Category Better Life

Mar 17 2015

Bill to Repeal IPAB to be Announced

Sources in Washington D.C. have informed TMCV that Congressman Bruce Poliquin intends to announce the end of this week, possibly Thursday morning, that he is an original co-sponsor of a bill HR 1190 which repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) established by the Affordable Care Act.  IPAB has been labeled by the Cato Institute as perhaps the most unconstitutional part of the ACA, and may be the most unconstitutional creation in the history of the United States.  It has also been denounced by the AAMC, the Association of American Medical Colleges.

IPAB is a regulatory board created through the Affordable Care Act, at the behest of President OBama and his Chief architect at the time Peter Orszag to bypass the checks and balances our government.  The board is composed of 15 healthcare professionals appointed by the President.  The regulatory “proposals” that are issued from IPAB are to be implemented immediately by the Secretary of Health and Human Services without approval from Congress.  If all three branches of government cannot come up with a bill that matches the precise intent of the IPAB “proposal” it becomes law, with no vote from Congress and the President  has no power of veto.

But the appalling autonomy of IPAB does not stop there!  If Congress fails to repeal IPAB before 2017, language in ACA prevents all three branches from repealing this board and/or altering any of its proposals at any time.  This gives IPAB the power to alter the Constitution through statute, or its “proposals”.  Not only does IPAB hold regulatory control over ObamaCare but it also has been granted oversight in the private healthcare market.

This is a brief overview of the egregious attack on the Constitution this facet of the ACA represents. TMCV intends to post several articles on IPAB in anticipation of the announcement of Poliquin that he has joined forces with Rep. David Roe (R-TN) to repeal IPAB.  Diane Cohen, lead counsel challenging the constitutionality of IPAB, and Michael F. Cannon, director of health policies for the Cato Institute, aptly describe IPAB as not just unconstitutional, but “anti-constitutional”.

IPAB must be repealed and abolished.  We applaud Rep. Poliquin (R-ME) and Rep. David Roe (R-TN) for their leadership on this.

Mar 9 2015

The Last Stand: The Issue

 

“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” -Ronald Reagan

There are two fallacies connected with the traditional marriage versus same-sex marriage debate that we will deal with in this column. The first misconception is that love is the basic reason for marriage. The second widely propagated lie is that marriage is strictly a Christian tradition. Both have contributed greatly to the folly and contention we have today.

We should immediately dispense with the idea that marriage belongs to Christianity. Common sense tells us that Christianity is not the only religion that has had its imprint upon the rites of marriage. Not every Empire has been Christian, but every Empire has had a marriage structure by which to insure the stability of their generations in hopes to insure the longevity of their Kingdoms.

The pervasive thought that marriage tradition is rooted in Christianity comes from the fact that the United States is a Nation built on the foundation of a Judea-Christian faith. This must be tempered by the realization that we are a melting pot and not all peoples represented in this Country have their rites and traditions rooted in the same faith. While influenced by the Christian teaching of love, the origins of many of these various marital rites are very different from Christianity.

The proponents of same-sex marriage have tried to affix the label of Christianity to traditional marriage because it makes for a much easier and popular target. It is no secret that the political establishment has long resented and wanted Christianity removed from having any impact on society. Hollywood elites have longed disdained the teachings of morality and fidelity, and corporate tycoons have loathed the constant reminders to check their greed. Emboldened by the populace perception of Christianity as the evil menace to society, homosexuals have seized the opportunity to target and persecute Christians.

The prevailing argument is that homosexuals are loving couples that wish to have a marital relationship and therefore should not be denied this affirmation of love. This idea that a loving relationship is the fundamental basis for marriage is simple not correct. The institution of marriage was not created in any culture to validate a couple’s love and physical intimacy. No, the first and primary reason for the rite of marriage in every civilization throughout time was for the propagation and protection of the most fundamental and basic building block of society: babies.

The idea of a loving relationship as a prerequisite to marriage is a Western concept that has descended down from European lore and exacerbated by the modern Hollywood culture of today. In some Eastern marriage traditions, the idea of love is viewed as “bonus” that may come with time after the vows have been consummated. The one constant in every civilization is the purposing of marriage tradition as the vehicle by which children are brought into the world, raised, and taught the tenants of that society.

Not every marriage structure has demanded that physical intimacy be kept exclusively for marriage as Christianity and Islam do, but all the marriage rites of every civilization have agreed that the primary purpose of marriage was and is procreation. If a society is to survive it must have a stable structure in which to produce and raise children. The issue of marriage is simply about babies.

Even in the face of our hedonistic society the overarching truth still remains, marriage was created first for procreation not for love. It is a societal and religious rite created by heterosexuals for this primary purpose. Homosexuals did not create the rites of marriage represented in our Country and passed down by the various ethnic groups. The cold truth is homosexuals cannot procreate and, therefore, do not qualify for the purpose of marriage. Love does not qualify one’s relationship for marriage.

Marriage was not created for romance, love, or even sexual pleasure. While those ideals are not excluded, the harsh reality is that marriage was created by heterosexuals for heterosexuals who could, if they desired, create children. Marriage is exclusive for that purpose. Sadly, we are willing as a Nation, to target and revoke the rights and liberties of certain people groups based on reasoning that does not even exist.

Mar 6 2015

Bi-Partisanship, Folly, and Fantasy

 

The rookies are in! With the legislature now in full swing, the freshmen members have descended upon Augusta. These have come, with visions of their own grandeur rife with the fantasy of how their silver tongue and persona, steeped in the magnanimous, will alone bridge the partisan divide. Soon, the rude awakening will occur, or so we hope.

Why do I hope for a rude awakening? It may help the reader to understand my disdain of the modern clamor for bi-partisanship if we first examine the partisan divide. For this purpose, I will borrow and embellish an illustration from a columnist far more accomplished and respected than I, Peggy Noonan. This is from a column she wrote in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago entitled “Why Its Time for the Tea Party”.

Ms. Noonan likens the partisan divide to the increments on a yardstick. The one-inch mark would represent the extreme right, what some call “right of reason”. The 36-inch mark would represent those on the left, who just transported in from their spaceship through the StarGate on moonbeams. The 18-inch would represent the middle ground or the Nirvana of bi-partisanship.

While media elites, the Democrat Party, and moderate Republicans continue to loudly decry the lack of bi-partisanship from Conservatives and Conservative Republicans alike (Yes, there are some true Conservative Republicans that still exist.), the true reasons for the political divide are ignored either by intent or lack of political gravitas. The prevailing system of governance of today would be settled somewhere around the 28-inch mark in Ms. Noonan’s ideological yardstick. Conservatives would like the government to be running somewhere in between 5 and 10 inches but the yardstick seems to be increasingly tilted towards the 36 inch mark at an alarming pitch.

This is infuriating to voters, who have clearly spoken to their candidates on the campaign trail and have an expectation of legislative behavior based upon campaign promises. The elected legislators once in office are immediately barraged with a call for bi-partisanship and are assured that this is what the majority of people want. But the negotiations are happening at the 28-inch mark and, when Republicans hold up their accomplishments, with an “it could be worse” smile, the people throw their hands up in disgust. We are still at 28 inches, in fact, its now 28 and ¾ inches. We haven’t gained an inch.

The people are outraged! The Democrats and moderate Republicans admonish Conservatives for their lack of bi-partisanship, more concessions are made to salve the perceived political faux pas, and the Nation and States slide deeper into the mire of Socialism. Republicans are left looking like buffoons.

True and healthy bi-partisan tension can only occur on the flat plains of the middle ground. Bi-partisanship will never work until some courageous partisans refuse to be thwarted in their resolve to pull the mired wagon of government back to the 18-inch mark. Then and only then can bi-partisanship function on equal footing.

The fantasy of many Republicans to be that bridge over troubled partisan waters will never come to fruition as long as this fallacy of bi-partisanship exists. It is folly to build a bridge on anything other then a solid footing. We have wasted too much energy constructing monuments to futility in the mire only to see them sink away. Its time to pull back to the high ground of common sense, where negotiations truly work.

Mar 2 2015

The Last Stand: The Shoe

 

“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” -Ronald Reagan

The events and circumstances surrounding Barronelle Stutzman have brought into stark clarity the motives and designs of the gay marriage movement here in the United States. It is has never been about marriage equality as some have claimed, but it is about the targeting and removal of all influence and participation by Christians in our society today. Recent polls have show a precipitous drop in support for gay marriage as citizens with opinions on both sides of the debate have been appalled to see the blatant religious persecution of Christians by homosexuals in our Nation. What was once thought the unthinkable has become reality in the United States.

Even as buyer’s remorse has begun to set in for some of the proponents of gay marriage, the die has been cast as the political establishment has gleefully taken up the charge. Christianity with its teachings of moral virtue, demands of purity, and calls to fidelity have long been viewed as an encumbrance to government by the politically elite and scorned and despised by their media allies. Now emboldened by what they perceive as a populace surge of animosity towards Christianity, governmental institutions have handed a regulatory bludgeon to homosexual activists, encouraging them to target their “enemy”, and target them they have.

The crusade against Christianity has swept across the Nation isolating every man, woman, and child who dare to holds opinions that differ with homosexuals. These are hauled into court, their businesses taken away, homes and finances confiscated, sent off to reeducation classes, children are mocked and humiliated in school, and parents threatened to have their children taken away if they don’t recant their beliefs. Why? Their beliefs are unacceptable to the government.

But what of the 1st Amendment, you ask? Was this Amendment put in place only to protect the views and beliefs of those who are in vogue and popular? Why would there need to be an amendment to protect the speech of those the populace and government found acceptable? In contrast, wouldn’t the purpose our Founders foresaw be to protect unpopular speech, beliefs, ideas, dissidents, revolutionaries, unpopular religions, and the intolerant under the 1st Amendment? The 1st Amendment doesn’t protect your right to be nice and accepted. It protects your right to rattle somebody’s cage.

So, how does a minority group of about 1% of the populace receive the power to persecute Christians, who still make up a majority in this Nation? The bane of society today is political appeasement. Not all in the political class are looking for an opportunity to attack Christians; in fact, a majority probably does not. They just lack the intestinal fortitude to do what our Founding Fathers did in the Constitution and Bill of Rights: Say no!

Decisions of law and governance are no longer legislated with a view of its effect upon the Constitution, but rather, the effect upon the emotions and comfort of the aggrieved, unless, of course, you’re a Christian. The government thinks popular opinion views Christians as a punching bag, and why not? The Nightly News tells them so. Punch away!

Government is always playing catch-up. In an effort to be “cool”, politicos always govern based on what polls dictate. By the time the laws engage, the populace opinion has changed and government must oppress in order to enforce its new laws. Governing by popularity is like that hapless friend who is always showing up to the party wearing the “latest” style only to painfully realize that style changed in the last 48 hrs. They never realize that a blue jeans and t-shirt approach can weather every changing fad.

Now as the persecutions increase, Americans are getting that sinking feeling they’ve been duped. Those that are old enough to remember a time when history was taught in schools see the ominous shadow of totalitarianism rising from the mist of tolerance. What if my beliefs are suddenly deemed intolerant by the government? That hollow thud of realization you feel in the pit of your stomach might be the sound of the other shoe dropping.