Buy Coffee —— Any Coffee

[Flanders]

Counting on Republicans to repeal HillaryCare II is an iffy proposition at best. Even if it is repealed, I’ve seen no evidence that the government ordering Americans to purchase goods and services is being challenged let alone discredited once and for all:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”

Hoyer went on to say:

“I’m sure the [Supreme] Court will find a limit,” Hoyer said. “For instance, if we mandated that you buy General Motors’ automobiles, I believe that would be far beyond our constitutional responsibility and indeed would violate the Due Process Clause as well – in terms of equal treatment to automobile manufacturers.”

Hoyer said that the insurance mandate was constitutional because Congress is not forcing Americans to buy one particular policy, just any health insurance policy.

“We don’t mandate that they buy a particular insurance [policy] but what we do mandate is that like driving a car -- if you’re going to drive a car, to protect people on the roadway, and yourself, and the public for having to pay your expenses if you get hurt badly – that you need to have insurance,” said Hoyer. -

Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
October 21, 2009
By Matt COVER

Hoyer Says Constitution?s ?General Welfare? Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance | CNS News​

First, in light of Kelo v. City of New London, and HillaryCare II, working Americans would be fools to rely on the Supreme Court for anything.

Secondly, note how Hoyer segued from “broad authority” to “constitutional responsibility.” Ambitious hustlers in every institution know the way to get ahead is to exercise authority while laying responsibility on underlings. In this case the power of government gives government hustlers the authority —— while responsibility means private sector must do as they are told.

Hoyer’s doublespeak con job is that Democrats believe the government has the constitutional authority to make everybody buy a car so long as no manufacturer is named. The government guy in this video does not say Maxwell House or Dunkin Donuts coffee but he could be Steny Hoyer:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCb9g8plGF8&feature=player_detailpage]Coffeecare - YouTube[/ame]​

Speaking of the things people like Steny Hoyer say, and how their ideology is finally implemented, I’ve italicized a few classics in the following list. I’m sure you can figure exactly what Podesta really intends:

In a conference call to reporters after the release of the paper on executive authority, Podesta recalled that after Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, President Clinton utilized his executive privileges to enact progressive change without the help of Congress. Podesta’s paper details how Obama can push executive change on a host of issues.

The paper states that on energy and environmental arena, the president can:

Reduce oil imports and make progress toward energy independence.

Progress toward reducing greenhouse gas pollution by 17 percent by 2020.

Conserve federal lands for future generations.

Manage public lands to support a balanced energy strategy.

Convene and engage hunters and anglers in the development of a fish and wildlife climate adaptation plan.

Generate solar energy on U.S. Air Force hangar roofs.​

On the domestic economic policy front, Podesta usges Obama to:

Direct an assessment, strategy, and new policy development to promote U.S. competitiveness.

Launch the new consumer financial protection bureau with an aggressive agenda to protect and empower consumers.

Increase the capacity of small businesses to expand hiring and purchases by accelerating the implementation of the Small Business Jobs Act.

Promote automatic mediation to avoid foreclosure where possible and speed resolution.

Create a Web portal to empower housing counselors, reduce burdens on lenders and speed up home mortgage modifications.

Help stabilize home values and communities by turning “shadow REO” housing inventory into “scattered site” rental housing.

Promote practices that support working families.​

On the domestic policy front, Podesta’s paper recommends that Obama:

Partner with the private sector in health care payment reform.

Focus on health care prevention in implementing the Affordable Care Act.

Streamline and simplify access to federal antipoverty programs.

Replace costly, inhumane immigration detention policies with equally effective measures.​

Regarding education policy, the paper states the president can:

Launch an “educational productivity” initiative to help school districts spend every dollar wisely to best prepare our children for the 21st century.

Ensure students can compare financial aid offers from different postsecondary institutions.

Improve the quality, standards and productivity of postsecondary education.

With regard to “improving the performance of the federal government,” the president can:

Scrutinize federal spending programs and tax expenditures to achieve greater returns on public investment.

Build the next-generation Recovery.gov website to track all public expenditures and performance in real time.

Use new information technology for faster, more transparent freedom of information.

Create a virtual U.S. statistical agency.

Collect data on lesbian ,gay, bisexual and transgender Americans in federal data surveys.​

And in the foreign policy and national security arena, the president and his administration can:

Rebalance Afghanistan strategy with greater emphasis on political and diplomatic progress.

Promote domestic revenue generation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Appoint a special envoy for the Horn of Africa and the southwest Arabian Peninsula region.

Appoint a special commission to assess contracting practices in national security and foreign affairs.

Redouble support for Palestinian state- and institution-building efforts.

Pursue dual-track policy on Iran while sharpening focus on Iranian human rights issues.

Reinvigorate the U.S.-Turkey strategic alliance. Develop a comprehensive policy on the Russia-Georgia conflict.​

Now Obama gets 'executive power' czar
Specializes in bypassing Congress to enact 'progressive change'
Published: 12 hours ago
AARON KLEIN

Now Obama gets ?executive power? czar​

Damn it. Forgive me. I italicized everything Podesta said.

 

[Flanders]

It’s infinitely more difficult to change something than it is to start something new. Imagine Colonial Americans trying to change King George’s colonial rule from within rather than revolting and starting from scratch.

The Founding Fathers designed a government that deliberately made change a slow and tedious process. Socialists/Communists perverted original intent to the point of relying on the near impossibility involved in undoing destructive laws and policies. The changes Barack Taqiyya & Company made to date will remain in place long after the UN-loving, America-haters, are gone irrespective of how destructive they are. Perfect example: Look at how long America has been fighting Woodrow Wilson’s destructive Peace Without Victory wars:

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ww15.htm

Bringing John Podesta back to advise Barack Taqiyya on ways to betray this country tells me two things:

1. Incrementalism is being abandoned.

2. UN-loving traitors are running so scared they are going to throw every piece of global government treason against the wall knowing that a lot of it will stick long after they lose the Congress in 2014 and the White House in 2016.

Please read this article if you are interested in learning Barack Taqiyya’s priorities before the election in 2014. Note the importance of EOs:

. . . Podesta’s agenda in the White House, where he is to serve for one year as a “counselor” to the president. The New York Times reported he will focus on executive orders and so-called climate change issues along with Obamacare.

New Obama adviser wants to cede U.S. oceans to U.N.
President seeks his help on executive orders, climate change
Published: 10 hours ago
AARON KLEIN

New Obama adviser wants to cede U.S. oceans to U.N.​

 

[Flanders]

Counting on Republicans to repeal HillaryCare II is an iffy proposition at best.

I’m not sure about this:

Heritage Foundation tweet says repealing Obamacare would be easier than repealing Prohibition

Repealing a law like HillaryCare II is entirely in the hands of the people who passed the law in the first place no matter who controls Congress and/or the presidency; whereas, repealing a constitutional amendment involves the states:

Article V​

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The XVIII Amendment was such a disaster it stands as the only Amendment ever to be repealed, and it was repealed a mere 14 years after it was ratified. Congress can repeal the ACA a lot faster than that. The question is this: Is the will to repeal there? Answer: I hear the right words, but I don’t see any passion.

Comparing oranges and apples

Obviously, 1933 and the conditions between then and now are worlds apart. For one thing bootleggers ran the risk of going to jail, or being rubbed out by rivals. No matter. They paid off cops and politicians with money that came from booze. Insurance companies, Wall Street, and everybody with a vested interest in HillaryCare II pay off members of Congress with tax dollars. If you compare Prohibition era gangsters to everybody with designs on healthcare tax dollars you have to conclude they are guilty of every crime that does not require courage. Ditto most members of Congress and an unhealthy number of judges.

Most importantly, there was no parasite class to speak of in 1933. Today, there is so much money (tax dollars) at stake in keeping the ACA —— repeal will be a lot more difficult than was repealing the XVIII Amendment.

Incidentally, after the XVIII Amendment was repealed one old drunk put it in perspective: Repeal is a con job. There is no more booze available now than there was during Prohibition.

Hillarycare II is so ugly, I cannot see any humor in it before or after repeal.

The lyrics in that very subtle song, Cocktails for Two, represent a nice little peek into what the public (minus teetotalers) was really thinking after Prohibition was repealed. A hit song was written in1934 to celebrate repeal. I still crackup every time I hear Spike Jones’ rendition:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dw2UKRYSA&feature=player_detailpage]SPIKE JONES - COCKTAILS FOR TWO - YouTube[/ame]​

Prohibition was the worst legislative disaster to ever cripple this country. After the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is fully implemented it will outdo Prohibition’s devastation albeit in different ways.

The second article reminds us that Prohibition was repealed 80 years ago.

"FACT: Repealing Obamacare would be easier than repealing Prohibition."
Heritage Foundation on Thursday, December 5th, 2013 in a tweet

Heritage Foundation tweet says repealing Obamacare would be easier than repealing Prohibition | PolitiFact

XXXXX​

Progressives Took Our Booze
80 years ago today Americans took it back.
By Daniel J. Flynn – 12.5.13

Progressives Took Our Booze | The American Spectator

 

[waltky]

Granny says a cup o' coffee inna mornin' gets her goin' fer the day...

Judge Orders Coffee Sellers in California to Put Cancer Warning on Products
March 29, 2018 - A Los Angeles judge Thursday ordered coffee companies to abide by California state law and put cancer warning labels on their products.

A nonprofit group called the Council for Education and Research on Toxics is suing such popular coffee roasters and retailers as Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts and McDonald’s. They say the companies fail to warn consumers that roasting coffee naturally produces a carcinogen called acrylamide. In the first part of the three-phase trial, Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle ruled the coffee companies failed to prove their assertion that there is no significant risk from acrylamide.

Roasting coffee beans naturally produces a carcinogen called acrylamide. A California judge found that coffee companies must warn their consumers.​

In Thursday’s ruling after the second phase, Berle said the companies failed to adequately show coffee is a healthy drink. “Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health,” he wrote. An upcoming third phase would decide what civil penalties the coffee companies would have to pay.

Company officials have not yet responded to the judge’s ruling. Acrylamide forms naturally when such foods as coffee, hot wheat cereals and potatoes are cooked or deep fried. Most medical studies show no increased risk of cancer from eating such foods. Some recent studies have shown possible benefits from drinking coffee, including protection against liver disease, some diabetes and Parkinson’s disease.

Judge Orders Coffee Sellers in California to Put Cancer Warning on Products

See also:

Science: What We Know About Cancer Risk and Coffee
March 30, 2018 - Trouble is brewing for coffee lovers in California, where a judge ruled that sellers must post scary warnings about cancer risks. But how frightened should we be of a daily cup of joe? Not very, some scientists and available evidence seem to suggest.

Scientific concerns about coffee have eased in recent years, and many studies even suggest it can help health. "At the minimum, coffee is neutral. If anything, there is fairly good evidence of the benefit of coffee on cancer," said Dr. Edward Giovannucci, a nutrition expert at the Harvard School of Public Health. The World Health Organization's cancer agency moved coffee off the "possible carcinogen" list two years ago, though it says evidence is insufficient to rule out any possible role. The current flap isn't about coffee itself, but a chemical called acrylamide that's made when the beans are roasted. Government agencies call it a probable or likely carcinogen, based on animal research, and a group sued to require coffee sellers to warn of that under a California law passed by voters in 1986.

Coffee beans are seen in a roaster at a stand at the Coffee Fair in Lima, Peru.​

The problem: No one knows what levels are safe or risky for people. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets acrylamide limits for drinking water, but there aren't any for food. "A cup of coffee a day, exposure probably is not that high," and probably should not change your habit, said Dr. Bruce Y. Lee of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "If you drink a lot of cups a day, this is one of the reasons you might consider cutting that down." Here's what's known about the risks.

The chemical

Start with the biggest known risk factor for cancer — smoking — which generates acrylamide. In the diet, French fries, potato chips, crackers, cookies, cereal and other high-carbohydrate foods contain it as a byproduct of roasting, baking, toasting or frying. Food and Drug Administration tests of acrylamide levels found they ranged from 175 to 351 parts per billion (a measure of concentration for a contaminant) for six brands of coffee tested; the highest was for one type of decaf coffee crystals. By comparison, French fries at one fast-food chain ranged from 117 to 313 parts per billion, depending on the location tested. Some commercial fries had more than 1,000. Even some baby foods contain acrylamide, such as teething biscuits and crackers. One brand of organic sweet potatoes tested as having 121 parts per billion.

What's the risk?

The "probable" or "likely" carcinogen label is based on studies of animals given high levels of acrylamide in drinking water. But people and rodents absorb the chemical at different rates and metabolize it differently, so its relevance to human health is unknown. A group of 23 scientists convened by the WHO's cancer agency in 2016 looked at coffee — not acrylamide directly — and decided coffee was unlikely to cause breast, prostate or pancreatic cancer, and that it seemed to lower the risks for liver and uterine cancers. Evidence was inadequate to determine its effect on dozens of other cancer types.

The California law