Affordable Care Act - 3-31-2014

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The Obama administration this week announced that some 6 million people had successfully signed up for healthcare insurance under the Affordable Care Act, via the governmental healthcare website. They touted the fact that the law was gaining more and more enrollees as the Monday, March 31 deadline approached.

The White House opted to ignore discussing the reality that given the fact that acquiring health insurance was the law and as such people HAD to have such health protection, of course the numbers would have to go up.

The White House also omitted having the conversation on the fact that the 6 million number only includes those who have signed up, as in put items into their website shopping cart.  It does not count the number of people who have actually purchased and paid for their insurance; that number also does not delineate how many of those people already had insurance, how many qualified for subsidies, and how many opted for Medicaid.

The subsidies and Medicaid are after all not gifts from the government, but reassigned wealth from those working to support the government’s largesse.

Those aforementioned specific numbers within the heralded six million seem to be somehow unavailable, as the administration euphemistically says about information they do not wish to divulge.

In addition to all that, this week the administration unilaterally and illegally again extended the date for purchasing the mandated health insurance to those who, on the honor system, have claimed they had trouble with the website.

The outright absurdity of this entire ill conceived ‘Ponzi scheme’ legislation would indeed be comical if it were not so deleterious to the financial health of the nation.

Politico.com did the nation an invaluable service this week by highlighting the number and specificity of many of the unilateral delays to the Affordable Care Act. The American electorate should be appalled and worried about an executive overreach of power as described by the facts of the piece.

It is reprinted here in its entirety, with thanks to Politico.com.

To wit:

Working backwards, here’s a brief history of some of the most prominent Obamacare delays:

March 25: Final enrollment deadline extended. The March 31 deadline — the end of enrollment for 2014 — will be loosened for people with special sign-up circumstances.

March 14: High risk pools extended. The special, temporary coverage for people with serious pre-existing conditions — which was only supposed to last until the health insurance exchanges were in place — was extended a third time for another month.

Feb. 10: Employer mandate delayed. This time, businesses with between 50 and 100 workers were given until 2016 to offer coverage, and the mandate will be phased in for employers with more than 100 workers.

Jan. 14: High risk pools extended. The high-risk insurance pools, which originally had been slated to close Jan. 1, had already been extended once.

Dec. 24: Enrollment deadline extended. In a message on HealthCare.gov, customers were told they could get help finishing their Jan. 1 applications if they were already in line on Dec. 24.

Dec 12: Enrollment deadline extended. Customers on the federal enrollment website were given nearly two more weeks to sign up for coverage effective Jan. 1.

Nov. 27: SHOP delayed. Online enrollment for the federal health insurance exchanges for small businesses was delayed.

Nov. 21: Open enrollment delayed for 2015. The administration pushed back next year’s enrollment season by a month.

July 2: Employer mandate delayed. The administration declared that it wouldn’t enforce the fines in 2014 for businesses with more than 50 full-time workers who don’t offer health coverage. The fines were pushed back to 2015.

Nov. 15, 2012: Exchange deadline delayed. The Department of Health and Human Services gave states an extra month to decide whether they would set up their own health insurance exchanges — a decision they announced just one day before the original deadline.

How Much Is Enough?

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The entirety of mass media has been focused almost entirely on the tragedy of the missing Malaysian Airlines flight. The number of hours dedicated to an issue for which there is achingly little information is staggering.

It is thus perhaps understandable that the aforementioned media has chosen not to focus its attention on more domestic issues. In this era of political gridlock and ridiculous claims of ‘unfairness’, there still remains some hard realities that must be addressed by our elected leaders.

To wit:

This nation is still far from a true economic recovery, and yet the body politic refuses to address the issues of debt, deficit and responsible budgetary restraint. There are continued cries for increasing taxes on the rich, and that more money is needed for this infrastructure or another.

In short, the electorate is bombarded daily with the message that the government requires more cash to continue fulfilling its purpose.

The reality is that government as a whole can longer manage its fiduciary mandate and as such has voluntarily relinquished its responsibility to America for no other reason that political cowardice and budgetary ineptitude.

For proof of that fact, consider this edited compendium of information from various sources relative to the budgetary madness currently in play in Washington. It should be of both deep concern and outrage on the part of the American people.

As they say, you can’t make this stuff up. The numbers do not lie.

Consider:

Inflation-adjusted federal tax revenues hit a record $1,104,947,000,000 in the first five months of fiscal 2014, but the federal government still ran a $377,379,000,000 deficit during that time, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement for February.

Each month, the Treasury publishes the government’s “total receipts,” including all revenue from individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, social insurance and retirement taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), unemployment insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and “miscellaneous receipts.”

In constant 2014 dollars, the $1,104,947,000,000 that the federal government collected from October through February in fiscal 2014 was $90,193,750,000 more than the 1,014,753,250,000 it collected in October through February in fiscal 2013.

Although the federal government brought in a record  of approximately $1,104,947,000,000 in revenue in the first five months of fiscal 2014, according to the Treasury, it also spent approximately 1,482,327,000,000—leaving a deficit of approximately 377,379, 000,000.

After the current fiscal year, the second highest federal tax intake in the first five months of a fiscal year occurred in the first five months of fiscal 2007, when the government collected 1,076,721,860,000 in 2014 dollars—or 28,225,140,000 less than in the first five months of this fiscal year.

At the beginning of 2013, Congress passed and President Obama signed “The American Taxpayer Relief Act.” While this act made permanent some of the lower tax rates enacted for ten-year periods under President George W. Bush, it also increased some tax rates.

The Congressional Research Service summary of the law said it: “Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) revise income tax rates for individual taxpayers whose taxable income is at or below the $400,000 threshold amount ($450,000 for married couples filing a joint return) and increase the rate to 39.6% for taxpayers whose taxable income exceeds the threshold, (2) set the threshold for the phaseout of personal tax exemptions and itemized deductions at $250,000 for individual taxpayers ($300,000 for married couples filing a joint return), and (3) increase the top marginal estate tax rate from 35% to 40%.

The law also: “Increases the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20% for taxpayers whose taxable income exceeds the $400,000 threshold amount.”

Affordable Care Act - Update - 10/13/13

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The Affordable Care Act, a/k/a ObamaCare, is an assault on the fundamental structure of this nation and an affront to the basic tenets of the United States Constitution.

The Supreme Court has, in the estimation of The Madison Conservative, decided the constitutionality of this legislation incorrectly.

There are those on the liberal left who shriek that it is the law of the land and thus must be enacted. All well and good, but given that the President has somehow unilaterally decided by some form of personal fiat to delay certain parts of the law, it is thus not the law that was passed, and should be addressed with that understanding.

The administration has chosen to lie to the American electorate about the reality of the Affordable Care Act, and the Madison Conservative wishes to demonstrate anecdotally just how unconstitutional the law is, how bold faced a lie the President has told, and why it is a threat to this nation.

The following compilation of news articles are presented here in a compressed and edited form – to do otherwise would require as much print as the act itself.

To wit:

The Kentucky Obamacare marketplace has no “expectation of privacy,” warning its prospective customers that their information can be monitored and shared with government bureaucrats.

When clicking “let’s get started” on the state-run health insurance marketplace “kynect,” the user is quickly prompted to a

“WARNING NOTICE.”

“This is a government computer system and is the property of the Commonwealth of Kentucky,” it states. “It is for authorized use only regardless of time of day, location or method of access. “

“Users (authorized or unauthorized) have no explicit or implicit expectation of privacy,” the disclaimer reads. “Any or all uses of this system and all files on the system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized state government and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.”

Such information includes Social Security numbers. When calling kynect to enroll in the marketplace a person is told to have their Social Security card, immigration status, pay stubs, alimony payments, student loan information, and current health insurance information at the ready.

The kynect disclaimer says users information can be shared at the will of state government agencies.

“By using this system,” the warning states, “the user consents to such at the discretion of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.”

“Unauthorized or improper use of this system may result in administrative disciplinary action and/or civil and criminal penalties,” it says. “The unauthorized disclosure of Data containing privacy or health data may result in criminal penalties under Federal authority.”

A spokesperson for kynect called the disclaimer “problematic,” and said it was a mistake.

“The disclaimer is a federal requirement intended to let all who come on the website know this is a governmental entity and sensitive information is contained within,” said Gwenda Bond, assistant communications director for the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, told the Washington Free Beacon.

“While the language sounds severe, it actually is a warning to those who might try to inappropriately use the website or any personal information contained within,” she said. “We appreciate you bringing this to our attention, and we are working to modify the language so the message is more clear.”

Bond said kynect will update its website to read: “This website is the property of the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange. This is to notify you that you are only authorized to use this site, or any information accessed through this site, for its intended purpose of assisting individuals, employers or employees in the selection or purchase of health plans or other benefits.”

“Unauthorized access or disclosure of personal and confidential information may be punishable by fines under state and federal law. Unauthorized access to this website or access in excess of your authorization may also be criminally punishable. The Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange follow applicable federal and state guidelines to protect information from misuse or unauthorized access.”

Problems with the health insurance exchanges since their launch on Tuesday have been widespread, with reports of long wait times, glitches, and security concerns, with the disclosure of over 2,000 Social Security numbers in Minnesota.

And now a strory about how real people are being affected by the monstrosity that is ObamaCare.

Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama.

Yet, like many other Bay Area residents who pay for their own medical insurance, they were floored last week when they opened their bills: Their policies were being replaced with pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new health care law.

Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.

And does this sound familiar?

Maryland's Health Connection, the state's Obamacare marketplace, has been plagued by delays in the first days of open enrollment.  If users are able to endure long page-loading delays, they are presented with the website's privacy policy, a ubiquitous fine-print feature on websites that often go unread. Nevertheless, users are asked to check off a box that they agree to the terms.

The policy contains many standard statements about information automatically collected regarding Internet browsers and IP addresses, temporary "cookies" used by the site, and website accessibility.  However, at least two conditions may give some users pause before proceeding.

The first is regarding personal information submitted with an application for those users who follow through on the sign up process all the way to the end.  The policy states that all information to help in applying for coverage and even for making a payment will be kept strictly confidential and only be used to carry out the function of the marketplace.  There is, however, an exception: "[W]e may share information provided in your application with the appropriate authorities for law enforcement and audit activities."  Here is the entire paragraph from the policy the includes the exception:

Should you decide to apply for health coverage through Maryland Health Connection, the information you supply in your application will be used to determine whether you are eligible for health and dental coverage offered through Maryland Health Connection and for insurance affordability programs. It also may be used to assist you in making a payment for the insurance plan you select, and for related automated reminders or other activities permitted by law.  We will preserve the privacy of personal records and protect confidential or privileged information in full accordance with federal and State law. We will not sell your information to others.  Any information that you provide to us in your application will be used only to carry out the functions of Maryland Health Connection.

The only exception to this policy is that we may share information provided in your application with the appropriate authorities for law enforcement and audit activities.

The site does not specify if "appropriate authorities" refers only to state authorities or if it could include the federal government, as well.  Neither is there any detail on what type of law enforcement and/or audit activities would justify the release of the personal information, or who exactly is authorized to make such a determination.  An email to the Maryland Health Connection's media contact seeking clarification has not yet been answered.

The second privacy term that may prompt caution by users relates to email communications.  The policy reads:

If you send us an e-mail, we use the information you send us to respond to your inquiry. E-mail correspondence may become a public record. As a public record, your correspondence could be disclosed to other parties upon their request in accordance with Maryland’s Public Information Act.

Since emails to the marketplace could conceivably involve private matters regarding finances, health history, and other sensitive issues, the fact that such information could be made part of the "public record" could prevent users from being as free with their information than they might otherwise be.  However, as noted, any requests for such emails would still be subject to Maryland's Public Information Act which contains certain exceptions to the disclosure rules.

And thus a tyranny is born.

Hypocrisy Unleashed - 9-29-2013

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

In the current state of idiocy that is the debate on budgets and debt limits, the founding fathers gave us the clear path to resolving the issues, answers found within our founding government document, the United States Constitution.

Consider this piece contained within Article 1 Section 8, relative to the authority bestowed upon the legislature:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

The founders and framers had reason to be wary of the practice of having standing armies, so their reasonable and sensible response was to mandate that funding for such national needs were to have them judiciously reviewed every two years.

It is sad to believe that we have gotten to the point where lazy and intellectually challenged politicians have become so enamored of ‘comprehensive’ packages of legislation, with no though given to future review.

It is this insistence of such ‘comprehensive’ legislation that has led us to the current state of fiduciary foolishness.

There should be no gamesmanship played over the fair faith and credit of the nation, but no one seems to be questioning why we continue to face such a continual state of financial firestorms.

It is thus disillusioning to hear the President and Senate Leader Reid professing that their stance on no negotiations on such issues as the debt limit is somehow based upon their ‘principles’.

It would seem a reminder to both men is in order.

To wit:

Harry Reid, March 2006

“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?

They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it.Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country. Weaken our county.”

Well put, Senator. Yet, it is now acceptable to you to take the opposite opinion while railing about the ‘anarchists’ on the other side.

And speaking of hypocrisy, sadly:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. … It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies.”

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaking on the Senate floor in 2006 just before he voted against raising the debt ceiling.

The Fourth Amendment - Again. 6-9-2013

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

Sadly, this issue has again come to the forefront of the body politic, with even more dangerous imbecility by the political class and their cowardly media hacks.

Those who claim that the Constitution is a relic, a vestigial remnant of a different time and hence no longer viable, as well those who claim that it is conversely a living document and thus may be changed at will to fit the current needs of society are both ignorant and should be shunned by all who are within earshot. The Constitution is the culmination of mankind's dream of self-rule, millennia of people who could only dream of living free.

It is difficult to amend for a reason, for its precepts have withstood the test of time.

To that point, and in defense of freedom:

Here is, again for many in the current administration, in it’s totality of 54 words, the Fourth Amendment to our governing document, the Constitution of the United States:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Merely for comparative use, the Affordable Care Act, a/k/a Obamacare, is currently at just over 2,400 PAGES, though the legislation is incomplete with the accompanying regulations, most of which have yet to be published.

The Patriot Act, which is at the heart of the latest debate, stands at 342 PAGES.

The disclosure this week that the NSA has been collecting phone records of American citizens is an affront and an abomination to the Constitution.

To support that point of view, the Madison Conservative will now address the claims, from all sides, who attempt to provide intellectual legerdemain and political cover.

Consider the comments from the political right, who claim that this is a necessary part in waging the war on terror. Their premise hinges on the belief that such actions will help deter another 9/11 attack. These are the same folks who believe that removing our shoes at the airport will keep us safe. They assert that there are legal protections in place, that the information cannot be investigated unless authorized by a federal judge. They assure the American people there is nothing to fear.

It seems they are forgetting that the Attorney General of the United States provided sworn testimony to a federal judge to obtain a warrant to investigate a reporter, claiming he was potentially a ‘co-conspirator’ in compromising national security. When pressed on the issue under oath, the Attorney General first claimed ignorance of such actions, despite having personally signed the authorization. He then further asserted that he had simply made that claim to gain the warrant, that his office never had any intention of pursuing prosecution against the reporter.

Consider that fact for a moment – and then consider the assurances given relative to the phone records safety’

It is chilling, and a warning to those who hold freedom and liberty dear.

The tired claims by the political left are so imbecilic as to warrant being ignored, but they will be addressed.

Their defense comes down to two major points – it is all George Bush’s fault, since he authorized the Patriot Act, and more alarming is their assertion that the ‘American people understand there needs to be a sacrifice of some freedom for some security’, or as the President so alarmingly stated –

“I think it’s important to understand that you can’t have 100 percent security and then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We’re going to have to make some choices as a society,”

In a statement attributed to Benjamin Franklin, Americans have actually accepted the axiom that “’those who sacrifice a little freedom for a little security are deserving of neither freedom nor security”

The march towards tyranny begins with comments such as the Presidents’. This is not hyperbole. What the President is saying is that the government needs to inject itself into every aspect of American society in order to ‘keep us safe’. There is no guarantee of safety in the world, and any pretexts to the contrary are lies. We are a free and open society, and while we may accept certain inconveniences in accessing privileges – air travel, for example, is not a right, remember – we as a nation, as a people, a society, must never accede to the proposition that the government will keep us ‘safe’ if we surrender our rights, for what in essence is ‘our own good’.

History has repeatedly shown us that tyrants and despotism begin with the seeds of providing security for the downtrodden and helpless.

America must stand together, as a people, for the people, to be governed solely by the people, not those who ask for freedom in exchange for security.

An Open Letter to Attorney General Eric Holder

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

Mr. Attorney General,

It has been an eventful week for the administration, and for you specifically.

Given the range of issues and the responses from yourself and the spokespeople for the administration, there is a groundswell of opinion that the president must either fire you, or that you must resign.

The Madison Conservative urges you to resist these cries for your dismissal and provide the American people with true leadership.

The four major issues at hand can be addressed by you in a voice that carries substantial weight. We are a nation of laws, and you are the chief law enforcement of this nation.

As such, you can provide legal clarity to the following:

Benghazi – Please determine who first included the notion of a video no one had ever seen as being the impetus for the assassination of four Americans. Inquire as to exactly where the President of the United States was during the critical hours of the assault on the diplomatic compound. Please provide former Secretary Clinton with the answer to her question – “what difference does it make now?”. I am sure you understand the need to school Mrs. Clinton on the realities of her question and the answer. Lastly, who gave the order for the troops who might have made a difference to stand down?

The HHS Secretary – Please investigate why Secretary Sebelius is soliciting funds from the organizations most directly affected by the Affordable Care Act to promote said legislation. Initial answers that there is nothing illegal about it do not seem sufficient and the ethics of such actions must be properly adjudicated.

The IRS – Given the ability of the IRS to intimidate, harass and harangue the American people on a whim, surely in this instance laws were broken. Please investigate why the President was not aware of anything until, as he has stated publicly, he saw it on the news. This strains credibility to the breaking point. You must stand against the tide and pursue this matter. The American people cannot be allowed to be in fear of a government that was established for, by and of the people. The claim by the political left that the IRS is somehow an autonomous entity is obfuscation at its best – are they unaware that the IRS is under the Department of the Treasury? You must pursue this to wherever it leads, and if you do so, I guarantee the American people will have your back.

The AP – Please explain to the American people two critical points on this matter. First, exactly why was it necessary to illegally obtain phone records from a media source? Surely, the freedoms of speech and of the press were infringed upon, and those responsible must be held accountable. Secondly, why exactly did you recuse yourself? Placing responsibility on an underling is inappropriate. You must take the reins of the investigation and present to the American people the facts, however and wherever you find them.

In short, Mr. Attorney General, DO YOUR JOB!

Given the cowardly assaults on personal freedoms by this administration, and your decision to acquiesce to such choices, you cannot expect to be taken seriously.

I am aware that some taxpayer funded lowlife will find this letter to you and attempt to take retribution.

No need. As an American, you know where to find me.

I dare you.

Background Checks

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

As noted in previous blog posts, there are a multitude of legislative and thus political issues rising to the forefront of national discourse. The Madison Conservative will approach all of them from the point of any given issue and its ramifications and realities as they may relate to the United States Constitution. There are many from the entire political and media spectrum that have chosen, and will choose, to address these issues as they relate to the ’feelings’ involved. While a component for some, the Madison Conservative considers such perspectives to be useless, pointless and cowardly. Government is not based upon feelings, or any other emotional foundation.

Once stripped of the emotional, all that remains are the harsh and complex realities that these issues require substantive and thoughtful solutions and cannot be addressed with simple catch-phrases and bumper sticker ideology.

This particular post will consider the attempts made by the political class to answer the concerns of the electorate in the aftermath of the horrific Newtown school shooting.

The issue, once stripped of the emotional content, is not resolved by banning weapons and stronger background checks, despite what the political class and their media flacks would try to have the American people believe.

The framers and founders had sufficient experience with tyranny and an unrestricted government. They wrote their new Constitution with the deliberate intent of limiting the scope and power of the government. While many point to the second amendment as their sole defense and bulwark to spurn any further gun control, that is a limited view and disregards the wider breadth of the peoples right to thwart off an ever encroaching government.

This is little doubt of the framers fears when the second, third and fourth amendments are taken together to appreciate that they had no illusions of a utopian federal government but rather had a clear and concise understanding of the need to curtail an unchecked federal bureaucracy.

To wit:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Third Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

One hundred and thirteen words that limit the ability for the sweeping gun control the Obama administration and liberals in Congress wish to impose upon the people.

{It should be noted before proceeding that Chicago, Illinois has the strictest gun laws in the nation. It is also currently the murder capital of the nation. The founding fathers wisdom is still prescient today.}

The three amendments, taken as a whole, expressly limit the ability of the government to impose their will upon the people without cause, and provides for their ability to fight back.

It is that simple – the federal authorities cannot infringe upon the rights of the people to bear arms, to allow the government to take control of a citizens dwelling for any purpose, unless specifically providing due legal cause. It is unconstitutional to take private information – their medical history, in this case – and make it public, which is in effect what the political left is advocating.

It is impossible to square gun bans and limitless background checks with the Constitution.

It cannot constitutionally be done – it is that simple.

Of course, those rights do not come completely unfettered of responsibility. One may not use freedom of speech to shout ‘fire’, absent one, in a crowded theater. One may have the right to bear arms – that does not extend to owning tanks and nuclear missiles.

In addition, despite what the left would attempt to have the electorate believe, there are indeed background checks in place for weapons purchasers. There are a multitude of laws that have been enacted to regulate gun purchases, but they lay fallow and absent any manner of enforcement. Adding new layers of impotence serves no point – the law abiding citizen is already predisposed to  following the law; it is the criminal who will find a way to circumvent any new legislation, especially attempts to add new guidelines to background checks.

For those who want background checks extended to include any history of mental illness, there seems no ability to answer two fundamental questions inherent in that choice:

1 – Define what mental illness is, and at what point does it remove a citizens rights, and

2 – How will that information be provided and data-based? It would seem that many would attempt to extend The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) to allow the personal medical information of a patient to be streamed into some national informational registry.

That is unacceptable, and no longer would allow a citizen to be secure in their property or personal papers and would constitute an illegal search and seizure, in this case a seizure of information.

These are not easy issues to grapple with, and a national debate must be had.

It cannot allow to be had by those offering quick salves to the problem. The American people must remain vigilant against an ever expanding federal government who is acting, the people are told, only in the nations best interest – to ‘save the children’, a convenient ruse used by many authoritarian regimes as a means to a tyrannical end.

We owe ourselves and our posterity more than subservient acquiescence.

The State of the Union Explicit Threat

President Obama delivered his State of the Union speech before a joint session of Congress this week, as provided by the Constitution. The pertinent section on this reads as follows:

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

The Madison Conservative would prefer that presidents follow the example set by President Thomas Jefferson; he submitted it in writing and left it at that. The television age has seemingly created the need to embellish the State of the Union speech and transform a constitutional requirement into a media event.

President Obama’s speech followed his inaugural address in that it laid out a set of progressive, liberal priorities for his second term. There are those of the political class and their media flacks who will debate the feasibility and practicality of his agenda and the plausibility of its chances for passage through a divided Congress.

There was, however, embedded within this speech a statement made that should give every American pause, for it belies the Presidents’ call for negotiation and bipartisanship. It carries with it as well a portending of a dangerous assault on the fundamental structure of a democratic republic designed as an equal tricameral form of government, with each third having very specific and purposeful responsibilities delineated in framework.

Contained within the portion of the speech that spoke to his call to address climate change, there was proffered this foreboding statement; it is chilling if the President of the United States actually means it.

To wit:

“I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

The telling phrase: “…if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”

The president does have the power of executive orders, but this goes beyond that. This is a threat that if legislative third of our government does not act in accordance with his wishes and choices, he will act upon what he believes is his sole prerogative. That is not democracy, that is not constitutional – that is tyranny.

This is not hyperbole or hysteria. The President has made clear that he will act if the Congress does not. Such a statement shows an absolute lack of understanding of the structure of American democratic self-rule. The president may not act unilaterally to affect legislation. It is odd that the speech included this line within the context of climate change, but it will no doubt be used to control issues well beyond that narrow focus. The president has already affected the role of government in mandating health care insurance be required of the citizenry – the first step towards declaring that any form of personal choice can fall under the guise of being unhealthy and thus be regulated by the government. The debate on concussions in the NFL is a harbinger of this potential threat to individual freedom and personal choice. Football violence is unhealthy; therefore the government has the right to legislate all such activity.

Under the umbrella of climate change, industry and business will be claimed as negatively affecting climate change; that factory is emitting greenhouse gases, so the government must step in and legislate it out of business.

This is a chilling prospect, borne of a single individual believing he has the sole authority to act if the representatives of a free people elected to government do not act as that singular person demands.

Democracy requires forever vigilance, for all tyranny requires to take root is for good people to remain silent.

Liberalism By Way of Football

Given that today (February 3^rd) was Super Bowl Sunday – Congratulations Ravens! - it is perhaps appropriate to see the NFL as an exemplar of the clear demarcation between liberalism and conservatism. Please note that liberalism and conservatism in this context have nothing to do with the mostly interchangeable political parties of Democrat and Republican.

To wit:

There is currently running rampant a debate over the rate and severity of concussions and other head traumas in professional football, and by association collegiate, high school and every other organized football association. This is a proper and necessary debate and should be held within the confines of a privately held concern, the aforementioned NFL. The NFL is not a public organization – it is not a part of government or under its jurisdiction.

Couple that fact with President Obamas’ inauguration speech, which was by both impartial and partisan review a declaration of his unabashed liberal policies and intentions for his second term.

Taken together and in the context of this philosophical treatise, one must consider the intent of comments made by President Obama when queried about his opinions on the football injury debate in a soon to be released article in the New Republic.

The three following excerpts are both telling of the liberal ethos and of great concern to those who believe the government to be ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’.

To wit:

“I'm a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I'd have to think long and hard before I let him play football,"

The scope of that statement is an almost perfect embodiment of liberalism – what is good for you might not be good for me, so we may have to change it to meet my standards. By definition, this statement indicates that those involved in the largest sport franchise, a private corporation, is unable to properly address workplace concerns on its own, so the government needs to step in and help the defenseless millionaires participating in a private endeavor. It is far different to express concern from a detached government perspective as opposed to injecting oneself into such a situation on such a personal level. The NFL is more than capable to address its own issues. As President Reagan fondly noted, “the nine most terrifying words are ‘I am from the government and here to help’” A sane voice of conservatism.

The next quote from the forthcoming article:

"And I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence,"

Again, the misconstruction of sport as unstructured violence. Even the most casual citizen understands that football is a contact sport. Those who choose to play it do so of their own free volition. This statement seems to equate professional sport with the gladiatorial games of ancient Rome, where victims were killed for sport. To make this statement is to tell the American sports fan that they are thirsty for blood. The supposition made by the President is ridiculous and insulting enough, yet the liberal mindset is intent on removing all delineations of success in favor of watering everything down to a warped premise of ‘fairness’. There needs to be a winner and a loser in the Super Bowl. There is not a tie and both sides awarded the trophy because they tried their best and no one wished to hurt anyone’s feelings. This is a dangerous mindset to have for those in authority – once you try to legislate sport, where does it end? Should race cars be limited to only speeds of 40 miles per hour to minimize crashes? And by setting a top speed limit attainable by all, everyone would have a ‘fair’ chance to win. By attempting to equalize outcome, what is actually happening is the distillation of excellence. America is nothing if not the pursuit of individual excellence.

The final excerpted quote:

“In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won't have to examine our consciences quite as much.”

This comment is beyond both bizarre and troubling. President Obama may be worried about the overall safety issues at the forefront of the current football concussion debate, but exactly why does he believe that it rises to the level of a point of personal morality? Football fans are like every other sports fan – they want their team to win, but not at the expense of injuring the opposition. The statement from the President, presented this way, can only mean that government is now the sole arbiter of how the citizenry should think. If you enjoy football and its inherent physicality, than of course there is a defect in your thinking – your conscience is out of sorts. One could presume then that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) would kick in and your errant thinking would be documented and treated by the government.

This is exactly why the government, especially the President, must be mindful of their use of the bully pulpit. Even with an inescapable liberal agenda, the questions must be asked on just how far that agenda will go to ‘help’ and ‘correct’ the conscience  of a nation.

Democracy demands eternal vigilance, on and