Praimary sources matter!

Praimary?

Izzat like Praise Mary?................

Yeah.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Praimary&nfpr=1&spf=387

I like your tag line, that’s what my did told us kids growing up.

That saying was on a desk plaque of a gunnery sergeant when I was in the Marine Corps back in 1974........................

Even the Freedom Caucus leader has a word.

It’s a turning point.

The optics of this are so weird.

Today, we celebrate the narrow passage of a bill that none of us really like and that the Senate is going to totally ignore.....

Thank you for referencing that article dynoman. Please note that the following critique is directed at the WH video and not at you.

I understand that Pres. Trump plans to get firmer with Congress with respect to his ideal budget (I didn’t say constitutional budget) for the 2018 federal fiscal year which probably starts Oct. 1, 2017. Corrections, insights welcome.

Watching the referenced video, there is no hint, imo, that the feds have any intention of admitting that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the still corrupt feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes and other unique state power issues that the feds have no constitutional justification sticking their big noses into.

In other words, constitutionally low-information Trump is probably getting “assimilated” by the Borg (Star Trek) Congress.

So it remains that if patriots don’t get Trump up to speed with the fed's constitutionally limited powers, and work with enlightened Trump to peacefully “force” corrupt Congress to surrender state powers and state revenues that Congress has stolen from the states back to the states, then it’s only a matter of time before corrupt Congress once again works in cahoots with a lawless president to use stolen state powers to oppress the states and their citizens.

Today, we celebrate the narrow passage of a bill that none of us really like and that the Senate is going to totally ignore.....

Lol. Those were my thoughts as well.

President Trump says he is "very confident" the Senate will pass it. Perhaps he has been talking to Mitch McConnell. Or perhaps that was just psychology.

In any case, it might be a turning point between the House and Trump; Ryan and Trump.

To this point, I believe that Ryan has been deliberating sabatoging the President's agenda.

Ryan trashed Trump to House members, said he would "never" support Trump, "not now, not ever!"

And, he didn't even endorse Trump for President.

Trump has privately told Ryan off (so I heard).

Maybe this is a turning point in the relationship. We'll have to wait and see.

Obviously a deal was made:

And it only cost Trump a cool trillion

Who invited Eddy Munster?

I don’t agree with your conclusions. I would say they fall under a logical fallacy - too few alternatives. This is no offence to you because it’s a pattern of thinking I see over and over. That is; asserting an opinion or conclusion as fact using a limited data set. If the data set were expanded the opinion or conclusion becomes invalid.

For instance “ constitutionally low-information Trump” is not an absolute fact, it’s an opinion.

Also if you want to take the idea of constitutional limits of the fedgov to it’s literal end where do you stop? Eliminating madicare/medicaid and the VA because the fedgov shouldn’t be involved in HC?

I think Trump is very constitutionally informed, and the biggest factor at work is the reality he’s working in. That is a fedgov that over decades has overreached it’s constitutional limits. The road back is a long, long one, and if we ever get back to a proper constitutionally limited fedgov it won’t be in one or two bills Trump gets through. The hope is that from any point steps in the right direction can be taken. But it will take a series of steps, it will never be done in one giant leap.

“Obviously a deal was made:

And it only cost Trump a cool trillion”

What’s the primary information source for that statement?

The timing just seems suspicious

Given the remote possibility that you haven’t already seen them, below are excerpts that I probably should have included in my previous post.

Taking unconstitutional Obamacare for example, the excerpts are mostly clarifications by previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for the purposes of INTRAstate healthcare — and many other federal social spending programs for that matter.

Regarding the constitutionality of the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fifth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. Regardless what lawless Obama’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the insurance mandate, the excerpt from Paul v. Virginia clarifies that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.

• "Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons [emphasis added], our property, our reputation and religious freedom.” —Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.

• "State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• "Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.

• "4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)

• "Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” —Linder v. United States

• "From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. …” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

I’m trying to watch it. But the smug directly in the middle of frame behind Trump is killing me.

It is super weird.

Really strange.

Anywhere else? I don’t do FACEbook.

You can watch in on FB even if you don’t have an account. It should be on the WH youtube channel soon if it isn’t already.

None of that changes the reality it took us decades to get where we are and that it will not be undone in one bill. If it ever does get undone.