Category Archives: Affordable Health Care for America Act

Oklahoma Passed Legislation Nullifying the “Affordable Health Care for Americans” bill, aka “Obamacare”

Legislation has passed  in the state of Oklahoma which will nullify the “Obamacare” aka “Affordable Health Care for Americans” bill, in OK. The federal government, however, is determined to force Americans to accept the financially crippling legislation that keeps rising exponentially in cost.

the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a bill protecting citizens of the Sooner State from the unconstitutional provisions of ObamaCare.

By a vote of 72-20, the state House of Representatives passed House Bill 1021, a bill that if signed into law would stop the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known as ObamaCare) at the borders of the sovereign state of Oklahoma.

Legislation was passed today in the state of Oklahoma which will nullify the "Affordable Health Care for Americans" bill, aka "Obamacare"  in OklahomaThe bill’s primary proponent is State Representative Mike Ritze (R-Broken Arrow). A board-certified family practice physician and surgeon, he is particularly aware of the threat to liberty and good health care posed by ObamaCare.

In an exclusive conversation with The New American, Dr. Ritze reported that the debate in the House was passionate and included testimony from a partially paralyzed colleague who stands to lose his medical coverage as a result of the mandates of ObamaCare.

Ritze praised the speaker of the State House of Representatives, T.W. Shannon (R-Lawton), for resisting political pressure and placing the bill on the calendar, allowing it to be voted on by the body of the House.

Apart from protecting citizens from the oppressive provisions of ObamaCare, Ritze said his bill will protect Oklahomans from becoming subjects to a tyrannical central government, determined to consolidate all power in Washington.

Ritze recognizes ObamaCare for what it is: a federal attack on life, liberty, and property.

“There is no provision in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution where the states delegated to Congress the authority to make a citizen purchase health care or pay a fine,” Ritze said. “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an example of federal overreach and my legislation will authorize the state via the will of the People to ignore it and ban the enforcement of it.”

“They fail to understand how the country is supposed to operate,” Ritze added. “As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 33: ‘It expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.’ Alexander Hamilton got it right. Congress and the Supreme Court got it wrong.

Ritze’s reading of the Constitution is the same as that of the Founding Fathers.

The Supremacy Clause (as some wrongly call it) of Article VI does not declare that laws passed by the federal government are the supreme law of the land, period. What it says is that the “laws of the United States made in pursuance” of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.

In PURSUANCE thereof, not in VIOLATION thereof. None of the provisions of ObamaCare are permissible under any enumerated power given to Congress in the Constitution; therefore, they were not made in pursuance of the Constitution, and they are NOT the supreme law of the land.

As Ritze indicated, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 33:

If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]

Ritze understands that the states retain numerous rights under the Constitution, including the obligation to block unconstitutional federal usurpation of state sovereignty. “When the federal government exceeds its delegated authority, as it has done with the passage of Obamacare, it is the duty of every state representative to defend the unalienable rights of the people of the great State of Oklahoma. I and others in the House and Senate intend to do just that with this legislation,” declared Ritze.

Oklahoma which will nullify the "Affordable Health Care for Americans" bill, aka "Obamacare" Dr. Ritze and his colleagues in the Oklahoma state legislature stand on firm constitutional and legal ground in their opposition to acts of the federal government that exceed its constitutional authority.

The irrefutable truth is that not a single one of our Founding Fathers, not even the most ardent advocate of a powerful central government, would have remained a single day at the Philadelphia Convention if they had believed that the government they were creating would become the instrument of tyranny that it has become.

All state legislatures have an obligation to liberty and to their citizens to follow Oklahoma’s example and through the exercise of the 10th Amendment and their natural right to rule as sovereign entities, stop ObamaCare at the state borders by enacting state statutes nullifying the healthcare law.

The best defense of nullification is found in Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution of 1798. In the Kentucky Resolution, Jefferson plainly points to the constitutional source of all federal power. Jefferson wrote, “That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour [sic] of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”

Nullification is a concept of constitutional law that recognizes the right of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution.

This power is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare decision, supporters of American federalism are encouraged to see state legislators boldly asserting their right to restrain the federal government through application of the very powerful and very constitutional principle of nullification.

HB 1021 will now be presented to the state Senate where it is sponsored by State Senator Nathan Dahm (R-Tulsa). When asked byThe New American about the prospect for passage of his bill in the state Senate, Dr. Ritze said there is a 50/50 chance the bill will make it to the governor’s desk.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.

 

Facebooktwitterrss

Ron Paul’s Politics Haven’t Changed Since the Early Eighties.

“It is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.” Ron Paul.

 

1983 – “A gold standard is the only standard that can be used if you want a free market and …a sound, healthy economy. There is no power greater than the power over money, the power to create and contract the money supply, the power to control the purchasing power of your money. Throughout history, this has proven to be the most sought-after monopolistic power of man.”

 

1988 – Question by interviewer to Ron Paul speaking of sending foreign aid to another country. “What if the Soviets started sending money if we didn’t send the money?”

 

Answer: “Then the Soviet system would fall even more rapidly. They can’t even feed themselves. We’re financing the Soviet system too.”

 

 

Question – “You wouldn’t worry about that as president of the United States?”

 

Answer – “I would worry about it if they threatened my security or the security of the country, but I think it would be helpful to bankrupt the Soviet Union if they want to spend all their money because they couldn’t win in Afghanistan and they are broke and now they are getting more loans from the … United States.”

 

“There are 38 million people today who have no healthcare after the government has been in healthcare for forty five years. The price has gone up, the quality has gone down, the distribution has been eliminated. There are more people without healthcare now since the government has been in the business.”

 

1990 – Question to Ron Paul “Ron, why do we keep getting into these foreign predicaments?”

 

Answer – “I think there’s a basic flaw in our policy. We’ve gone astray. We do not follow the constitution, we do not follow our American traditions and especially in this century, our policy has changed. We have become an interventionist government. I believe we became interventionist in many areas, not only does our government intervene in our personal lives, our government intervenes in the economy and it intervenes in the internal affairs of other nations. No longer do we take the advice of our founders and what was traditionally the American non-interventionist foreign policy and I think it’s going to continue. This is not a tactical fight. This is not a discussion about when you should “go in”. The left and the right so often argue about, “Well, we should go in, he’s the enemy, we’ll attack him but we’ll let this person alone and then they switch and they flip-flop and we lead to a disaster. We don’t know why we go into these areas. It leads to disasters like Korea and Vietnam.”

 

2002 – “We allied ourselves in the 1980’s with Iraq in it’s war with Iran and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports confirm, we did nothing to stop Hussein’s development of chemical and biological weapons and, at least indirectly, assisted in their development. Now as a consequence of that needless intervention, we’re planning a risky war to remove him from power. And, as usual, the probable result of such an effort will be something our government does not anticipate. Like a take-over by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he’s an enemy of the al-Qaeda and someone new may well be a close ally of the Izu Islamic Radicals. Although our puppet dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has lasted for many decades, it’s becoming shakier every day. The Saudi people are not exactly friendly toward us and our military presence on their holy soil is greatly resented. This contributes to the radical fundamentalist hatred directed toward us. Another unfavorable consequence to America, such as regime change not to our liking, could soon occur in Saudi Arabia. It is not merely a coincidence that 15 of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi’s. The Persian Gulf war, fought without a declaration of war, is, in realty, still going on. It looks like 9-11, may well have been a battle in that war perpetrated by fanatical gurillas. It indicates how seriously flawed our foreign policy is.”

 

“In the 1980’s we got involved in the Soviet-Afghanistan war and actually sided with the forces of Ossama Bin Ladin, helping him gain power. This obviously was an alliance of no benefit to the United States and it has come back to haunt us.  “

 

2007 – A question asked of Ron Paul in a debate: “Congressman Paul, you voted against the war. Why are all your fellow Republicans up here wrong?”

 

Ron Paul – “That’s a very good question and you might also want to ask the question, ‘Why are 70% of the American people now wanting us out of there?’ and ‘Why did the Republicans do so poorly last year?’ So I would suggest that we do look at foreign policy. I’m suggesting very strongly that we should have a foreign policy of non-intervention – the traditional American foreign policy and the republican foreign policy. Throughout the twentieth century, the republican party benefited from a non-interventionism foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean war. Think about how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam. How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy, no nation-building, don’t police the world. That is a conservative, it’s a republican, it’s a pro-American, it follows the founding fathers and besides, it follows the constitution. I tried very hard to solve this problem before we went to war by saying, Declare war if you want to go to war! Go to war, fight it and win it, but don’t get into it for political reasons or to enforce UN resolutions or pretend that Iraqis were a national threat to us.”
Another question for congressman Paul: “If you were president, would you work to phase out the IRS?”

 

“Immediately! And you can only do that if you change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be. If you think the government has to take care of us from cradle to grave, and you think our government should police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a foreign policy that we can not manage, then you can’t get rid of the IRS. But if you want to lower taxes, and if you want the government to quit printing the money to come up with shortfall and cause all of the inflation you have to change policy.”

 

“Dr Paul, how you reconcile this moral leadership kind of conservatism with the very libertarian strain of conservatism? The Barry Goldwater conservatism that you represent? How do you put together what he just said with what you believe in the unified national purpose?”

 

Answer – “Well you do it by understanding what the role of government ought to be. If the role of government is to be the policeman of the world, then you lose liberty. If the goal is to promote liberty, you can unify all segments. The freedom message brings us together, it doesn’t divide us. I believe that when we over-do our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. We stood up to the Soviets, they had forty thousand nuclear weapons, now we are fretting day in and day out about third world countries that have no army, navy or air force and we’re getting ready to go to war. But the principle, the moral principle, is that of defending liberty and minimizing the scope of government.”
Another question: “Please site an example of when you had to make a decision in crisis.”

 

“… I guess in medicine I made a lot of critical decisions. I mean you are called upon all the time to make critical life-saving decisions, but I can’t think of any one particular event when I made a critical decision that affected a lot of other people. but i think that all of our decisions that we make in politics are critical. My major political decision, which was a constitutional decision, was to urge for years that this country not go to war in Iraq.”

 

Questioner: “We have Mrs. Reagan here… she wants to expand embryonic stem-cell research… will that progress under your administration Dr Paul yes or no?

 

Dr. Paul, “Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with programs like this in Washington is that we either prohibit it or subsidize it. The markets should deal with it and the states should deal with it.”
Questioner: “i would like each candidate to mention a tax he would like to cut.”

 

“In my first week I would get rid of income tax. In my second week I would get rid of the inflation tax. It’s a tax that nobody talks about. We live way beyond our means with a foreign policy we can’t afford and an entitlement system that we have encouraged. We print money for it, the value of the money goes down and poor people pay higher prices. That is a tax. It is a transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to Wall Street. Wall Street is doing quite well but the inflation tax is eating away at the middle class of this country. We need to get rid of the inflation tax with sound money.”
Facebooktwitterrss

Obama Care Bill Turns Full-Time Jobs Into Part-Time Jobs

Empty Business Buildings for Rent

The Obama Care bill will turn many full-time jobs Into part-time jobs. There are many unforeseen,  unwanted and unpopular side effects of the socialistic healthcare system spearheaded by the Obama administration. News broadcasts are full of stories of conflict and turmoil caused by issues related to birth control, abortion, patient rights issues, patients privacy and so on, but their is a more universal side effect that few have taken into consideration.

Obama care requires employers to offer healthcare to their full time employees and the insurance offered must meet certain requirements. This means that many businesses, especially small businesses, will be forced to pay more for employee insurance or have fewer full time employees. The legislation is health care related and doesn’t require employers to have a specific number or percent of full time employees.

Many businesses will be opting for more, part time and fewer full time workers rather than going out of business due to the high cost of healthcare. If I were in that same position, I might very well opt for having a few more employees who each work fewer hours a week. It would seem better to me to choose that over the financial strain of offering what I would legally be required to offer to full timers.

Many businesses aren’t particularly lucrative, but have enough cash flow to keep going week to week. These types of businesses include, for instance, restaurants, garages, and many local supply stores. These are big part of any local economy and any local economy suffers when a local area starts losing them.

Obama Care Bill

Obama Care Bill – Wages Decrease and Businesses Go Under

The owners don’t plan to be rich, they plan to make a profit and have enough money to retire by the time they are 70. Socialistic legislation crushes simple dreams like these for many small business owners and forces small businesses to treat their employees worse, not better.

On the up side, we can all look forward to having birth control and abortions available to us, so I guess this makes it worthwhile to have a further devastated economy, more people under employed or unemployed and more small businesses replaced by huge corporations that hire primarily part time employees to avoid paying their insurance. So I guess nothing will change except local people won’t be making any profit from the businesses they lost and those businesses will be replaced by large corporations that encourage their employees to use welfare and medicaid to subsidize their part-time, minimum-wage incomes. We can expect welfare use to go up as wages and hours go down for employees.

Here is my question about our plans and thoughts about the future in this country. With anything this predictable, why do we pretend that it doesn’t exist, ignore it, argue about it and then act completely shocked when it happens? We need to elect people with foresight to head the country (and therefore the economy) in the right direction.

 

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!