thousands of their residents and small businesses from onerous federal taxes and penalties.

The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon has made this argument forcefully and in great detail, and it seems to be gaining ground. Cannon, along with Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, have authored what will likely be the definitive argument against the legality of the IRS rule in a forthcoming Health Matrix article.

They argue that once it became clear that a significant number of states were not going to set up exchanges, the IRS sought to fix the problem by regulatory decree. However, by stipulating that tax credits and subsidies would be available only through state-created exchanges, Congress sought to create an incentive for states to set up their own exchanges — because it could not simply order states to create them without overstepping constitutional boundaries. It seems that it did not occur to Obamacare’s authors that many states would simply refuse, or that offering tax credits and subsidies would not be sufficient inducement for them to comply. It was a gross miscalculation, and could mean the undoing of Obamacare.

Seen in this light, this week’s announcement by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius looks more like a plea to recalcitrant states to cooperate and set up exchanges so the feds won’t have to. Sebelius was supposed to determine by January 1 whether states were prepared to run an exchange, but she knew as far back as Nov. 15 that Texas, at least, would not establish one.

Waiving the deadline isn’t a deferential gesture by HHS to the states; it is the latest attempt by the federal government to deputize states into implementing federal policy, and a desperate attempt at that.

Texas and other states should remain steadfast in their resolve not to become tools for Washington, D.C. If the feds want Obamacare exchanges, let them set up those exchanges themselves. Americans would be much better off with weak federal exchanges than they would with the state-based exchanges Congress first envisioned in the law.

John Davidson is a policy analyst for the Center for Health Care Policy with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. He may be reached at jdavidson@texaspolicy.com.  -  Cross-Posted at Ask Marion and at True Health Is True Wealth

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,healthcare,ObamaCare Exchanges,passive resistance,stand-up America,Repeal and Replace ObamaCare

Rally For Texas Independence in Austin!

Texans will gather at the NORTH steps of the Capitol in Austin on Tuesday, January 8th (the opening day of the 2013 Legislative session) at Noon to show their support for the freedom and independence of Texas and to show that all political power is STILL inherent in the people.

Texas Constitution, Article 1 Section 1: "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States."

Texas Constitution, Article 1 Section 2: "All political power is inherent in the PEOPLE..."

Texans will gather at the NORTH steps of the Capitol in Austin on Tuesday, January 8th (the opening day of the 2013 Legislative session) at Noon to show their support for the freedom and independence of Texas and to show that all political power is STILL inherent in the people.

We are calling on every Texan who supports the freedom and independence of Texas to rally up on the north side. Bring signs, Texas flags and flags from the Texas Revolution to show that we want our freedom and independence and we want the Legislature to answer the call of the people.

WE MUST BRING OVERWHELMING NUMBERS!

The TNM has attempted for months to obtain sponsorship for an OFFICIAL rally on the South Steps of the Capitol. However, due to the reluctance and hesitation of the "conservative" members of the Texas Legislature, the TNM and other groups that support Constitutional principles have been blocked out.

Instead, their foot dragging has allowed progressive groups to lock down the official rally space for January 8th. Rather than having Texans in support of Texas independence on the SOUTH steps, visitors to the Capitol will be treated to rallies held by groups that revere Van Jones and support illegal immigration.

We will not be deterred. We will be on the North side of the Capitol, exercising our right to peacefully assemble. We will be there as a visible sign that Texans are ready for freedom and independence and will stand against the destruction of our liberty.

Stay connected for more details as they are worked out.

TNM is fighting hard for you. Show up and support our efforts.

When

January 8th, 2013 12:00 PM

Location

1100 Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
United States2 mi

Show map

Contact

Phone: 800-662-1836
Email: info@texasnationalist.com

Technorati Tags: Austin,Texas,We the People,TNM,breaking news,news,independence,secession,rallies,politics,power

Republican governors decide against setting up ObamaCare insurance markets

Fox News  -  True Health Is True Wealth:

Video: Rick Perry on Neil Cavuto… Not Setting up ObamaCare Insurance Markets

Several Republican governors, in what could be their last symbolic stand against ObamaCare, announced Friday that they will not set up a state-based marketplace for selling health insurance.

A total of 20 states have now decided not to implement their own exchanges -- which could also mean increased costs for the federal government.

The governors of Wisconsin and Ohio joined Texas Gov. Rick Perry and others in confirming that they will not establish so-called "health insurance exchanges," which are set to launch in January 2014. Under the federal health care overhaul, these exchanges will act as virtual markets where people and small businesses can shop for private coverage in a regulated environment. Many will also be eligible for government subsidies.

The governors' move does not stop those exchanges from being implemented. Rather, it kicks the project back to the federal government to run with regard to those states. While a number of states, largely those run by Democrats, will establish their own exchanges, Republicans who declined argued that it wasn't worth the cost and resources to set up a marketplace that would be under the thumb of the federal government anyway.

"As long as the federal government has the ability to force unknown mandates and costs upon our citizens, while retaining the sole power in approving what an exchange looks like, the notion of a state exchange is merely an illusion," Perry wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "It would not be fiscally responsible to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said the same, writing in a letter to Sebelius Friday that "no matter which option is chosen, Wisconsin taxpayers will not have meaningful control over the health care policies and services sold to Wisconsin residents." With that in mind, he wrote, the state has decided not to build its own system. Ohio Gov. John Kasich echoed that point of view.

Republican governors have been largely opposed to the health care law anyway. But for months, they were effectively waiting to see if the Supreme Court would overturn it or whether Obama would lose re-election and potentially leave an opening to repeal it. Neither of those things happened.

Walker was among those who stopped implementation last year on the hopes the law would be overturned either by the U.S. Supreme Court or Republicans following the November election.

Thursday evening, the Obama administration responded to a request for more time from Republican governors on the exchange question by granting states a month's extension, until Dec. 14.

A few states have signaled they want to partner with the federal government, as opposed to running it themselves or handing the reins to Washington. Those states would handle consumer issues and oversight of health plans in the exchanges, while the feds do the heavy lifting by enrolling individuals for coverage and determining who's eligible for government assistance. Among these states are Arkansas and North Carolina.

The number of partnership states could grow significantly, since the Obama administration has given states until next February to decide on that option.

Obama's election victory virtually guaranteed the survival of his health care law, which is eventually expected to provide coverage to more than 30 million people through the exchanges and expanded Medicaid programs. It was the final hurdle, after the Supreme Court upheld a legal challenge from 26 states. In the aftermath of the election, some Republican state leaders say it's time to accept the law.

"I don't like it; I would not vote for it; I think it needs to be repealed. But it is the law," said Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney, after announcing that his state wants to set up its own exchange. "If you default to the federal government, you forever give the keys to the state's health insurance market to the federal government."

Traditionally, states have regulated the private health insurance market.

But other Republican-led states say they don't have enough information to make a decision at this point and are clamoring for the Obama administration to release major regulations that have been bottled up for months.

"States are struggling with many unanswered questions and are not able to make comprehensive far-reaching decisions prudently," Govs. Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana wrote Obama earlier this week. They asked for a meeting with the president, as well as a postponement of the original Nov. 16 deadline.

Some of their main concerns are hidden costs of operating the exchanges and the sheer bureaucratic complexity of the new system. The Obama administration has steadfastly maintained it will not postpone the Jan. 1, 2014, launch date for the law's coverage expansion. Open enrollment for exchange plans will begin even sooner, Oct. 1, 2013.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related: 

Rick Perry: 'Another federal power grab'

Perry may not have last say on health care

Medical giant Stryker cuts 1,170 jobs, citing ObamaCare

Technorati Tags: Rick Perry,Republican Governors,ObamaCare,Obamaland,ObamaTax,health insurance exchanges,Bobby Jindal,states rights

Forum – Is DOMA Unconstitutional?

JoshuaPundit on Oct 29 2012 at 12:36 am - The Council Forum

Last week, the New York State Appeals Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

The ruling itself was based on a very narrow criteria, since there was a plaintiff that obviously suffered financial damages because of a spousal deduction she would otherwise have received on the estate tax on her deceased partner’s estate as a result. But with the Supreme Court set to rule on the Constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, this week the Council addresses the question: Is DOMA unconstitutional? How will the recent ruling affect coming Supreme Court ruling on Same Sex Marriage?:

The Independent Sentinel: I don’t want the federal government involved in this at all. I prefer it be a states rights issue. I feel the same way about abortion. I am opposed to big government and I am against changing the constitution for social issues.

I think DOMA will be found unconstitutional but I think it should be found Constitutional on the basis of states rights and the right of people to choose.

I will become concerned about this issue if it begins to affect freedom of religion. Religions that only marry one man and one woman must be allowed to do so or I don’t think we can call ourselves free any longer.

I believe the only civil rights issue in this country is the abuse of African-Americans through slavery and decades of oppression. No other issue, not even an important social choice issue, should take away from that.

The Colossus of Rhodey: It seems the main problem the recent court ruling against DOMA has is with the law’s Section 3 which defines marriage *federally* as between a man and a woman. The ruling invoked “equal protection;” if the SCOTUS rules as the circuit court did, it will enshrine a right to collect benefits (from the feds) for legally married gay couples. BUT — it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the rest of DOMA would be stricken. The Act allows states to decide whether they want to recognize gay marriages (and those performed in other states), and a cursory reading of the Constitution’s Article IV shows that this part of the law *should be* constitutional re: the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Clause notes that “And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” In other words, those in favor of striking the entire law would have to demonstrate how Congress does *not* have the right to prescribe how its laws are enacted, or, in this case, why another state would *not* have the right to refuse to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state.

It will be difficult to guess what the SCOTUS will rule. If the states still get to decide the question of marriage, then could a gay couple still be able to collect federal benefits from a non-gay marriage state (if they were “married,” in a state which allowed such, but they didn’t actually *reside* in such a state)? If so, how and why? Or, can only those who were [gay] married in a state which allowed such unions be permitted to collect such benefits?

The Glittering Eye: There are two ways of answering that question. The answer in law is absolutely, positively not. But the practical answer is different. The practical answer is that whatever the currently sitting Supreme Court justices say is unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

I’m guessing that, considering that there’s a majority of sexual libertarians on the court,the present Court will strike down the DOMA.

The Noisy Room: Yes, DOMA is unconstitutional for the simple reason that its foundation premise, that government has any business moderating marriage, is fundamentally broken. DOMA falls into that broader fascist category of “good ideas enforced at gun point.” If a constitutional foundation can be found and established for the concept that government is somehow the appropriate arbiter of the act of marriage at all, then a case can be made for DOMA because to the degree that government brokers marriage, government must then define it. However, the constitution offers no support for what was at the time a cultural and religious construct which more modernly, has been annexed as one of the “proper functions” of government.

I don’t see any constitutional support for it and in fact, it plays into the concept that government can replace religion. And this is one of the greasier slopes on which one can embark. This goes further to a broader premise that government somehow owns “citizens,” or as the British prefer to call them, “subjects.” As the premise broadens, it encroaches on education (all your kids are belong to us) and “health and welfare.” We have to keep you healthy so you are productive, our revenue depends on it. This, then, “logically” flows into mandated morality, and while actual crime is a province of government, what you eat for breakfast, how you iron your shirts and with whom you spend your nights is not. See Atlas Shrugged.

So, although this is a blatant attempt to pander to the gay community by Obama, DOMA is not constitutional in my viewpoint. Marriage is a personal (or religious) act, not a government province.

Bookworm Room: Yes, I do believe that DOMA is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not contemplate marriage at a federal level. For that reason, it is a matter that, technically speaking, should be left to the states. Having said that, let’s get to the modern wrinkles. When the Constitution was ratified, the Founders could not have imagined same-sex marriage. It did not exist at the time. Had the notion existed, the Founders might have chosen to address marriage in the Constitution for one very specific reason: The full faith and credit clause, which obligates each state to recognize the duly passed laws of the other states. The problem with laws that provide fundamentally different definitions of marriage (such as those allowing polygamy or same sex marriage) is that, as people move from one state to another, they may be legally married in State A, but not in State B. Any subsequent property, child custody, or third party contract disputes become a nightmare.

With new definitions of marriage never imagined by the Founders, the correct way to deal with the issue is through a Constitutional amendment. If I could draft the amendment, I would remove “marriage” from government control and leave it solely to religious institutions to “marry” people. Government should have power over “civil unions,” and that power should be exercised in whatever way is most beneficial to advance state goals of economic stability, generational property transfers, and the overall best situation for children. Civil unions could certainly encompass same sex couples. I would be loath to extend civil unions to polygamy, though, because of the problems with economic stability and generational property transfers. (England, which legally recognizes polygamous marriages from Muslim countries, demonstrates that, in a Western culture, it’s hard for a single man to support multiple women. These polygamous families end up using welfare disproportionately.)

I’m deeply concerned that, if same sex “marriage” becomes a constitutional right, we’ll have a major constitutional clash between church and state, one that makes the current fight over funding abortion look like a kindergarten party. Think of it: In the Catholic faith, marriage is a sacrament. Can you imagine what will happen to the First Amendment freedom of religion if it crashes headlong into some new amendment mandating gay “marriage.” If, however, the state passes an amendment recognizing civil unions, churches can continue to marry whomever their doctrine recognizes.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Technorati Tags: DOMA,New York,Defense of Marriage Act,unconstitutional,law,marriage,Watcher's Council,bloggers,blogosphere,watch the other hand,educate yourself,alternative media,news,news nuggets,US Constitution,same sex marriage,Founding Fathers,states rights,you be the judge,First Amendment

Hopefully Shades of the Future Verses the Past for Jobs, States’ Rights and America

Jan Brewer with Romney in Colorado to talk about jobs - Future

Remember Jan Brewer with Obama – Present/Past

Technorati Tags: Arizona,jobs,Jan Brewer,Mitt Romney,Obamaland,hope,America's Present vs Future,choices,Election 2012,2012 Election,photos,states rights,federal cooperation

Who The Hell Do These People Think They Are?

Imagine you wake up tomorrow and this is not a Constitutional Republic anymore. It is now a dictatorship. Whoops! Already accomplished. Then imagine that you wake up tomorrow and the President and our elites have given away part of the US. Then imagine it was your state and your state and Senators weren’t even consulted on it. In fact the deal was conducted in secret. Well, the nightmare is alive and well and being finalized for Alaska. But, before you go cursing ONLY Obama (as I do every damn chance I get), you better have a really hard look at Progressives on both sides of the aisle. This monstrous act of treason started under Bush Senior in 1990 and was ratified by our Senate in 1991. The only thing holding it back was that Russia had not signed the treaty. Obama is now looking to finish the diabolical deal.

From Drink Your Kool Aid:

On June 1, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker signed a secret executive agreement with Eduard Shevardnadze, the former U.S.S.R. foreign minister. It specified that even though the treaty had not been ratified, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. agreed to abide by the terms of the treaty beginning June 15, 1990. The Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, which was then signed by President George Bush.

I can hear you saying that this is only about some tiny little islands and that they are closer to Russia than the US – why should we care? These islands are not tiny. And the true issue here is that they have a wealth of oil and resources on and around them. That’s the big deal. Plus, they’re ours – not Russia’s.

Why now, when this treaty has languished for 22 years? Well… Why not? It accomplishes a number of things for Obama. It takes a slap at the conservative state of Alaska and attempts to put her high-profile residents such as Sarah Palin and Joe Miller in their collective places. It caves to one of our biggest enemies, Russia, and weakens the US even more in their eyes. It gives precious energy resources away for nothing, thereby ensuring that energy prices will skyrocket even more in the US when that energy is needed. And who knows what other nefarious goals the deed accomplishes. Progressives are always figuring an angle and it never benefits US citizens – just the elite and powerful.

From WND:

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

More:

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

In May of 1881, US explorers spotted the Jeannette and Henrietta Islands and claimed them for the United States. According to numerous sources, including the group State Department Watch, seven Arctic islands currently controlled by Russia are claimed by the United States. However, according to the United States Department of State, no such claim exists. The USSR/USA Maritime Boundary Treaty, which has yet to be approved by the Russian Duma, does not address the status of these islands nor the maritime boundaries associated with them. And of course, the Russians are claiming them for their own. The fight over Alaskan land has been going on since the 1800s and the Russians are claiming and taking any land anywhere they can find it that has oil or gas.

The Obama Administration is reportedly giving away Wrangell, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta islands in Alaska to Russia. They are getting ready to finalize the deal. The federal government drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side with no input from Alaska, her leaders or her residents. How is that Constitutional? And don’t cite the Treaty Clause to me. This oversteps the bounds of that section by a wide margin. Thus the need for secrecy and no transparency on the deal. The founding fathers never envisioned a sitting President and the State Department just giving away American sovereign land.

And as far as a milquetoast, spineless Senate is concerned – every one of them that ratified this in 1991 that is still in office should be shown the door that leads to a rail out of town with a spiffy new coat of tar and feathers. This treaty makes an excellent argument for abolishing the 17th Amendment and returning to the true Constitutional principle in which senators were elected by state legislatures, not by popular vote. This is what you get when you bastardize and supersede Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

Who the hell do these people think they are? I’ll tell you… They truly believe they are the elite and that they are above your station – you are the riffraff, the serfs that only exist to serve them. They are royalty and their moniker is Progressive. They are the ruling class and the truly, obscenely wealthy and powerful. For too long we have let them rule as they see fit rather than by the will of the people. Obama is just the culmination of decades of inattention to the evil infiltrating our government’s halls. Time to send them all packing.

The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.

James Madison – The Federalist

That’s who they think they are; your King, your Lords, your Nobility. They don’t care what happened in 1787, they still think they own you.

By Terresa Monroe Hamilton  -  The NoisyRoom

California: A Constitution Free Zone

Take a good hard look folks… if Obama is re-elected the California Nanny State will be the mirror America will be looking into… if things go well.  Greece and expansion of Sharia and International Law over the Constitution implemented through the United Nations is the other option!

UPI - California Governor Jerry Brown signed two laws protecting the "privacy" of children and vetoed one protecting the privacy of adults.

More Nanny State Insanity…

Look up insanity in the dictionary and a photo of California and that State’s Governor, Jerry Brown, are probably next to the word. If not, they should be, for there is no other explanation for two recently passed laws in that State.

The youngest legal age for using a tanning bed has been raised from 14 to 18, and children 12 years or older can obtain a vaccination “treatment” for sexually transmitted diseases without parental consent. This is nanny-state insanity.

And while Brown preens over protecting the “privacy” of children, he vetoed away the right of privacy for adults who are arrested by police. He struck down legislation that would have required law enforcement to obtain a warrant before searching the cellphones of arrestees.

ILLEGAL ALIEN TRI-FECTA IN CALIFORNIA!

Gov. Brown just signed a bill to ban cities and counties from mandating E-Verify for their contractors and businesses.  Despite the Supreme Court ruling in August that state and local governments can mandate E-Verify to prevent taxpayer dollars from going to illegal aliens, this rogue, corrupt governor signed AB 1236 anyway.  He is officially working with organized crime to destroy the rule of law in California.

Time for a Congressional Investigation to determine just who Jerry Brown is working for.   Obviously with the 3 illegal alien bills he signed this weekend, he is beholden to foreign (Mexico) special interests.

Dozens of cities and counties in CA have been using E-Verify with no problems, except that illegal aliens are no longer being hired.  Gov. Brown decided to side with the criminals again.

A Constitution Free Zone – Tea Party Nation

If you ever wonder why the framers of the Constitution and our founding fathers thought the Bill of Rights was so important to the Constitution, you need to look no further than the liberal politicians in the State of California.

California’s left wing government thinks there is a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry but you cannot have a gun in California.  In California, the authorities try to restrict speech based on the fact that they do not like it.

I have read the Constitution.  No matter where you fall on the issue of gay marriage, something can be said with absolute certainty.   The Constitution protects free speech.  The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms.  The Constitution is absolutely silent on the issue of gay marriage, not to mention marriage at all.

Another nail has been driven into the coffin containing Constitutional rights in California.  California has just enacted a law that bans the open carrying of unloaded handguns and registration of long guns.

California has banned the open carry of loaded handguns, except in a few exceptions and California has made it very difficult to obtain a concealed carry permit.  In fact, one of the requirements to get a concealed carry permit in California is that you must be a brain dead celebrity who rants about the horrifying fact that some people actually own guns.

Our founding fathers knew a couple of things.  First, an armed populace is a great deterrent against tyranny, invasion and bad behavior.  

Leftists scream about how dangerous guns are.  They scream that if we allow mere citizens to carry guns, there will be bloodbaths.  If we let mere citizens carry weapons, there will be shootouts in the streets.

However, as with all liberal hysteria, those tirades are long on silly emotional screaming and very short on facts.  A majority of states allow either open carry or as I like to call it, “Constitutional carry” or concealed carry.

Not only are the bodies not piling up in these states, these are also the states that have the lowest crime rates.  Criminals may be lazy but are not totally stupid.  They look for the easiest target and certainly do not want to mix it up with someone who is carrying a gun and probably knows how to use it.

While the left screams about the myth of how dangerous guns are, they are amazingly silent on something else.   Almost every week, we hear stories about people who legally own and carry firearms.  Not only are they not committing crimes, they are stopping crimes.

Interestingly enough in Chicago and DC, after handgun bans were struck down, crime dropped!

Compare that to what happened in Britain, Ireland and Australia.  When they banned guns, their crime rates went through the roof. 

As California works to further ban guns, look for crime to continue to rise in the land of fruits and nuts.  Hopefully, the Supreme Court will eventually reverse that decision and impose some sanity on California.

In the meanwhile, Jerry Brown and company are proving the truth of the statement that our country was designed by geniuses and run by morons.

California is guilty of breeching the Constitution.

California Bans Open Carry of Handguns  -  Mexican Mafia celebrates!!

He also signed two other anti-gun bills including regulating long gun sales (AB 800).  He also signed SB 819.

He vetoed one gun bill only because the issue is already tied up in the courts.

h/t  to Jeff Schwilk  -  San Diego Border & Immigration Intel  -  SoCal Patriot Coalition

Video: California at its Best (or Worst):  Cheech and Chong’s Magic Brownie Adventure

By Marion Algier an ex-Californian who remembers when California was the state everyone wanted to move to…

I think the best part of Bob Livingston’s blurb on Personal Liberty on California’s Nanny State Insanity are the comments that followed… Here are a few of them below:

101 Responses to “Nanny-State Insanity”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

1. spxz says:

   October 12, 2011 at 7:22 am

   I guess Gloria Allred is proud. She was perhaps a singular figure in Brow’s win. We can’t call it a victory, as that implies it was desirable. His actions to remove citizens rights is incomprehensible, yet he showed his concern for all by upping the age for mirrored tanning. That tanning was such a social problem! Gloria, you can’t be so stupid as to believe this is what California needs as governor. Then again, attorney’s seldom care about things that affect others, unless it enriches them personally.

   Reply

   • 2WarAbnVet says:

     October 12, 2011 at 9:12 am

     Well, tanning may have been a problem in California. Everything else seems to be.

     Reply

   • ALL AMERICAN says:

     October 12, 2011 at 10:27 am

     …And I am stuck in California…
     This state BLOWS !!!

     Reply

   • Jwe3142 says:

     October 12, 2011 at 12:38 pm

     I am amazed at how everyone blames Jerry Brown for the state of affairs in California…. It is not “jerry’s fault) it is the FAULT of the Left Media and the air heads of California (whose brains have been baked by the sun) that are at fault…. They hate to raise taxes but love freebies… they hate the unemployment but support illegals in their state ( that also begs for Federal Bail out… that is OUR tax money going to support those that are too lazy and stupid to take care of their own problems) The State of California is a cancer to the rest of the nation….. Maybe a frontal labotomy would really clear their heads….

     Reply

2. sean murrey ILLIniois says:

   October 12, 2011 at 7:26 am

   It reminds me of hitlers nazi Gremany.

   Reply

3. Susan says:

   October 12, 2011 at 7:33 am

   California needs to be it’s own country!

   Reply

   • Barney says:

     October 12, 2011 at 7:36 am

     It is or didn’t you notice.

     Reply

     • Al Sieber says:

       October 12, 2011 at 9:55 am

       Yeah! it’s called the peoples Republic of California.

       Reply

       • MontieR says:

         October 12, 2011 at 12:03 pm

         The correct name is the Peoples republik of mexifornia

         Reply

         • Average Joe says:

           October 12, 2011 at 12:11 pm

           looks like gret minds do think alike…I was typing my response as you posted yours

       • Average Joe says:

         October 12, 2011 at 12:08 pm

         I thought it was now called,”Calico” a combination of California and Mexico….or maybe it’s, “Mexifornia”….since there seem to be illigal hispanics than Americans living there.

         Reply

         • Average Joe says:

           October 12, 2011 at 12:09 pm

           since there seem to be (MORE) illigal hispanics than Americans living there.

YES on the Thune-Vitter Amendment! – Contact Your Senators

Contact Your U.S. Senators TODAY And Urge Them To Support Your Right To Self-Defense by voting YES on the Thune-Vitter Amendment!

The U.S. Senate is now considering the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390). As a part of the consideration of that legislation, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) will offer an amendment this week to provide for interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. There is a very high likelihood of a Senate floor vote on this important and timely pro-gun reform between now and Wednesday.

Now is the time for Congress to recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines. Under the Thune-Vitter amendment, an individual who has met the requirements for a carry permit, or who is otherwise allowed by his home state's state law to carry a firearm, would be authorized to carry a firearm for protection in any other state that issues such permits, subject to the laws of the state in which the firearm is carried.

Contrary to "states' rights" claims from opponents who usually favor sweeping federal gun control, the amendment is a legitimate exercise of Congress's constitutional power to protect the fundamental rights of citizens (including the right to keep and bear arms and the right of personal mobility). States would still have the authority to regulate the time, place and manner in which handguns are carried.

Expanding Right-to-Carry will enhance public safety, and certainly poses no threat to the public. Criminals are deterred from attempting crimes when they know or suspect that their prospective victims are armed. A study for the Department of Justice found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed. The Thune-Vitter amendment recognizes that competent, responsible, law-abiding Americans still deserve our trust and confidence when they cross state lines. Passing interstate Right-to-Carry legislation will help further reduce crime by deterring criminals, and -- most important of all -- will protect the right of honest Americans to protect themselves if deterrence fails.

The Thune-Vitter Amendment represents a giant step forward in the protection of the basic right to self-defense. Its passage will recognize that the rights of law-abiding Right-to-Carry permit holders should be respected, even when they travel outside their home state.

Gun control groups, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" are running ads trying to scare your lawmakers and the American people into opposing this crucial Right-to-Carry reform. It is critical that your U.S. Senators hear from you immediately.

Please be sure to contact both of your U.S. Senators today, and urge them to cosponsor and support the Thune-Vitter interstate right to carry reciprocity amendment. E-mail and call them immediately!

Call the United States Capitol switchboard today... everyday at (202) 224-3121

Senators from your State.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

--Thomas Jefferson

The Death of "Common Sense"

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who Has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition. 

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. ( And some never knew he existed! )

Source:  Anonymous

Obama May Grab for Guns

President Obama voiced his support for an anti-gun treaty with such wide ranging implications that it could ban everything from assembling guns in kits to repackaging spent shells.

Click here for video.

The treaty was signed by former President Clinton, but never approved by Congress. It has gained approval in 29 other countries. Obama put his weight behind it during his whirlwind tour abroad late last month.

Yesterday’s passage of legislation that revoked the longstanding ban on guns in national parks proved that this treaty would probably fall by the wayside once more, said Larry Pratt, President of Gun Owners of America. But the fact that Obama voiced his support for it speaks volumes about the President’s view of the Second Amendment, after his famous claim to not “take away guns” from law-abiding Americans.

The treaty would “pretty clearly would require, without a whole lot of extrapolation, a regulation of all firearms in the United States,” said Pratt.

Called the “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials,” the legislation’s bans are multitudinous:

The manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials: a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place: or c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacture.

These sweeping regulations could affect everything from BB guns to toy guns, and could even prevent the individual re-loading of guns by the owners themselves. It could potentially require matching insignia on bullets and shells, meaning that re-use of cases would be illegal – a practice that is more common during a recession.

The regulations could also affect gun clubs, by banning “association or conspiracy” with illegal gun activities. So if an NRA member commits an offense, clubs or advocacy groups could be liable.

The treaty could even call for action against the dealer who sold an offender a weapon. If Mexico calls for the extradition of a gun dealers, the U.S. would be obligated to resolve it by “other means of peaceful settlement” that are yet undefined.

In addition to a Presidential signature, sixty-eight out of 100 Senate members are needed in order for an international treaty to be approved in the United States. But the move to overturn the National Parks gun ban gained 67 signatures, meaning passing further gun restrictions is unlikely, said Provost.

“You have [Senators] who you’re just really surprised are voting pro-gun,” he said.

by Jillian Bandes

-------------

Senate Approves Coburn Gun Amendment…in Credit Card Bill

The Senate on Tuesday night easily passed an amendment to credit card reform legislation that would allow concealed weapons in national parks. The vote was 67 to 29.

The question now is this: Will a controversial gun proposal attached to popular underlying legislation be the poison pill that sinks that larger bill? That’s been the case with legislation allowing the District of Columbia a voting representative in Congress, to which the Senate attached language scrapping many of Washington’s strict gun control laws. As a result of that gun amendment, the DC-vote bill remains stalled in the House months after it passed the upper chamber.

Now, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the chief sponsor of the credit card reform bill, is wondering whether the same might be the fate of his credit card proposal. “My concern is about what the underlying bill — what happens to it,” Dodd said on the chamber floor just before the vote. “I hate to see us lose this opportunity to make a difference with credit card reform.”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who sponsored the concealed weapons bill, said he supports many of Dodd’s credit card provisions, and didn’t have in mind to offer his amendment just for the purpose of killing the larger bill. “I don’t want to see it fail on this,” Coburn said. “But nor do I want to see the Second Amendment trampled on.”

So much for an easy, clean, must-pass credit card reform bill.

By MIKE LILLIS 5/12/09 6:44 PM – The Washington Independent

 

------

Bill allowing loaded weapons in national parks sent to Obama

 

WASHINGTON -- Here's a list of stuff the typical American family can legally carry into national parks this summer: sleeping bag, toothbrush, change of underwear ... loaded guns.

Thanks to a 279-147 vote Wednesday in the House of Representatives, visitors to the nation's parks and wildlife refuges will be able to carry weapons there if they abide by state weapons laws.

The bill is on its way to President Barack Obama, who faces a dilemma: Gun rights advocates attached the provision to a sweeping overhaul of the credit card industry, an initiative Obama strongly supports, so he has little choice but to let the gun section become law.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said only that Obama "looks forward" to signing the bill "as quickly as possible," and didn't mention the gun provision.

Gun control advocates howled Wednesday, but to little effect. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., protested that "the bill has been hijacked," and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., maintained, "American taxpayers ought to be incensed."

Scot McElveen, president of the Association of National Park Rangers, predicted that the measure would provoke problems at the parks.

"Members of the ANPR respect the will of Congress and their authority to pass laws, but we believe this is a fundamental reversal from what preceding Congresses created the National Park System for. Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting."

Nonetheless, the gun measure, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly earlier this month, had strong bipartisan support. In the House, 105 Democrats, most from Southern, Western and rural states, joined 174 Republicans in backing the measure.

Two Republicans, Reps. Michael Castle of Delaware and Mark Kirk of Illinois, and 145 Democrats voted no.

"This is one of those issues that breaks down regionally," explained Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., assistant to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

President Ronald Reagan first required guns to be stored or inoperable in national parks 25 years ago, but last December, just before leaving office, the Bush administration overturned that rule.

That began a game of legal Ping-Pong. In March, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturned the Bush rule, and the Obama administration said it wouldn't appeal.

That action spurred Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to include the gun rule in the credit card bill. It wound up winning by an unexpectedly lopsided vote.

Coburn and his backers said that they didn't want, nor did they expect, people to be in danger of random shooters in national parks.

"It's really common sense," he said. "This is not about guns. What I want is gun rights. I want our constitutional rights to be protected."

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the measure was also a matter of self-defense.

"The real issue is that law-abiding Americans will no longer be treated as criminals" when they carry weapons, he said.

National Rifle Association officials argued that weapons are needed for protection in parks that are becoming increasingly dangerous. Asked why police couldn't handle criminal activity, Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA's director of public affairs, said, "At that moment when you're confronted by a criminal, it's between you and the criminal. Law enforcement cannot be there in position at any time."

Gun control groups said a new kind of danger would be lurking once the ban was overturned.

"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47's on nature hikes," said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He added that Obama "should not remain silent while Congress inserts reckless gun policies that he strongly opposes into a bill that has nothing whatsoever to do with guns."

Brady group spokesman David Vice suggested that Democrats were overreacting to gun rights advocates. Democrats still have bitter memories of losing congressional races in more conservative areas in the 1990s after being tagged as soft on guns.

Vice suggested that last year's results, in which Democrats won their biggest congressional majorities since the early 1990s, are evidence that those districts recognize the need for some limits on guns.

"We're trying to change that perception," he said, "but it's been difficult."

BY DAVID LIGHTMAN - MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

(McClatchy Newspapers correspondent Margaret Talev contributed to this report.)

Coburn who introduced this provision says it is more an issue of State’s Rights and Individual Freedom than a gun issue…

 

Related Articles and Resources:

• Australian Gun Law Update
• Columbine Remembered -- What a great speech!
• Obama Perpetuates The '90 Percent Of Mexico's Weapons Come From The U.S....
• Only About 10% of Weapons Used By Mexican Drug Cartels Come From America Says Former Drug Czar William Bennett
• Gun-Free Zones Are a Magnet for Attacks Like the Tragedy In Binghamton
• Preserve the Second Amendment
• National Rifle Association politics and legislation: http://www.nraila.org/
• Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: http://www.bradycampaign.org/
• House roll call vote on gun measure: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll277.xml 
• Michael Farris - United Nation’s Convention on Rights of a Child Material
• Parentalrights press conference

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad