Petition: Support North Dakota’s suit against the dangerous transgender mandate
http://www.citizengo.org/en/sc/38523-support-north-dakotas-suit-against-dangerous-transgender-mandate?m=5&tcid=29111366
“Support North Dakota’s suit against the dangerous transgender mandate
By CitizenGO USA · 11/11/2016
Respect practitioners freedom of conscious
Dear Department of Health and Human Services and the Office for Civil Rights,
I am writing to express my disappointment in your department’s final rule on ‘Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities.’ This rule disregards the freedom of medical practitioners to refuse to perform treatments that they believe will seriously and permanently harm their patients. Your mandate forces medical practitioners to violate the Hippocratic Oath [And is morally obscene!].
The State of North Dakota and several other institutions in North Dakota recently filed suit against you for this dangerous mandate. I am writing in support of their suit. I ask you to immediately revoke this mandate to protect the freedom of medical practitioners.
The Department of Health and Human Services previously declared that Medicare and Medicaid need not pay for gender transition treatments since ‘there is not enough evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria [It does not! It mutilates the body of a person for no possible reason. Mutilating the body of a person does not change the sex of an individual!]’ Especially given this lack of evidence, the freedom of medical practitioners should be respected.
Sincerely,
Don L. Vance”
Restore the Constitution
Take Back the Nation
I am a Christian, Constitutionalist, conservative.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/11/11/memo-to-liberals-republicans-won-the-house-popular-vote-n2244365?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=
“Majority Party: House Republicans Win National ‘Popular Vote’ By Three Million
Guy Benson | Posted: November 11, 2016
As the Left grapples with Hillary Clinton’s shocking electoral loss [It was not shocking if one understands the voting pattern of the American people. Only once since 1944 has the pattern been broken.] on Tuesday, many are pointing to her popular vote ‘victory’ as if it proves something meaningful. It does not. Sure, it’s a piece of interesting historical trivia that she will end up receiving more raw votes nationwide than Donald Trump, but presidential elections are decided based on the outcomes of 50 separate popular votes (plus DC, and setting aside the proportional systems in Nebraska and Maine), of which Donald Trump appears to have won 30.[It is just not the number of States that is important. More important is the number of Electoral College votes in each State. Presidential candidates understand this and run their campaigns accordingly. Technically, a candidate could win the election by winning by one vote in each of the eleven largest Electoral College States and not receive a single vote in any other State. Here is the count:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
01) California ~ 55
02) Texas ~ 38 [won by Trump]
03) Florida ~ 29 [won by Trump]
04) New York ~ 29
05) Illinois ~ 20
06) Pennsylvania ~ 20 [won by Trump]
07) Ohio ~ 18 [won by Trump]
08) Georgia ~ 16 [won by Trump]
09) Michigan ~ 16 [Trump leading]
10) North Carolina ~ 15 [won by Trump]
11) New Jersey ~ 14 = 270.
Certain people need to learn the truth and grow up! The vote is not a national popularity contest! Of the top eleven States, Trump won or is leading in seven of them with 152 Electoral College votes. Bottom line: We are a federal system. We are not a national system although the Left is trying to turn us into a national system.]
Those wins will reap him 306 electoral votes, well over the winning threshold [of 270].
Campaigns devise their strategies based on this system, which was ensconced by the founders at the Constitutional Convention. If Trump had been focused on winning the national popular vote, he would have allocated his time and resources very differently, angling to wring votes out of uncompetitive but vote-rich blue (California) and red (Texas) states, for example. To argue that Hillary’s popular vote win diminishes the legitimacy or decisiveness of Trump’s overall triumph is to argue that the rules and constitutional framework—recognized and agreed upon in advance—do not, or should not, matter [The rules only matter to the Left when they can or do won because of the rules. Otherwise, it is a rigged system. Sound familiar?]. Furthermore, to complain that the electoral college system is ‘undemocratic’ is to cherry-pick a grievance based on an undesirable result. Buried at the very bottom of this USA Today piece highlighting that Senate Democrats also won the non-existent nationwide ‘popular vote’ in their 2016 races (more on that in a moment) is this little nugget:
‘Republicans captured the majority of the ‘popular vote’ for the House on Election Day, collecting about 56.3 million votes while Democrats got about 53.2 million, according to USA TODAY calculations. With a few races still undecided, Republicans so far hold a 239-193 majority for the next Congress [3 races undecided according to the figures given.].’
House Republicans won the (truly nationwide) ‘popular vote’ by roughly three million votes. This clearly means that they should control all 435 seats in Congress’ lower chamber, or democracy is dead, or something! Popular vote! Three million! Except ... That’s not how the system works [Of course not. And the political parties know it!]. And everyone knows it. Just as everyone knows how the electoral college determines the presidency. That’s why many liberals’ favorite-turned-least-favorite website is called FiveThirtyEight, after all. Republicans won a majority of House seats by dint of winning approximately 240 miniature popular vote elections in individual Congressional districts. Donald Trump won a majority of the electoral college by winning about 60 percent of state-level popular votes for president.
Finally, a word on the aforementioned Senate statistic: Tallying the ‘popular vote’ in those races is even less useful than in the presidential or House contexts. Why? Only one-third of Senators were up for re-election this cycle [Every cycle! 1/3—33, 33, 34—every two years plus vacancy elections.], so we’re already talking about a fraction of the chamber. Indeed, the majority of each party’s US Senators were not on the ballot in 2016.
Furthermore, because of how the rotation worked out this time, there were Senate elections in the huge, vote-heavy blue states of New York and California, whereas there was no Senate race in Texas, the most populous red state. Beyond that, due to California’s relatively new election system [The jungle system used in Louisiana except the primary election is held during primary season instead of during the day of the General Election.], the GOP did not even field a general election candidate for US Senate at all, so that state’s millions of Republican voters were faced with the prospect of either backing one of two liberal Democrats [Given California at the movement, that may be true for a number of elections!], or sitting the race out altogether. For reference, at last count, nearly three million Californians voted for Donald Trump; close to five million backed Mitt Romney four years ago. That’s are a lot of arguably-disenfranchised California Republicans in an all-Democrat Senate race. The USA Today story acknowledges this dynamic, and offers an interesting concession:
‘In California, for example, there were two Democrats—Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez—competing for an open Senate seat, with no Republican on the ballot. Together, they received 7.8 million votes. If you count only Harris’ winning vote total of 4.9 million, Democrats still tally 42.2 million votes. Had a Republican Senate candidate in California captured as many votes as Sanchez did—about 2.9 million—the total for the two parties nationwide would have been about even.’
Ah. So if the GOP hadn’t been shut out of California’s race, the national ‘popular vote’ total of the in-cycle Senate contests would likely have been approximately tied between the parties. Some might point out that Republicans failed to qualify a top-two finisher in the ‘jungle primary’ system, so they weren't ‘robbed,’ rendering this whole hypothetical irrelevant. Absolutely true. They lost fair and square under the established rules. And the same can be said of the legitimate victories racked up by Donald Trump, House Republicans and Senate Republicans [Democrats also lost ground at the State level. Before this election, the Democrats controlled both Houses of the General Assembly and the Governor’s office in seven States. After this election, the Democrats are down to five States where they control both Houses of the General Assembly and the Governor’s office. It was another bad election cycle for the Democrats!].”
I am a Christian, Constitutionalist, conservative.
Restore the Constitution
Take Back the Nation
For Life, for liberty
Don L. Vance
“With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.