Casey, Rockefeller Blasted Over Offensive Comments About Obama Opponents

Yesterday, the Daily Caller reported on offensive comments made by Senator Rockefeller about those opposing Obamacare.  Second District Congressional nominee Alex Mooney fired back and also referred to similar remarks by his opponent Nick Casey.  Full release below.

MOONEY CALLS ON CASEY TO CONDEMN RACIST COMMENTS BY SEN. ROCKEFELLER

For Immediate Release: May 23, 2014

Media Contact: Nick Clemens (304) 702-5009

Martinsburg, WV - Today, Alex Mooney, Republican nominee for Congress in West Virginia’s second congressional district, called on Nick Casey to condemn recent comments by Senator Jay Rockefeller who accused opponents of Obamacare of opposing Obamacare simply because President Obama is "the wrong color."

Wednesday, Sen. Rockefeller remarked: "I'll be able to dig up some emails that make part of the Affordable Care Act that doesn't look good—especially from people who made up their mind that they don't want it to work because they don't like the president. Maybe he's of the wrong color, something of that sort. I've seen a lot of that and I know a lot of that to be true. It's not something you're meant to talk about in public but it's something I'm talking about in public because that is very true." (National Journal, 05/21/14)

Nick Casey has similarly made offensive comments, saying in 2008, "John McCain is confident that ignorant, redneck racists are not going to vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama is black." (Politico, 10/19/08)

"Nick Casey's 2008 comments were offensive and insulting to the good people of West Virginia," Alex Mooney said. "I call on Nick Casey to condemn Sen. Rockefeller's recent comments and disavow his 2008 comments. Obamacare has been a disastrous policy for West Virginia families, killing our jobs, increasing taxes, and causing premiums to skyrocket. It is downright offensive to imply that the president's race is the reason for hardworking West Virginians' opposition to the Obamacare train wreck."

Senator Alex Mooney, his wife, Dr. Grace Mooney, and their children reside in Charles Town, West Virginia. Mooney is taking his campaign to defend conservative values to every part of West Virginia's second congressional district.

###

Paid for by Mooney for Congress

First, Second Amendment Under Threat. Plus, More People Hurt By Obamacare

Stories from Obama's America . . .

Natalie deMacedo in American Spectator brings three stories that Harry Reid and the New York Times claim do not exist.  Real Americans who were caused hardship by Obamacare.

Melissa Quinn of Red Alert Politics reports that a US Marine veteran gun store owner in California refused ATF demands to turn over customer information lists.

Meanwhile, the Washington Examiner's Leijla Sarcevic explains that the United States has fallen below 50th on the world press freedom list.  Sarcevic reports that the federal government's ignoring of Freedom of Information Act laws are a major reason why.  So might also be illegal seizures of reporter notes.

It's been a tough few years for the Bill of Rights . . .

West Virginia's Sole Obamacare Provider Has 1/20th Expected Participation Rate

Is Obamacare collapsing?  West Virginia may be a part of its demise.

The state's Democratically dominated executive and legislative branches enthusiastically signed on for the Obamacare exchange plan.  Only one provider, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, is available.

West Virginia Metro News reports that only 1,200 of the expected 20-25,000 participants have been registered.  They also have concerns that not enough healthy and young people are interested in the program.

Obamacare's success hinges on young people paying out more and using less care.  Many have chosen to take the tax penalty rather than pay for insurance they do not think they will need.

Some conservatives fear that Obamacare collapse was not only predictable, but planned. They believe that the ultimate goal is a nationalized health care system with mediocre care for the masses and high quality only available for those who can pay in cash. It is unlikely, however, that voters will trust the same people who bungled Obamacare to make further drastic changes.

House Republicans have offered to meet with the president to discuss solutions, according to The Hill.  The White House has, thus far, brushed them off.

Government Continues to Concoct Bizarre Ad Hoc Obamacare Solutions

Reuters reported this week that Obamacare has a stunningly fatal flaw in its system.  The government "has not yet finished building the part of the website that would transfer billions of dollars in subsidies for plan premiums and cost-sharing payments to insurance companies."

Rest assured.  An insurance spokesman defended the administration and said that for now, the system would rely on estimates.  Late on, government and health plans could "true up" the actual difference.

Set aside the horrific abuse of the English language here.  Simply put, a lot of people are not going to get paid what they are actually owed for a while.

This is why government should never operate in any kind of business arrangement.  Running a business in this fashion is at least unethical and likely criminal.  Yet because it is the government, one has to rely on their willingness to faithfully "true up" and concoct a "workaround" scheme, whatever the heck that all means.

The fact is that businesses always work out first how everyone gets paid.  Next they focus on delivering a high quality product to the consumer.  After that they sell the service, and lastly they try to anticipate bugs and correct them quickly.

Government does number three first, then number four, and oh yes, still working on how to deliver a product of dubious value. Number one priority is still apparently a mystery.

It becomes increasingly clear why some Republicans fought a no win, last ditch battle to stop this monstrosity.  They knew all about that rough beast, its hour come round at last slouched toward Washington, waiting to be born.

Is Obamacare This Century's Equivalent of "Who Lost China?"

In 1947, President Harry Truman engineered the passage of an aid package to Greece and Turkey.  At the time, both countries feared Communist takeover.  He used it as a foundation of his famous Truman Doctrine, which simply promises aid to any country resisting Communist takeover.

The very next year, Chiang Kai Shek fled China for Taiwan, leaving the massive mainland portion in the hands of the bloody Communist Mao Tse Dong.  Although "losing China" did not lose Truman the 1948 election, it frightened Democratic presidents for a generation.  They knew the electorate saw them as soft on foreign policy so they endeavored to not lose again.  Kennedy and Johnson fought in Vietnam for American, but also Democratic Party credibility.  Losses of both in Vietnam convinced future Democrats, rightly or wrongly, that course was unwise.  Could the Obamacare disaster do the same to their Big Government ideals?

The health care law is called the Affordable Care Act.  Since October, Americans have found out how Orwellian that moniker is.  Premiums have skyrocketed; millions lost their plans altogether.  The government system, based mostly on a $634 million website, does not work.  It is also only about 60 percent completed.

You might say that the healthcare.gov site gave Americans a crash course in why it should not run a business.

Meanwhile, Obama's poll numbers sank.  One might expect a serious dip in job performance.  But for the first time, a majority of Americans find him both dishonest and incompetent.

The long term effect of this on American politics could be profound.  The "who lost China" effect made Democratic presidents more bellicose for the next two decades.  At least one pundit believes Obamacare could make Democrats very gun shy about pursuing massive overhauls on this level again.

The cumulative effect of the first two presidential administrations on the country could be a body blow to backers of aggressive government action in any sphere.  Many still see the Iraq War (which the United States actually won) as a breakdown and a failure.  Obamacare has crashed a major segment of the country's economy and thrown millions into suffering and turmoil.  Both of these add up to further popularize libertarian concepts of government's role.

Time will tell whether this cows the Democrats and leads to a long term revision of what Americans expect from government.  But in the short term, confidence in government in any sphere is extraordinarily low.

And that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Pro Obamacare Ad Promotes Spending on Drinking Rather Than Insurance

Above is a real live pro Obamacare advertisement.

It seems to say that college students should spend their money on binge drinking instead of their own health insurance.

The Centers For Disease Control suggest that people might be healthier if they bought their own health insurance with the money, rather than go binge drinking.

Hat tip Cam Matheny

West Virginia Keeps Doing It Right

Good news, West Virginia!  State leaders continue to make strides to make the area more attractive to investors and residents.

The State Journal reported that a recent Tax Foundation study rated West Virginia as having the 23rd friendliest tax climate.  This places it slightly ahead of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky yet far ahead of Ohio and Maryland who ranked a dismal 41.

The Mountain State scored best in corporate taxation at 20.  Property taxes scored at 27.  Individual income and sales taxes rated between the two.

This makes West Virginia an average state, but also shows improvement.  Under Governors Manchin and Tomblin, the state has looked at gradually reducing tax burdens anticipating a payoff in better economic growth.

In other words, counting on a Laffer Curve type of result.  Laffer was one of President Reagan's chief economic advisers early on, arguing that lower taxes brought better economic returns.

One must give credit to Democratic governors who don't shy away from an idea because it came from Reagan.

The State Journal also noted that recent administrations have focused on making the overall tax climate more friendly to all levels of business growth, instead of offering drastic temporary tax breaks to lure investment.  This results in a more evenly developed economy with more opportunities for in state entrepreneurs.

Governor Tomblin, however, warned that the state's expected expenditures next year would outstrip revenues.  He said that either taxes would have to rise or spending be cut.  With Republicans pushing hard at taking over at least one house of the Legislature next year, most likely spending will drop.

Certainly increased federal demands of states under Obama have pushed many states to have to stretch their budgets.  West Virginia is no exception.  Just last week a state official warned that the state expansion of Medicaid would likely force a funding cut to higher education.

West Virginia has done very well in making the tax regime more entrepreneur friendly.  If it makes equal strides in reducing regulation and establishing a state court of automatic appeal, the Mountain State could grow into a serious competitor for attracting business from anywhere.

Suggesting How to Conduct a "Patriot" Economy

This has been a long time coming, but now it's locked in.  America now has a federal government that not only siphons wealth from the private sector to redistribute to its supporters, it also undermines the ways in which one can obtain and keep wealth.  Friends of the government get special favors and waivers.  Those without connections face the onerous regime of regulation designed to drive them out of business.

The Republican Party tried.  Much as those on the right want to moan that it doesn't represent "We the People," the reality is that "We the People" failed the GOP.  We did not go into neighborhoods where we might be unwelcome.  We did not make the case for our ideals outside of our comfort zones.  We did not take chances.  Campaigns rely on we the people to help them.  We did not do it. We failed.  

But it does not have to end there.

In the 1760s, American patriots found some success in economic pressure.  By finding ways to cut down reliance on the open market, Americans convinced London based trading firms with powerful connections to advocate for them.  Yes, they only wanted their business back.  But for a while it worked.

Resistance brought results.  How can American patriots do the same today?

In general, we can cut back on transactions that produce tax revenues.  That puts pressure on business while reducing the amount of our wealth that goes toward supporting a system built to suck resources from us.

Here are some ways to do this.

First, develop skills, produce goods, or do work that can be exchanged for cash or barter between friends. 

Gardening can serve this purpose admirably.  If a few people are determined to do this for the long haul, they can agree than person A will grow beans, person B grows corn, and so forth.  One can freeze the corn, can beans, make cucumbers into pickles, etc.  Then each person can use the product as a medium of exchange with the other, or pay cash.

Pay people in cash under the table for as many simple services as possible.  Find the people in town willing to do work on your car, odd work on your house or property that you can't do.  Engage them, figure a fair price, and pay under the table.  

Teachers can really benefit from these ideas.  It would be very easy to reach out to home schooling families, establish a price for services, and teach in a person's living room for cash.

Instead of eating out at a restaurant, exchange nights with friends where you go over and eat what they cook.  That is more fun, saves money, and you still get to socialize.

Hunters are in good shape because they can pay in meat.

Farmers can set up their own networks and exchanges of buying and selling to customers, at least in part.

Some transactions may look like this.  A person agrees to pay for a haircut with garden produce or a few pounds of deer meat.  Everyone gets what they want except the government.

Second, look at yard sales for purchases.  You can get decent furniture, almost new electronics, and any number of things more cheaply paying in cash.  And there is really no effective way to tax yard sales.  

Frankly, by cutting out the taxed and regulated market and bringing a true free market back into existence, buyers and sellers of goods and services both stand to gain in the long run.  

This works on a couple of levels.  If enough people do it, it could force a reconsideration of the direction that we are going, which is full tilt toward Eastern Europe.  In fact, this is exactly how people in Communist countries learned to survive beyond the meager resources allowed by their governments.

Individually, however, a person can gain satisfaction from the fact that he or she can accumulate untaxed value while contributing as little as possible to the Leviathan that has been set up.

This is what individuals do when they come to the realization that the government takes too many resources from the people without being accountable.  They conclude that the government has no moral right to their taxes.  Despite this being poorly written and thought out, it is a blueprint by which patriots can opt out while remaining within the law.

Much like our late colonial forefathers.

Benjamin Franklin on Obamacare

Ben Franklin once shared a story about a crazy Frenchman who had an odd way of welcoming English tourists to Paris.  He would speak with effusive correctness to them while holding a fireplace poker with a red hot tip in his right hand.  He'd say Monsieur Anglais, would you kindly allow me to shove the tip of this up your backside.  The Englishman would inevitably say something like "Zounds! (Because that was a word back then) I'll break your head if you come near me with that!"  The Frenchman would then say "Fine, but at the very least you are obligated to pay me for heating it up!"

This was a story originally told in reference to how the Stamp Act worked.  It is much more true when considering Obamacare.

Meanwhile, this is the new reality of healthcare.

Obama's Company Town

On Monday, Salon compared Republican resistance to the Civil War.  It called the GOP rebels without noting that it currently fights, as it did then, for liberty.

We can make historical comparisons, too.

Obama's entire administration has resembled the worst examples of the old coal company town in Southern West Virginia.  How so?

In company towns, all aspects of life were provided for by or otherwise controlled by company authorities.

The company hired the teachers and controlled curriculum in the schools.  Obama's Department of Education seeks more and more control, removing local government and parents from the equation.

The company provided the health care that it thought you deserved.  Like Obamacare.

Many company towns actively monitored and suppressed dissent. They especially feared organized labor. Obama's NSA, IRS, DHS, and other agencies collect information on and/or harass groups whose influence it fears.

Reporters coming into coal towns to find the truth were routinely threatened and beaten. Obama's administration has secretly monitored the Associated Press and who knows who else.

Rising tuition costs and easy credit have trapped college graduates into a cycle of debt control.  They do not make enough money to pay their debts.  Just like the set up in the old company town stores.

In one infamous incident, striking miners living in houses on company land near Matewan were evicted by mine guards from the Baldwin and Felts Detective Agency.  This violated local law that said any evictions must go through the courts and be carried out by the sheriff.  Obama's administration evicted elderly families from homes they had lived in since the 1970s because they were on federal land.

The company towns were a bad development because they placed all power over a community in the hands of one central authority.  Even if it had good intentions, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is a good thing that Congress has stood up for its role in our system of government. Obama has been corrupted enough already.

Hydra-Headed Obamacare Threat Spelled Out In State Journal Piece

The State Journal released a moderate sized article packed with Obamacare spawned problems.

It quotes David Ransey, CEO of Charleston Area Medical Center extensively.  Ramsey is frankly fearful of Obamacare's impact.

First. he details the threat to state hospitals.  Hospitals already face financial pressures.  In West Virginia, 18 have closed in the past 40 years.  The uncertain climate introduced by Obamacare threatens many of the rest.

Ramsey slammed public health care programs, both those for low income individuals and public employees.  They pay late and do not cover the full cost of services.  Hospitals must shift almost a third of a billion dollars per year onto private insurance to make up the shortfall.

Under Obamacare, this will only get worse.  Since many doctors will refuse to take Obamacare, this shifts more burden onto emergency rooms.  Costs rise for everyone.

The end of the piece adds in an interesting nugget.  Mark Muchow, from the state Department of Revenue, claims that Obamacare's increased cost burden on state taxpayers will require cuts in the budget somewhere.  He speculated these would come from higher education.

Obamacare is a nightmare for states, taxpayers, health care providers, private insurance, and, eventually state colleges and universities.

Good thing we didn't read it first.

Has the Federal Government Inadvertently Set a States' Rights Precedent? Delegates Sobonya and Cowles Think So

Since 1819, McCullough v. Maryland has served as the law of the land.  At that time, state governments exercised more power and held more credibility than the still infant federal government.  Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court sought to bolster the federal government's position to prevent disruption from jealous states.

Marshall wrote the opinion broadly enough so that it legally prevented any state from officially acting in contradiction to any federal policy or agency.  State police cannot even legally pull over a federal vehicle that is speeding.

Obviously this decision came in the context of its times.  The federal government was very small and claimed few powers.  Some of the states had existed for almost or over 200 years as political units.

Delegates Kelli Sobonya (R) Cabell, and Darryl Cowles (R) Morgan, think they may see a breach in the iron wall of McCullough.  

In a recent Legislative committee meeting on medical marijuana covered by the Charleston Daily Mail , Sobonya queried about the inconsistent enforcement of marijuana laws by the federal government.

If Sobonya and Cowles are right, then the Obama Administration may have opened the door to states ignoring laws that they find onerous to their citizens.  EPA regulations and Obamacare were cited by the delegates as examples.

Delegate Gary Howell (R) Mineral later noted "civil society depends on rule of law.  You can't just have the president and his political aides pick and choose what to enforce.  Then we have a government of men, not of laws, which John Adams saw as a prime threat to liberty."  He also SAID that the inconsistent enforcement could set a precedent where states can legally defend their own interests.

It should be noted that no court or statute has ever refuted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions penned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.  If the federal government violates the Constitution, according to Madison in the Virginia Resolution, "necessary and proper measures" must be taken to protect the people's rights.    Madison never specified what those ought to be.  At the very least, it would seem that Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia can refer to these works as grounds of legal argument.

Post Script:  Full disclosure.  I support legalization of medical marijuana.  Frankly those who support it should take more issue with the Obama Administration's non enforcement than with either enforcing or getting rid of the law.  By not enforcing the law, Obama is allowing businesses to grow.  Those businesses will always be subject to legal extortion by the federal government because the law can always be held over them as a Sword of Damocles.

How the Obama Administration Once Again Gets Marbury v. MadisonWrong

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/117982422/DOJ-Letter-to-5th-Circuit-re-Judicial-Authority

A quick read of Attorney General Eric Holder's statement to the 5th Circuit once again shows that the nation's most influential lawyers fail to understand Marbury v. Madison (1803)

He asserts that the United States Supreme Court cannot overturn duly passed legislation unless there is a very clear violation of a specific constitutional principle. Marbury is one of the cases cited within the document.

Marbury itself, however, is based upon a constitutional interpretation more than a clear violation. Chief Justice Marshall interpreted a clause in the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be unconstitutional because it gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases of writs of mandamus (orders to government officials to do their job.) Marshall saw no specific phrase in the Constitution that would have permitted that. He reasoned that Congress committed an overreach.

The Commerce Clause simply says this: that Congress has the power to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" It was meant to keep states from erecting trade barriers against each other.

So Holder includes Marbury among his citations, even though it establishes an interpretational, not absolute, basis for judicial review and a strict construction of the original seven articles.

The attorney general's response has left the courts no room to support him, now that his statement is on the record. To preserve their judicial review authority, federal judges need to strike down the law in question. In this case, I mean the 5th Circuit (which they likely will.) By extension, this includes the Supreme Court.

Marshall's interpretation in Marbury was made in part to prevent the judicial branch from becoming subordinate to the executive. The Roberts Court may have to assert itself similarly until Obama is gone.

Obamacare, Romneycare, Commerce Clause, Takings Clause

According to analysts and sources, it looks as if Obamacare's individual mandate will certainly fall. Tough questions from Justice Kennedy and even Sotomayor makes it clear that moderates and liberals have severe concerns with the government's case argued mainly by Donald Virrilli.

Virrilli claimed, in essence, that those without health insurance should be covered under the Commerce Clause that allows Congress to set regulations. Their non-action depresses the market and makes them part of it.

Astounded justices savaged that claim, rightfully fearing that it could apply to many different situations.

The main debate seems to be whether or not the loss of the mandate means that the Court should invalidate the entire act. Conservative justices posed the thought that Congress would never have passed the rest of the act without the mandate. It is not the Court's job to read the mind of the legislative. Much as it pains me to say this, from a strict Constitutional standpoint, they probably should not invalidate the whole act. That would infringe upon the legislative prerogative.

I won't cry too many tears if they do, but I fear judicial creeping into the legislative arena as much as I fear overuse of the Commerce Clause.

The Court should spend some time looking at the Commerce Clause. Since the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, it has been very liberally interpreted. According to Vanderbilt University law professor James W. Ely in The Guardian of Every Other Right, the commerce clause was meant to help Congress maintain free trade among the states, not restrict it. While some cases, such as National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) have nibbled away at it, no Court has taken the opportunity to establish a perimeter fence around the clause.

Currently, the clause is used to justify a wide scope of federal action. Should the Court decide to restrict it to its interpretation prior to the 1960s, meaning that Congress cannot regulate everything that moves, this could bring huge changes to American law.

It will impact the Environmental Protection Agency's legal basis for action in many cases. The EPA relies heavily on legislation that uses the Commerce Clause as part of its foundation. Restricting its legal scope of action can head off many of the anti-industry interpretations that it has lately made.

The war on drugs would change. While intoxicants that require production might continue to fall under federal jurisdiction, those that simply spring from the ground would no longer be a federal matter unless they crossed state lines. States that wish to legalize medical marijuana, for instance, could do so without federal harassment as long as the product was wholly contained and sold within the state. California already interprets the law in this fashion, but sellers still are regularly harassed by the feds.

In fact, a state could completely legalize marijuana and the federal government would be powerless within state jurisdiction.

No one should fear repeal of the Civil Rights Acts. That being said, it would be wise to revisit the issue and update them, using a foundation that does not require the Commerce Clause as support.

****************************************************************
Now what about the future of Romney's plan in Massachusetts? If the justices limit themselves to the Commerce Clause, it is safe because it is a state action. But it is very possible that they could also apply the Fifth Amendment's takings clause as well. No life, liberty, or property can be forfeited or taken for public use without just compensation. While one can argue that the insurance one gets is the "just compensation," the justices could find that this is a deprivation of liberty.

And that kills Romneycare.

*****************************************************************

That leads me to a point of speculation. Donald Virrilli, by all accounts, is a pretty smart guy. This Supreme Court case was not his first go-round.

So why the mind-numbingly bad argument? Why did Justice Kagan actually have to step in to help him to answer some of the tougher questions?

I'll just flat out speculate that Virrilli did not come up with the argument himself. It was a bad case that he did not present well at some points. An argument that runs so counter to American tradition, yet also looks so bumbling, probably came from Barack Obama himself.

If it did, and I was Virrilli, I would resign and let the public know.

***********************************************************************

Rule of Law and Obamacare

Rule of law is the necessary basis of any free society. It holds that the law must be above all individuals in the society, even the leadership, that it must be clear, and that it must be enforced equally for all.

Just because a country has enforced laws does not mean that it enjoys rule of law. Sometimes the law gets too complex for the average citizen to obey. When that happens, then the citizen does not enjoy protection of rule of law because he or she unwittingly may violate it while acting reasonably. The federal tax code and many local zoning ordinances violate the concept of rule of law. These laws (and many others) are not clear and reasonable, so they should be simplified.

Selective enforcement of laws also violates the rule of law. If it is a good law, then there is no need to exempt anyone from its enforcement. Massive exemptions to the enforcement of a particular law demonstrate that the law is a bad one and should be repealed. Even more importantly, it also violates the concept of rule of law in a most basic and sinister way. When those in power can exempt their friends and supporters from following a burdensome law while forcing its obedience upon others, government has embraced a certain level of tyranny. Theodore Roosevelt did this with the Sherman Anti-Trust act over a hundred years ago. Obama is doing it now with myriad waivers from Obamacare granted to unions, friendly businesses, and even entire states that he might swing to his camp in 2012.

This is a gross violation of the most sacred foundation of our free society and recognition that his beloved health care law is garbage. Repeal both Obamacare and Obama by 2012.

Historic Moment For United States Senate

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation to repeal Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid's health care plan.

Will the Senate follow suit, or will Democrats keep the issue from even coming to a vote?

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky fired out on You Tube that the Democrats were working hard to prevent a vote on repeal in the Senate. He assured that there would at least be a vote. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina will introduce the bill to the Senate this week.

Why not vote on repeal? The people spoke last November and said that they did not want Obamacare. If the Democrats are so confident that this policy will work in the long run, they should stand up and vote again to keep it. They should affirm their stand before history and the voters. They should trumpet to the nation that they believe that Big Bureaucracy will save our health care just like it did in Great Britain (where prostate cancer has a 45% higher death rate than the United States.)

If the Democrats do not allow a floor vote on the repeal of Obamacare, it betrays the fact that they do not have confidence that it will succeed. They know the voters will punish them again when it fails miserably.

*********************************************************

Congratulations to the team from Keyser High School that won a Constitution competition in Charleston yesterday. They also went to the Capitol and met their legislative representatives. National competition will come in April. We are sure Keyser will do well again.

Joe Manchin Supports Obama and Government Run Healthcare

How Can Republican Victories This Fall Help Kill Obamacare?

This question came up in a Facebook discussion yesterday. I made a casual comment that Republican victories could help kill Obamacare and got a fair question. How?

First of all we have the court cases challenging the notion that the federal government can force you to purchase a commodity because you are alive. This runs counter to any principles or ideals Americans generally hold, as well as the Constitution, but without this part, Obamacare does not work. The Virginia case has gone farthest. This case will end up in the United States Supreme Court. Only five justices have consistently shown a dedication to restrained government and the Constitution. If one gets sick or dies, a Republican Senate can ensure that we keep socialists off the bench. It can also prevent any attempt by Obama to enlarge the court to get what he wants.

Second comes the matter of funding. All money bills start in the House of Representatives. The best way to kill a bad policy is to either vote it out or simply defund it until it dies of its own accord.

Finally there is the matter of states' rights. Missouri voters by an overwhelming margin (71% of the vote, more than Manchin got in West Virginia in 2008!) put into law a proposition that nullifies the federal government's power to compel anyone to purchase health insurance. This high percentage shows that mainstream Democrats do not even support this mandate. Other state legislatures have voted to opt out of and resist other facets of Obamacare. A leftist Congress can punish states by witholding highways funds. A Republican Congress will sympathize and work with them to get rid of this bad law.

Republican gains will help destroy Obamacare. Even if they cannot overturn it in one fell swoop, they can kill it with the death of a thousand cuts. Since 60% of the people still hate Obamacare and only 40% approve of Obama at all, this looks increasingly likely.

Oh and we hope everyone enjoys the fact that the First Lady is vacationing in Spain with seventy-seven secret service and forty of her best friends on your dime. And no, she is not in the Holiday Inn, either.