Constitution of NO

Image via Wikipedia

If President Obama’s motto is “Yes, we can,” the Constitution’s is “No, you can’t.”

When a reporter asked House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) during a press conference last year where the Constitution granted Congress the authority to enact an individual health-insurance mandate, she answered, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Speaker Pelosi then dismissed the question and moved on to the next reporter.

This exchange illustrates the way “yes we can” liberals treat the Constitution: They simply ignore it when it gets in the way of their big-government bailouts and takeovers.

Democrats have always been the “party of go,” bent on transforming America with their “living Constitution,” which changes to suit the political whims of the day. That’s why Republicans shouldn’t flinch when they are criticized as being the “party of no.” Saying no is necessary to uphold the freedoms on which our nation was founded.

The Constitution is full of no’s. It is by telling the government what it cannot do that the Constitution protects our freedoms. The Founders loathed tyranny and sought to erect a government ruled by law, not people. As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense, “in America the law is king.”

…

If President Obama’s motto is “Yes, we can,” the Constitution’s is “No, you can’t.” Obama may have once been a constitutional scholar, but he’s no constitutionalist.

Although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected. That’s why it’s more important than ever for Republicans to say no. We are standing against a long progressive effort to transform the country. Its roots are in the New Deal and the Great Society; today, President Obama’s spending, bailouts, and takeovers are testing the Constitution in new and unprecedented ways.

An American awakening is taking place, however, and citizens are demanding that the government once again affirm its allegiance to our country’s constitutional principles. If Republicans want to protect the Constitution and ensure our nation’s survival as the beacon of liberty, “No” is an answer we are obligated to give and to proudly defend.

In the era of unlimited government, saying no is an act of patriotism, and being a member of the “party of no” should be a badge of honor. (Source: Jim DeMint)

Well said Senator DeMint.  Be sure to go to the source as it is a very insightful article.  Wisdom that Republicans would be wise to utilize on the campaign trail this fall.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Phantoms roll in season opener

Image via Wisconsin High School Helmets (www.mghelmets.com)

West De Pere rolled out its new football model Friday, and for one game at least, the 2010 version appears to be as impressive as its shiny predecessor.

The Phantoms dominated in all three phases, and the end result was a convincing 38-0 win over Seymour in a season-opening battle of reigning Bay Conference champions.

“We definitely came back with plenty of talent,” West De Pere senior cornerback Matt VanDenHeuvel said.

The Phantoms played their first game since advancing to the state finals in Madison for the first time last November, when they lost to Reedsburg for the WIAA Division 3 championship.

West De Pere entered this season as a favorite to extend its Bay record of four straight years of winning at least a share of the league title, but with some question marks on offense after losing several key players to graduation.

…

West De Pere’s stingy defense, meanwhile, created an unsettling night for Seymour, which shared the Bay crown with the Phantoms and Shawano last year. The Thunder had only 8 total yards in the first half and finished with 109 yards, compared to West De Pere’s 401. (Source: Green Bay Press Gazette)

Excellent start to the season.  Way to avenge last year’s loss.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Can the Phantoms make it 5 in a row? (brvanlanen.wordpress.com)

ObamaCare Disaster

The bottom line is that you will lose your health care under this legislation, if not your job, your country as they bankrupt America, and maybe ultimately your life or the life of a loved one. All that to make dreamy, emotionalized, liberals happy, even though many of them are not happy because the socialism in the bill is not overt enough. Moreover, the promises made to the American people to pass the bill are shown in the study to be thoroughly false. This pattern of calculated deception, however, did not fool the American people, only members of Congress, many of whom will now pay with their jobs as a result.

Contrary to President Obama’s rhetoric, the Obamacare legislation involves precisely the thorough government takeover of health care. It creates 159 new bureaucracies, agencies, boards, commissions, and programs to rule over health care in America. Government authorities are empowered to tell doctors and hospitals what is quality health care and what is not, what are best practices in medicine, how their medical practices should be structured, and what they will be paid and when. Government authorities will mandate exactly what health insurance with what benefits workers and employers must buy, and the Act imposes tax penalties on them if they do not comply. Government authorities will dictate to insurance companies exactly what health insurance they must sell, to whom they must sell it, and what they can charge. Obamacare even redistributes premium income among insurers under a new “risk adjustment” mechanism.

But this is just the beginning. As in everything President Obama is doing, it lays the groundwork for much more thorough government control and compulsion over time, primarily through bureaucratic landmines involving grants of regulatory authority that will explode when the bureaucracy thinks it can get away with it politically. Among the biggest targets here will be doctors and hospitals, which over time will become complete vassals of the regulatory, bureaucratic state Obamacare establishes. (Source: American Spectator)

Be sure to visit the source and read the whole eye-opening piece.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related articles by Zemanta

• ObamaCare may end student health-care insurance at colleges (hotair.com)
• Grace-Marie Turner: Putting the Brakes on ObamaCare (online.wsj.com)
• Why ObamaCare Must Be Repealed (realclearpolitics.com)

Roger Roth being deceptive on taxes and fees?

8th Congressional Candidate Roger Roth says this on his campaign website regarding his time as a Wisconsin legislator representing the 56th Assembly District:

Roger has never voted for a tax increase

Notice what isn’t mention. That’s right Roger doesn’t mention the word FEES. Apparently Roger Roth thinks there is a difference.

Consider the following definitions.

Tax – a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes

Fee – a fixed charge or a sum paid or charged for a service

Considering both are charges imposed for servives is there really a difference?

Roger was in the Wisconsin State Assembly when the 2007-2009 budget was voted on. According to the Wisconsin State Legislature website Roger voted “YES” when the Assembly initially took up and altered the proposed budget.

Biennial Budget Bill Concurrence

While it is accurate to say that the bill did not increase taxes, it should also be pointed out that fees were utilized instead to increase spending.

This summary shows the impact of the budget bill on taxes and fees.

By doing things such as increasing the automobile registration fee from $55 to $75 per year and by imposing a federal security verification mandate fee of $10 for all license, endorsement, and instruction permit issuances, renewals, upgrades or reinstatements the budget bill Roger voted YES on would have increased net fees a whopping $338,529,100.

Granted it would have decreased taxes by $82,394,300, but overall spending in the budget version passed by the State Assembly would have increased by $256,134,800.

Roger claims on his website to have worked on “pointing to waste and irresponsible programs as places to” save money while in the State Assembly. Was he really doing that when he voted “YES” on the Bienniel Budget Bill Concurrence? A “NO” vote would have forced a re-examination of the budget and a look at potentially limiting spending further.

Roger’s comments on the Assembly version of the 2007-2009 budget that he voted for are here.

When the 2007-2009 budget was considered Republicans controlled the State Assembly and Democrats controlled the State Senate so ultimately the budget went to Conference Committee before a final vote was taken. Roger did vote “NO” on the final version.

However he did vote for fee increases BEFORE voting against them.

Important information for voters in the 8th Congressional District to know.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Anti-liberty record for Roger Roth? (brvanlanen.wordpress.com)
• Roth Caught Without a Roadmap (rhymeswithclown.blogspot.com)