Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
The Living Room / Thanksgiving, and 5 kernels of Corn
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on December 09, 2019, 09:48:50 PM »
When Giving Thanks Starts with 5 Kernels of Corn

Forgotten First Thanksgiving History


     Turkey has always been in fashion for Thanksgiving.  Along with that, add in the traditional Pilgrim buckles and Native American feather head dressings and you have a uniquely American holiday steeped in lots of tradition and even some folklore.

     Digging a bit deeper into the first Thanksgiving story, four years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, there was a large tribe of Native Americans there called the Patuxets. All the members of this tribe, every man, woman and child, died of a mysterious plague.  Neighboring tribes refused to come to the grounds because they were thought to be cursed. The Divine Providence of the Pilgrims even getting to the New World is an entire story within itself, but the Pilgrims happened to land at the one part of land that was uninhabited because the previous residents had been wiped out. I have personally lived through many New England winters along the coast, and they are predictably brutal. This makes the resolve of the Pilgrims all the more remarkable to establish their colony within the context of religious freedom in the New World. Of all of the times to arrive, it was in the unenviable month of December, 1620.   

     By the time March arrived, the Pilgrims had lost forty-seven of their original number. They had been living primarily off of the finite amount of stored food from the ship’s galley, had depleted their supply of lemon juice, and had a building (that housed the sick) catch on fire. Moreover, they did not know anything of the agriculture of America and only had English wheat and barley to attempt to cultivate come spring. The body can only endure so much exposure to wet, cold, and lack of vitamin C for so long, and it was looking like things could not get much worse. At about this time, a Native American man approached the settlement and greeted them in English. The man’s name was Samoset and he was driven by wanderlust to come and greet the newly arrived settlers. He was from a tribe further north. He had learned to speak English from various fishing crews who had put in to shore near his village on the coast of Maine. Samoset would leave and return with another Native American man named Squanto (whose real name was Tisquantum), “and he was to be, according to Bradford, ‘a special instrument sent of God for their good, beyond their expectation’” (Marshall & Manuel, 1977).

     Among many other noteworthy mentions about Squanto, was the fact that he was a member of the decimated Patuxet tribe. God had seen Squanto through a number of remarkable circumstances to prepare him to be the one person who could help the Pilgrims evade death and starvation. 

     His story really begins in 1605, when Squanto and four other [Native Americans] were taken captive. . . . Squanto spent the next nine years in England, where he met Captain John Smith, recently of Virginia, who promised to take him back to his people on Cape Cod, as soon as he himself could get a command bound for there . . . On Smith’s 1614 voyage of mapping and exploring, Squanto was returned to the Patuxets, at the place Smith named New Plymouth.  Sailing with Smith’s expedition on another ship was Captain Thomas Hunt, whom Smith ordered to stay behind . . . as soon as Smith departed, he slipped back down the coast to Plymouth, where he lured twenty Patuxets aboard, including Squanto, apparently to barter, and promptly clapped them in irons. . . . All of these he took to Malaga, a notorious slave-trading port on the coast of Spain. . . . Most of them were shipped off to North Africa, but a few were bought and rescued by local friars, who introduced them to the Christian faith. Thus did God begin Squanto’s preparation for the role he would play in Plymouth (Marshall & Manuel, 1977).

     Squanto did eventually make his way back to Plymouth, however when he landed (approximately six months before the Pilgrims landed) he found that his native land was devoid of his people who had been previously wiped out by a plague.  It was not until March when he met these poor, wretched, starving settlers that he knew why God had taken him on that long circuitous route back to his homeland. Squanto first taught them how to catch eels, then taught them something far more valuable:

     For it would save every one of their lives.  April was corn-planting month in New England, as well as Virginia. Squanto showed the Pilgrims how to plant corn in the Indian way, hoeing six-foot squares in toward the center, putting down four or five kernels, and then fertilizing the corn with fish. At that, the Pilgrims just shook their heads; in four months they had caught exactly one cod. No matter, said Squanto cheerfully; in four days the creeks would be overflowing with fish. . . . Squanto helped in a thousand similar ways, teaching them how to stalk deer, plant pumpkins among the corn, refine maple syrup from maple trees, discern which herbs were good to eat and good for medicine, and find the best berries (Marshall & Manuel, 1977).

     The Pilgrims were brimming over with gratitude—not only to Squanto and the Wampanoags who had been so friendly, but to their God. In Him they had trusted, and He had honored their obedience beyond their dreams. So, Governor Bradford declared a day of public Thanksgiving, to be held in October (Marshall & Manuel, 1977).

     And so the first Thanksgiving was a joint feast with the Pilgrims and their new found Native American friends led by Sachem Massasoit—who brought turkeys and venison. In November 1621, just before the onset of winter, a ship dropped anchor letting off thirty-five additional settlers who did not bring any food, tools or extra clothes. The joyous reunion was cut short. 

     Thus, they did enter their own starving time that winter of 1621-22 (with all the extra people to feed and shelter), and were ultimately reduced to a daily ration of five kernels of corn a piece.  (Five kernels of corn—it is almost inconceivable how life could be supported on this.)  But as always, they had a choice: either to give into bitterness and despair or to go deeper into Christ.  They chose Christ, and in contrast to what happened at Jamestown, not one of them died of starvation” (Marshall & Manuel, 1977).

     In spite of one more close call with a near weather disaster during the planting and harvesting season, the Pilgrims experienced a bountiful harvest the following summer of 1622.  So great was their food surplus that they were able to trade with other northern tribes who had not reaped such an abundance.  And so came the second Thanksgiving feast with Sachem Massasoit and company—who again brought turkeys and venison.  It really makes me wonder why venison did not catch on. 

     There was one twist to the second Thanksgiving regarding the first course that was served: “on an empty plate in front of each person were five kernels of corn . . . lest anyone should forget” (Marshall & Manuel, 1977).

     What is Thanksgiving?  It is a feast, yes.  It is American history, that is true. But it is the realization that Providence is enough. Thanksgiving is remembering the overabundance of  things for which we give thanks, but it is also remembering the times in which we had little, and being thankful anyway.

The Living Room / Health Care and Guns – What Do They Have in Common?
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on December 09, 2019, 09:46:19 PM »
Quote from: Alan Preston

July 17, 2016
Health Care and Guns – What Do They Have in Common?
By Alan Preston

As the presidential debates have progressed, we’ve frequently heard a theme about health care -- how health care is a right. As in, by virtue of being born, you have a right to health care.

This is an emotionally appealing argument that is often difficult to refute. We hear the word “rights.” But what does the word actually mean?

In the Declaration of Independence, the document starts with the following: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Our country’s Founders believed that our rights come from a power other than the government. That all people are endowed by certain “unalienable” rights by our creator and not the federal government. Unalienable suggests rights that cannot be taken away from citizens, and since the government did not give them, the government, therefore, cannot take them away. At least that’s the theory. Many tyrannical governments in other countries take away these unalienable rights all the time.

Our Constitution was ratified on Sept. 17, 1787, 11-plus years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. James Madison wanted to make sure that our unalienable rights were also in the Constitution in order to protect the citizens from the very government they created. It was not until Dec. 15, 1791, that the original Bill of Rights was adopted and made a part of the Constitution.

Anyone who has read the Constitution knows that the words “health care” cannot be found anywhere in that document. It is not in the Bill of Rights. Some people assert that “health care” is indeed one of those unalienable rights found in the Declaration of Independence. Fair enough! So, let’s make that assumption.

What do we mean by health care? Some people think it is free health insurance. Some think it means being entitled to receive any and all care demanded regardless of ability to pay. Other people think it is an entitlement to be protected from any and all harmful substances that we breathe or eat or come across.

But what does it really mean to have a right to health care? There are many varying definitions. There is no universal definition as to what a right to health care actually means.

Let’s look at the rights we do have in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights has quite a list. The Second Amendment, for instance, provides the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.

Now whether or not you support gun ownership is not the issue here. The issue is that this is one of many rights in our Constitution and that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the “people” from the government trying to take away such rights.

Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Nowhere in the Constitution does it suggest that the federal government has to pay for you to enjoy such a right. Imagine that I wanted to purchase a beautiful revolver that cost $1,200. I reach into my pocket and I am shy by $1,100. Should I go to Congress and demand that it pay for the revolver? I could say it is my right and the fact I cannot afford it suggests I am being denied my right to bear arms as protected in the Second Amendment.

I suspect both Democrats and Republicans would tell me that it is not the obligation of the federal government to pay for one to enjoy such a right. And I agree with them.

So, how about health care? Even assuming health care was a protected right under the Constitution, this does not suggest that the government has an obligation to pay for you to enjoy that right. As with gun ownership, affordability is a different concept from the right itself.

Many people too often confuse the word “right” with “entitlement” payments to enjoy such a right.

Even if health care were a right and all agreed upon a definition, that right does not suggest that the government has to pay for it  no more than the right to bear arms suggests that the government has to pay for gun ownership.

The rights have not gone away just because you have chosen not to budget for them. There is a huge difference between the concept of a right and the funding for someone to enjoy that right. It’s clear that just because the government, or anyone else, fails to pay for you to enjoy your rights, your rights are not denied.

Dr. Alan M. Preston ( has been a professor for five years in San Antonio specializing in epidemiology, biostatistics and health care policy. Most of his career has been spent as a CEO for managed care companies and physician organizations. He has assisted states in shaping health care policy and was given the title of honorary Insurance Commissioner for Louisiana.

The Living Room / How many states are in the United States?
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on November 20, 2019, 05:24:35 PM »
How many individual states are in the United States? 

A-46,  B-48,  C-50, or  D-57

Any 3rd grade kid should be able to answer C-50, and be correct. But as it turns out, four of our fifty "states" define themselves as, "Commonwealths," not "states." These four Commonwealths are Massachusetts,  Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. So, what's the difference between a "Commonwealth" and a "state?"

Merriam Webster defines a state as:

     a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory, especially: one that is sovereign
     b: the political organization of such a body of people
: a government or politically organized society having a particular character

In the United States, 50 of these organized bodies make up a Federation. Merriam Webster defines a Federation as:
     An encompassing political or societal entity formed by uniting smaller or more localized entities: such as:
          a: a federal government
          b: a union of organizations
The Federation did not divide the country up into states for governing purposes, but rather joined the existing states together. Since each state retains its own form of government, and laws (sovereignty), we have a Federal Government, not a National one.  In a National Government, the individual states would have no ability to govern themselves, and every state would be subject to the exact same National Law. Our Federal Government only intervenes when a state’s law goes against a Federal law.   (or at least that's how it's supposed to work...)

Ok, we all understand everything so far, but what's the difference between a State and a Commonwealth?

Again, asking Merriam Webster, there are several definitions of "Commonwealth:"

      1- .....
      2- .....
      3- .....
      4- a state of the U.S.  —used officially of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia
an association of self-governing autonomous states more or less loosely associated in a common allegiance (as to the British crown) (emphasis mine)

 For all intents and purposes (legal and constitutional), there is no difference between our states and commonwealths. There are no special statutes or provisions in our U.S. Constitution for these commonwealths. So, why do these four states choose to adhere to a colonial nomenclature? The reason lies in their history and British roots of which they are so proud. The founding fathers of these states were deeply influenced by English philosophers like Locke and Hobbes. These philosophers used the word "Commonwealth" to refer to an organized political community. It is also reflected in the wording of the constitutions of these four states, where they used the term, "Commonwealth" to make it clear that the authority of the people was superior to that of the government and those governments were responsible to the people and not to the Crown.

So, for all practical purposes, there really isn't any differences, between a "State" and a "Commonwealth," and you would be quite correct by answering the above question with the answer of "C- 50, Final answer."

But for the purist, you would be technically correct in answering, "A- 46, in addition to 4 Commonwealths,  Final answer."

And as the late Paul Harvey used to say,
"Now you know the rest of the story."
The Living Room / Can it be appealed?
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on November 20, 2019, 04:56:42 PM »
 Just a curious question:

If a person is found guilty of a crime in a court of law, the defendant has the appeal process available to him or her.

If a person is found guilty of a serious crime in a court of law, but receives a light or suspended sentence from a lenient judge, can the prosecutor appeal that the lenient sentence is too light for the seriousness of the crime?  Does the appeal process work only for the defendant and not for the prosecutor, or is it a two-way street?

No specifics, just in general.

I'm not even close to being a lawyer, but was just curious...

The Living Room / Our First Flag
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on May 25, 2019, 11:45:36 AM »
 Ask anyone, "Who created our first flag?" and chances are, you'll get the answer, "Betsy Ross." Well, if you missed Dr. Henry Leissing's lecture, here's a condensed version of what you missed.

  The year was 1775 and our country was just about to face their greatest battle on American soil; it was the beginning of the American Revolution. At that time the British were occupying Boston, and problems in the colonies were rising. George Washington wanted to intercept incoming British ships with supplies, but the popular vote in Philadelphia disagreed with anything which might upset the king, especially after the Boston Tea Party. Washington decided to take it upon himself to commission 6 Privately owned schooners and start his own navy. It was rumored to be at his own expense. It was to be called "Washington's Secret Navy" and all vessels would fly "An Appeal to Heaven"  flags. Also known as the "Washington’s cruiser flag", it had a white background, with an evergreen tree in the middle, and the words “An Appeal to Heaven" stitched across the top.

   Just a few months after the first voyage, a British Brigantine named the "Nancy" was captured by one of our schooners, the "Lee". On board were muskets, flint, gun powder, and other supplies in abundance. The prize was so great that it was said our country would have taken well over a year to produce. Not only was this the greatest capture of the entire Revolution, it also inspired all the founding fathers and the birth of our countries United States Navy as we know it today. The original schooners bearing the "Appeal to Heaven" flags continued capturing British ships and performing special services for the remainder of the war as our new Navy was being formed.

  In April 1776, The state of Massachusetts adopted this flag for its own navy. It's resolution for operations... "Resolved, that the uniform of the officers be green and white, and that the colors be a white flag, with a green pine tree, and the inscription, 'An Appeal to Heaven.'" The Massachusetts Navy sailed 25 ships during the war to defend the coast from the British and then eventually absorbed into the United States Navy.

But why a pine tree? What's the significance of this flag?  Well, as Paul Harvey used to say Here's "The rest of the story..."

    The Pine Tree, also known as the "Tree of Peace" has been sacred by the Iroquois Indians for over a 1000 years in America. At a very troubling time in their history, a peacemaker united 6 great tribes from the Great Lake areas and established unity... This great treaty was symbolized by burying their weapons under a pine tree (this is where the phrase to, "bury the hatchet" comes from) and this tree was to be guarded by a bald eagle at its peak clutching 6 arrows, representing the six tribes....

   Our founding fathers and early settlers were very much influenced by the Iroquois Indians. These peoples comprise the oldest living participatory democracy on earth.  Their story, and governance is truly based on the consent of the governed. The original United States representative democracy, fashioned by such central authors as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, drew much inspiration from this confederacy of nations.

   Around the time of the signing of The Declaration, The Iroquois attended a Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia. This meeting was one of the many were the Indians would inspire our founders to unite with them in their ways of living, laws, and style of government. It was just after this that the "Tree of Peace" became known as our new "Liberty Tree" and it would show itself on flags of all kinds, especially those in the fight for our freedom.

   In addition, wood was so indispensable to us for home and ship building, were both so vitally important. We had pine trees with trunks up to 6 feet in diameter, and as tall as 230 feet. This wood was old growth, rumored to be the best in the world at the time, especially for the tall masts on ships. In the mid 1700's the king of England recognized this value and wanted them for his own Royal Navy. He would mark trees in America and they were not to be touched even if on your own property.  Known as the "Broad Arrow Act",  this was one more action which infuriated the colonists, and strengthened the pine tree's symbolism in America.

  The phrase “An Appeal to Heaven “was created by John Locke from England in the mid 1600’s.  Locke was one of the great philosophers of his time.  He, like other English Philosophers, were also influenced by the Iroquois in America. "An Appeal to Heaven" comes from his studies on “Natural Laws", a system of right or justice common to all humankind and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, and the only judge is that of our creator. It is in these laws where our "unalienable rights" come from and the foundation on which this country was formed. The phrase "An Appeal to Heaven" connotes that when all resources and justices on earth are exhausted, that only "An Appeal to Heaven" remains. And so is the example of our country when our rights were taken away by the tyrannical acts of King George that we as nation, after countless attempts to resolve, Appealed to Heaven as our final judge before breaking ties with the crown.

   And lastly, our very own "Declaration of Indepedence"....One of our most prized document, is Americas' "Appeal to Heaven" publicly declared. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the declaration was for a long time highly influenced by John Locke's work, and if you read The Declaration of Independence (especially the last paragraph) you can see it is by all means the true definition of An Appeal to Heaven in its format.
Politics In General / Re: The Electoral College: Should it be abolished?
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on December 07, 2016, 09:51:51 PM »
And here are a few more facts about why we have (and need to keep) the electoral college.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 3,084 of them, and Clinton won only 57.

There are 62 counties in the state of New York. Trump won 46 of them, and Clinton won only 16.

Clinton won the national popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton won 4 of them- Trump won Richmond.  With only 4 of those 5 counties, Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. Therefore, these 4 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the national popular vote of the entire country.

These 4 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it is ludicrous to even suggest that the votes of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Politics In General / Re: Now hiring!
« Last post by Janet Nunziato on November 23, 2016, 09:32:39 PM »


                Make America GREAT Again!
Politics In General / Re: The Electoral College: Should it be abolished?
« Last post by Janet Nunziato on November 23, 2016, 09:23:53 PM »
Very well stated, Jim.  You've explained the purpose and effect of the  Electoral Collage very precisely.  I hope those who read this and participate in this poll will, also, grasp the importance of the EC as an integral part of our electoral process.
Politics In General / The Electoral College: Should it be abolished?
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on November 23, 2016, 08:19:07 PM »
In the 2016 presidential election, the Democratic nominee received a majority of the popular vote, but lost the election to the Republican candidate, because of the Electoral College. The same thing happened in the 2000 Presidential election. This is the 5th time it has happened in the nation's 56 Presidential elections. How can the Electoral College allow this to happen? Shouldn't it go without a second thought that whomever wins the popular vote should win the Presidency?  Why do we have this Electoral Collage, who started it, and why is it set up the way it is?

A lot of people mistakenly believe that the United States is a democracy. It isn't. It is a Constitutional, Representative Republic. Our Founding Fathers did everything in their power to ensure we were NOT a democracy. In a pure democracy, simple majority (51%) rules.  That means 51% control the other 49%. In a republic, LAWS rule, not majority.

I suspect one would be hard pressed to find anyone who would not agree that every legitimate vote cast should count. With that concept in mind, let's look at a few numbers. I will use estimated numbers, based on various websites. They are not exact, but will serve to illustrate the concept.

According to estimates on various websites, total eligible voters in the 2016 Presidential election was somewhere around 231,556,622. Voter turnout is estimated to be around 58.4%, or somewhere around 135,228,196. If we divide the number of legitimate votes cast by two, 67,614,098 would equal 50%. Anything more than that would be the majority of the popular vote, and would elect the president. Since there were more than two candidates in the race for President, it would be very possible for none of the candidates to receive more than half of the legitimately cast votes, so whomever received the most votes, would be considered to have received the majority of all legitimately cast votes.

If the Nov 8th. Presidential election was one, large, national election, then the number of popular votes could very easily be accumulated by winning only the four most populated states, California, Texas, New York, and Florida. The total number of voters in just those four states alone, total around 100,578,929. But remember the concept of, "every legitimate vote should count?" If a candidate only needed to win four or five of the most populated states, how much of a voice would the lesser populated states have in the overall election? They would be rendered totally insignificant.

The Presidential election, is, in fact, fifty-one completely separate, and totally independent elections. There is a "Presidential election" in each of the fifty states, plus one more in the District of Columbia. Simple majority rules in each of those individual elections, and whichever candidate wins each state election, dictates how the ELECTORS in that state must vote.  The people do not directly elect the President of the United States. They never have, and hopefully, never will. Each state receives a number of ELECTORS determined by the total number of representatives it has in both houses of Congress. For example, if a state has 5 representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives, and 2 senators in the U.S. Senate, that state will carry 7 electoral votes in the Electoral College. With our current fifty states, there are a total of 538 electoral votes. When the Electoral College convenes, it takes a simple majority, (269 + 1 = 270 electoral votes) to win the Presidency. In order to win enough electoral votes to become President, a candidate must win a majority of the STATES. Remember the concept of every legitimate vote counting? If a simple "majority" win of the popular votes in the 4 most populated states were all that were needed to elect the President, then all the remaining votes in the remaining 46 states would be rendered insignificant.

This system of electing the President was established by our Founding Fathers, in our U.S. Constitution. It has once again come under scrutiny, by those who say it should be abolished. To do so would require a Constitutional amendment.

What do you think?

(Federalist Paper 68 and Anti-Federalist Paper 68 both deal with how we elect the President.) 

This is the Electoral College map for the 2016 Presidential election. The Democratic nominee may have won more popular votes in many fewer states, but note how many more STATES the Republican candidate won! If the popular vote directly elected the President, all of the votes in those smaller, less populated states would have been rendered irrelevant.

Now look at the all of the states by COUNTIES won by each candidate. If the popular vote alone (from just the most populated COUNTIES) directly elected the President, note how many MORE votes from the less populated counties would be rendered irrelevant.

The Electoral College ensures that in order to win the presidency, the winning candidate must win a majority of the STATES, not the popular vote in just the most populated counties and cities.
Current Events / Re: Affordable Care Act
« Last post by Jim Nunziato on November 20, 2016, 06:01:08 PM »
Donald Trump is now "President Elect" Donald Trump. I have to admit, it was a pleasant surprise to me. As much as I wanted it, I never thought it would ever happen. Prayer does work.

This thread is about the "Affordable" Care Act, or more commonly known as "obamacare." One of Trump's major campaign promises was to repeal and replace it as soon as he took office. I am already hearing great pressure from the left, and even a bit from the right, to just "modify" it. I say, "NO!!!"

Every word of it must be repealed, and here's why.

1. It's unconstitutional. Period. I know there are those who will claim that it has already been challenged, and the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional. Well, not exactly. The Supreme Court ruled that under the "commerce clause," it is unconstitutional, because the Federal Government cannot create commerce, it can only control that which already exists. Forcing someone to purchase something they may not wish to purchase creates commerce, and that is unconstitutional. The Federal Government has no authority to force anyone to purchase anything, period.

2. It is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court had no authority to change the word "penalty" in the law to "tax." They ruled that since Congress, (specifically the House of Representatives) does have the power to "lay and collect taxes," if the "penalty" was changed to a "tax," then the law would be "constitutional."  Will someone please show me where in the Constitution, the Supreme Court is granted the authority to change the wording of any law upon which a case is being argued before them? We have a Legislative branch of our Federal Government which writes bills, which the Executive Branch then signs into law. It was totally unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to CHANGE the wording of the law so the penalty became a tax. And once more, can someone please show me in the Constitution where the Federal Government can tax you for NOT purchasing something? ANYTHING??? 

Here is an excerpt from the certified reconciliation text which was signed into law.
PUBLIC LAW 111–152—MAR. 30, 2010 124 STAT. 1067

          ‘‘(i) the amount of the covered entity’s fee under this section for the calendar year the Secretary determines should have been paid in the absence of any such understatement, over ‘‘(ii) the amount of such fee the Secretary determined based on such understatement.

          ‘‘(B) UNDERSTATEMENT.—For purposes of this paragraph, an understatement of a covered entity’s net premiums written with respect to health insurance for any United States health risk for any calendar year is the difference between the amount of such net premiums written as reported on the return filed by the covered entity under paragraph (1) and the amount of such net premiums written that should have been reported on such return.

          ‘‘(C) TREATMENT OF PENALTY.—The penalty imposed under subparagraph (A) shall be subject to the provisions of subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that apply to assessable penalties imposed under chapter 68 of such Code.

Notice that the bill, as it was written, reconciled by both chambers of Congress, and signed into LAW, it was a PENALTY!

3. It is unconstitutional because we have a Legislative Branch which WRITES bills, which the Executive Branch then signs into law. The Legislative Branch writes the laws, and the Executive makes sure they are enforced. The Executive branch is not supposed to WRITE laws. The "Affordable" Care Act was (unconstitutionally) written in such a way that the Executive Branch makes up or writes the law as it goes along, and as it sees fit.  How? Through the creation of a "Secretary." And who appoints, and to whom does this "Secretary" report? Why, the head of the Executive branch.

Look in either or both the original certified text, and / or in the certified reconciliation text in the links above, (and in the highlighted excerpt above) and tell me how many times you find references to the "Secretary":

          ...(as defined by the Secretary)...
          ...specified by the Secretary...
          ...until the Secretary implements...
          ...If the Secretary determines...
          ...and such other terms as the Secretary determines...
          ...the Secretary may develop and impose appropriate penalties for non-compliance with such requirements.

        (Whoa! There's that PENALTY!)
         ...the Secretary may provide for exceptions...
         ...such percentage shall be adjusted to the extent the Secretary determines...

Have I made my point? Who is this Secretary? Does anyone know?

Is anyone aware that the "Affordable" Care Act also took over regulation of Student loans? It's right there in the table of contents:
          Sec. 5201. Federally supported student loan funds.
Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government authorized to take control of Student loans?

So, these are only a few reasons why every word of the ACA must be repealed and replaced with more sensible health care laws. Before obamacare, we had the best health care in the world. Was it perfect? No. Did it need some tweaking and a few adjustments? Absolutely. But we didn't need to scrap the entire system and replace it with the abomination we have. Which, by the way, was forced upon us without one single republican vote in Congress. This is completely the work of the democrats.

So, what do we replace it with? I've already heard the fear stories from the left that we will go back to being enslaved by unregulated insurance companies, and preexisting condition exclusions or unaffordable premiums. I'm not a legislator, but with just a teeny smidgen of common sense, I think a law could be written which would establish that health care would be a personal contract between an individual and his insurance provider. No government involvement is needed, except to establish the "playing field." All insurance companies would be able and encouraged to operate across state lines, and individuals would be free to search out the best deal from any insurance company. Competition would be the drive the prices, and individuals would be able to negotiate whatever deals they can. Since it would be a private contract with the insurance company, it would not matter where you worked or lived, and you would be free to take your health care with you wherever you moved or worked. As a bargaining chip, your employer may elect to pay your premiums as a benefit of employment. If you have a preexisting condition, or develop a serious condition, no insurance company would be able to gouge you with unaffordable premiums, deny (drop) coverage to you, or raise your deductible to unreasonable limits, but like auto insurance companies, if you become an unsafe driver, they should be allowed to put you into a "higher risk" category, and charge you a SLIGHTLY higher premium. They would NOT be able to gouge with unreasonable premiums, or keep raising premiums on a time schedule. If you have good health, you should have lower premiums. No one would be forced to purchase health care insurance if they didn't want it. That's a gamble you take, and if you choose to not purchase health care insurance, and some day you need it, you're on your own. You rolled the dice, and you take full responsibility for your own actions (or NON-actions). If you were poor and couldn't afford it, but needed it, well, that would have to be worked out. But, like I said, I'm not a legislator, and these are just a few of my ideas. I believe that with a little common sense, things can be worked out that will benefit all, with the least amount of government control and intervention.

If you are a veteran and need to see a doctor, if you can't get taken care of by the VA, you should be able to go to any doctor, and send the bill to the government. Our vets deserve no less.

So, these are a few of my thoughts on repealing obamacare. There are a lot of hidden nuggets that were "baked into the cake," which we don't even know about, but they are still the law. That's why I feel that EVERY WORD of it must be repealed.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10