Quick Fat Loss Tips that Work


Quick Fat Loss Tips can be really effective. We selected for you those easy to remember, easy to follow, and proven Fat Loss Tricks :

Strengh Training and More Proteins

By making or maintaining muscle, your Weight Loss won’t make you Fat AND Skinny.

  • Go to the gym and ask your coach for Strengh Training

Cardio Training

Burning fat will mean more fat loss. Straight.

  • Best aim Elliptical Trainer 45mn thrice or four times a week for optimal fat loss.

Move at each Opportunity

Even slow walk. This will facilitate your fat loss because moving is a natural way to eliminate toxins and fat.

  • Walk when you go somewhere
  • If you don’t go to the gym, schedule a 20 minutes walk every day

Avoid Bad Fats and Sugars

Banish what would replace the fat you want to unstock. They COUNTER your Fat loss.

  • Free your environment of them,
  • and buy only healthy food.


Green Drinks, Tea, or the easiest : Water. This will make you feel satiated and force your metabolism to use the fat already present in your body, rather than from more food (which would actually just stock more fat).  Also, this water with Phen24 is used to eliminat fat.

  • Drink Water instead of eating or drinking something else.
  • Avoid sodas and alcohol AT ALL COSTS.

Eat moderately every 3 hours

This will induce a lot of effects making fat loss easier.

  • Schedule a moderate (=half) meal every three hours in your day.

Lose Fat just by Sleeping

Easy one, isn’t it ?

  • Go to bed early (10pm)
  • without eating sugar or heavy/rich meals within the previous 3 hours,
  • and sleep at least 7 hours to maximize fat loss


Stress hormon (namely Cortisol) is a muscle breakdown hormon.

  • So avoid it : smile, take breaks to relax yourself, get perspective, and please yourself.

Eat Some Junk/Normal Food

Yes, counter intuitive, but it has a positive impact on fat loss.

  • Eat normally on a regular basis. 1 to 3 times a week, except bad Fat and Sugars, eat what you like (always in a moderate quantity).

I hope you enjoyed those Quick & Easy Fat Loss Tricks. Enjoy them even more by applying them !

Eat More and Weigh Less


One might bet that almost everybody likes this idea of eating more to weigh less. But, we’re not talking about more meat, pizza, ice cream and cookies.

Our friends in New Zealand came up with a November challenge. It’s call 5+ A Day program. New Zealanders are encouraged to eat an extra serving of fruits or vegetables every day to improve their health and lose weight.

This weight loss principle is based on the work of Dr. Barbara Rolls of Penn State University. Dr. Rolls, a professor of nutritional sciences and world-recognized researcher on weight loss claims the key to losing weight is to substitute high water content foods into your diet with PhenQ. And, of course, foods with the highest water content are fruits and vegetables. Simply put, fruits and vegetables in your diet supply a satisfying amount of food but with fewer calories.

Studies have shown that people who include lots of fruits and vegetables as a daily diet habit are less likely to be at risk for heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, some cancers and obesity. As a child most of us were encouraged to eat our vegetables, some more emphatically than others. We can’t go back and change our youthful eating habits, but as responsible adults we can set good examples for our children and grandchildren in what and how we eat.

I believe most kids eat some fruit. Could this be due to the natural sugar content? There is no question that kids, particularly in the western hemisphere, eat lots of sugar. Oh, they burn more calories than adults as they’re more active and growing but the increased insulin response could lead to some metabolic imbalance later in life.

Nutritionist Bronwen Anderson is quoted, “Eating a rainbow of colour every day is the best thing you can do for your body and overall wellbeing.” It makes sense. You can eat potatoes and a banana every day, but you’ll miss out on the necessary nutrients and health benefits of the red and green fruits and vegetables like apples, tomatoes, kiwifruit, broccoli and spinach.

The 5+ A Day is a great challenge, not only for the month of November, but year around. Analyze the fruit you eat for sugar content using a sugar in fruit chart. And be aware of the various components such as total carbohydrates and fiber. Do the same for vegetables. Be aware of what you eat and be healthy.

Are Flyers and brochures important for the business promotions?


If you have started a new business, then one has to invest money in a lot of important things such as Promotions, products, and other things. Before starting the business, you should set your budget. You should take the assistance of an experienced business owner.  Surely, he will suggest you important things about business. Apart from that, you have to hire a professional Poster or flyer designer. With the help of an expert designer, one will able to save the money of promotions. Most of the people are making the use of brochures for the promotion and other things.

Let’s discuss the benefits of Flyers and brochures for promotion related tasks.

  • Save the time and money

No doubt, the promotion has become an integral part of every business. If you want to increase the awareness of your business, then promotion is quite important for you. However, you should hire an expert graphic designer that will able to create flyers and brochures for you. With the help of brochure, one will able to attract a lot of traffic towards the business. Overall, it will increase the sale of the business.

  • Improve the sale of business

Nothing is better than a graphic designer that will improve the awareness of your brand. If you don’t want to face any problem in the future, then you should hire a professional graphic designer for it.  After creating high-quality flyers, you will grab an overall growth in the sale. It will automatically increase the profit.  However, after visiting on https://designful.ca, you will able to grab a bunch of information about the graphic designers.  

  • The position of the business

Nowadays, it would be quite difficult to improve the position in the market. After hiring an expert, you will able to improve the reputation of business in the market. It is a really beneficial thing for us because we don’t have to spend money on promotions on other things.

  • Best strategy

It is really best strategy because we have to just paste flyers on the walls. If you don’t have much knowledge about the flyers and brochures, then don’t worry because a professional will give information about everything.

So what’s the final verdict?

Above-mentioned vital points clearly show that a Graphic designer is really beneficial for us that will improve the ranking of your business.

Will State Attorneys General Oppose HR 5 To Protect Federalism


One of the ways in which attorneys general protect the integrity of state laws and constitutions is by carefully reviewing the actions of the federal government and responding when they break the law or overstep the bounds of the Constitution.

Federalism is the division of authority between the federal and state governments that the Founding Fathers created to provide a check on federal power so that the federal government would not become destructive of the very liberty it was instituted to protect.

So states a press release on the website of the Republican Attorneys General Association. That’s a great statement of the mission of state Attorneys General, and state AGs of both parties have often backed that statement up with real action to defend states’ and individual rights from attack by Uncle Sam.

But thus far, we’ve heard nothing from state AGs about the intention of House Republican leaders, announced from behind closed doors without consultation with the AGs, to force a vote on a sweeping federal takeover of state courts and their jurisdiction over health care-related lawsuits. The leaders are forcing House Republicans to vote for that bill, H.R. 5, and making it difficult to oppose by combining it with the popular bill to repeal part of unconstitutional Obamacare, the section creating the IPAB “death panels.” House Republican leaders then made it very difficult to amend the bill by setting an amendment deadline of 3 pm ET Monday, a time when most House Republicans will still be out of town.

Numerous states’ rights advocates have spoken out against H.R. 5, recently an in the past year. Last week, the National Conference of State Legislators, constitutional scholars Rob Natelson and Ilya Somin, and Tea Party leader Judson Phillips again criticized the bill, reiterating previous denunciations of H.R. 5, or federal tort reform laws in general, by them and by Profs. Randy Barnett and John Baker; Sens. Tom Coburn and Mike Lee; and other conservatives and libertarians,

So it will be up to state AGs to take a stand for their states, and call attention to this overreach in federal power. Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli sharply condemned the Senate version of H.R. 5 last fall but has been strangely silent thus far.

There’s not much time left for House Republicans to hear from the self-proclaimed guardians of state constitutions and of states’ and individual rights.

Second Tea Party Leader Opposes Federal Tort Reform


A second leader of a national and influential Tea Party group has joined the chorus of conservatives against any federal tort reform law. Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, posted on the website yesterday that the jury system is part of the free market, and to interfere with the jury system violates the 7th Amendment to the Constitution. The website requires registration to read the post, but Judson generously allowed me to post a segment of his article.

The free market is a wonderful system. It produces amazing efficiencies and amazing wealth. The free market system has delivered more prosperity to more people than any other system. There is another beauty to the free market system that many people do not think about. The free market system punishes bad behavior. If I open a business and decide to sell something that is a really bad product, people do not come to my business. I have the incentive to produce a really good product because that way people will want to come to my business.

The civil jury system is a part of the free market. Our founding fathers thought enough of it to make it the 7 th Amendment to the Constitution. Jury awards are a part of the free market. They do not exist in a vacuum. They not only compensate someone for an injury but like so many other parts of the free market, they act to deter bad behavior.

If I am injured by a bad doctor or suffer some other type of injury or loss, I do not want the Federal Government telling me what my pain is worth. I want twelve citizens deciding justice for me.

The right to a jury trial has a long and storied history in America and even further back in Britain.

Much as the Federal Government is overstepping its bounds by ordering Americans to buy health insurance, the government is also overstepping its bounds by telling citizens and states how much they can award in law suites and also telling lawyers how much they can be paid. (sic)

The free market is an amazing thing. It needs almost no intervention to achieve the right result, and the civil jury trial is an important part of the free market.

Take a moment to tell your Senators and Congressmen we do not need the federal government telling states what to do and trampling on another one of our constitutional rights.”

This spring, Tea Party Patriots co-founder and national coordinator Mark Meckler voiced his opposition to federal tort reform on the grounds that it violates states’ rights. “Most folks in the tea party movement would say those things should be dealt with at the state level,” Meckler said. “It’s not for the federal government to be adjusting the legal system of individual states.”

It’s great to see these two leaders of the popular movement to restore the primacy of our Constitutional rights forcefully reject the attempt to override state and individual rights. We need to bring these statements to the attention of every Member of Congress, especially the Republicans under pressure to enact federal tort reform.

Quote of the Day Father of Bill of Rights on Jury Trials For Civil Suits


There is no Declaration of any kind, for preserving the Liberty of the Press, or the Tryal by Jury in Civil Causes; nor against the Danger of standing Armys in time of Peace.”

So wrote George Mason, a delegate from Virginia to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when he publicly opposed the new U.S. Constitution as proposed to the states for ratification. Mason was an extraordinarily important patriot and Founding Father, and is described as a “political figure to be reckoned with, spoken of in the same breath with Virginians Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee.” He was the architect of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, which preceded the Declaration of Independence and served the cause of liberty from England throughout the Revolution. But at the Constitutional Convention, he objected so strongly to the omission of a Bill of Rights and other weaknesses in the new system of government that he refused to sign the Constitution. Only two other delegates, Elbridge Gerry and Edmund Randolph, agreed with Mason to that degree. It appeared that Mason’s objection would go unheeded as state after state ratified the Constitution.

George Mason would not be deterred. In June 1788, he published a pamphlet, Objections to the Proposed Federal Constitution, laying out his points in detail, including the sentence above. Note that he equated the right to a jury trial in civil suits with freedom of the press, that beloved right ensconced in the 1st Amendment and so often defended by Americans of all political stripes. The pamphlet was enormously popular and eventually won over Thomas Jefferson, then minister to France, who wrote to his friend, James Madison, that he was alarmed by “the omission of a bill of rights.” Madison saw the legal and political imperative of such an addition to the Constitution. After he was elected to Congress, Madison proposed 17 amendments to the Constitution, of which 10 were ratified by the states, including the 7th Amendment.

For his insistence on a Bill of Rights to accompany the new Constitution, George Mason rightfully shares the title of “Father of the Bill of Rights” with Madison.

Trial Lawyers Group President to Speak at Federalist Society Convention


As a long-time active member of and donor to the Federalist Society, I was excited to see that the theme for this year’s National Convention on November 18-20 is, “Controlling Government: The Framers, the Tea Parties and the Constitution,” and I noticed that the last Showcase Panel, on November 20, will discuss Ideas for Structural Change: Term Limits, Reviving the Right to Civil Jury Trial, Moving Administrative Law Judges to Article III, and Others. I contacted the Society’s leadership and persuaded them to invite C. Gibson Vance, a partner at the firm of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, PC and current President of the American Association for Justice, to that panel. This is the first time that a President of the largest trial lawyers’ group in the world has been invited to participate in the National Convention at the Federalist Society, and I hope Gibson’s appearance draws wide interest and press coverage. As you can see from his bio, his life has been a true example of the American Dream, having worked starting in his teen years and all the way through law school. I predict that attendees to the panel will see a side of the plaintiffs’ bar that they won’t get in the mainstream media, and they just might be surprised at what Gibson says on this important topic. The Federalist Society’s leadership deserves kudos for reaching out to AAJ and inviting Gibson to appear on the panel.

Trial Lawyers For Religious Liberty Continue Fight Against Obamacare Mandate


Yesterday, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a new lawsuit on behalf of several Catholic organizations in federal court, challenging the final regulations enforcing the Obamacare contraceptive services mandate against religious organizations. Last year, I discussed in numerous posts the lawsuits filed by religious organizations seeking to overturn the regulations prior to their final release. Faith-based groups and their allies across America are protesting the Obamacare-based mandate to force the provision of abortion-inducing drugs and devices through health insurance policies. If successful, the mandate would serve as the template for Uncle Sam to define any religious organization as it sees fit, and to dictate hiring, financial, and all organizational decisions.

AFLC is one of the groups I informally call the “Trial Lawyers For Religious Liberty,” along with the Alliance Defending Freedom, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the American Center for Law and Justice, and Liberty Counsel. These groups, usually allied with social conservative activists and politicians, file civil suits to defend religious liberty and other freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights.

And they often request jury trials for their lawsuits, as is their prerogative under the 7th Amendment. When over 40 Catholic organizations sued to block the mandate, they cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38: “Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable.” That rule begins as follows:

“(a) RIGHT PRESERVED. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution–or as provided by a federal statute–is preserved to the parties inviolate.”

Some of these cases await a ruling to proceed, while others were dismissed over procedural issues. Personally, I would love to see a jury of Americans hear these cases and decide on the merits.

The Founding Fathers designed a civil justice system, rooted in the right to a jury trial for civil suits, for all cases and causes. Whether for religious liberty, property rights and free speech rights, or for medical malpractice and products liability claims, all civil claims are treated equally under the Founders’ grand design. They would never have supported a “tort reform” movement that seeks to protect doctors and hospitals from deadly negligence, because they knew that abridging Constitutional rights for some endangers the rights of all Americans.

Rob Natelson Obamacare Ruling Renders Republican Health Care Bill Unconstitutional


Eminent legal scholar Rob Natelson, whose work on the inherent limitations of federal power has been cited often in recent Supreme Court decisions, “now writes that the Supreme Court’s ruling last year on Obamacare renders a bill proposed by House Republicans to limit medical liability unconstitutional. To remind my regular readers, Rob Natelson is the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence for the libertarian-leaning Independence Institute in Colorado and an expert on the original meaning of the Constitution. He co-authored an important amicus brief on the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of the Constitution for the Obamacare case, which is cited by other anti-Obamacare legal experts. I’ve written often here on his work on the unconstitutionality of federal limits on damages in medical malpractice lawsuits. So his conclusion in his new work on the impact of the Obamacare decision on proposed federal medical liability limits should strike a serious blow to efforts to push the bill.

He analyzed Title V of H.R. 3121, the “American Health Reform Act” (hereinafter “AHRA”), and concludes that “for Congress to start micro-managing state courts and state juries should frighten anyone who cares about our American constitutional system.” Natelson briefly describes the bill’s key features: “The bill would rewrite personal injury law extensively–and not just in federal courts administering federal law. It would intrude on state courts applying state law. For example, the bill requires state judges and juries to adopt federal standards of proof, federal standards of guilt, federal damage rules, and federal deadlines. It imposes rules for attorneys’ fees that override both state law and private contracts. It even mandates that some useful information be withheld from juries.”

Natelson first points out that the Founders always intended “that state civil justice systems and tort law would remain free of federal control,” and assertions that the Commerce Clause can be used to justify federal limits on medical liability are not based on original intent. “In 2011, I investigated the issue thoroughly, and reported my findings in a detailed paper entitled The Roots of American Judicial Federalism, available at http://constitution.i2i.org/files/2011/11/Roots_Am_Federalism.pdf… That paper showed that (1) a core reason the Founders fought the American Revolution was to assure local control of courts, (2) the Constitution was structured to achieve the same goal, and (3) leading Founders specifically represented–not merely once or twice, but again and again–that state civil justice systems and tort law would remain free of federal control. Despite a few half-hearted assertions to the contrary, the paper’s conclusions have never been seriously challenged.”

Natelson then discusses why the Obamacare ruling further precludes federal medical liability limits. He reviews the history of the “the other component of the Commerce Power,” the “Necessary and Proper Clause” in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. He then describes the limits on Congressional power in two important rulings:

The leading Supreme Court case on the Necessary and Proper Clause is McCulloch v. Maryland. In that case, Chief Justice John Marshall also explained that the Clause did not grant to Congress any ‘great substantive and independent powers.’ Moreover, in Gibbons v. Ogden (the first great Commerce Power case) Marshall added that ‘health laws of every description’ were outside the federal sphere and exclusively reserved to the states. In other words, under the view of the greatest chief justice in American history, both Title V and Obamacare are utterly unconstitutional.”

Natelson then quotes from Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling that the Obamacare individual mandate violates the Necessary and Proper Clause: The clause “‘does not license the exercise of any “great substantive and independent power[s]’ beyond those specifically enumerated. . . . Instead, the Clause is merely a declaration, for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those [powers] otherwise granted are included in the grant. . . . [T]he individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms.”

Natelson then applies Justice Roberts’ reasoning to the proposed federal override in the AHRA of state tort law, concluding that proposal is unconstitutional:

Is control of the state court systems a ‘great substantive and independent power?’ You bet it is. The Founders clearly considered the judiciary a very important aspect of government, and the Constitution addressed it in detail. But while prescribing the rules for the federal courts, the framers deliberately omitted any federal role in the state judiciary… The Founders obviously deemed judicial organization and procedure to be a ‘great and independent’ subject, worthy of much constitutional attention. Yet in all procedural and organizational particulars, they left state courts alone. They certainly granted Congress no power to micro-manage them. They left the ‘great substantive and independent power’ of operating the state courts to the states themselves. Under Justice Roberts’ opinion, that’s where it stays.”

Natelson adds that Chief Justice Roberts’ additional ruling that the forced Medicaid expansion in Obamacare violates state sovereignty “buttresses” his conclusion. “As in previous cases, the Court held that ‘commandeering’ infringes core state sovereignty. Infringing core state sovereignty violates the Necessary and Proper Clause because a federal law attacking core state sovereignty is not ‘proper.’ A federal statute dictating to state legislatures, judges, and juries how they manage lawsuits arising under their own state law is of that kind.”

And what of the section in the AHRA titled, “State Flexibility and Protection of States’ Rights?” Natelson dismisses the title as “misleading” and determines that, “In other words, a state may be ‘flexible’ if it does what Congress likes, but not what Congress doesn’t like.”

Robert Natelson joins fellow anti-Obamacare legal expert Prof. Randy Barnett, who said after the SCOTUS Obamacare ruling that, “I will help lead that challenge if ever enacted, and I think we would actually have an easier time defeating that than defeating the (Obamacare) mandate… In fact, this court would strike that down (referring to federal medmal limits)… I’ll be involved in the lawsuit.”

Republicans who oppose Obamacare and truly intend to uphold the original intent of the Constitution should heed Robert Natelson’s warning that they would be supporting an equally unconstitutional exercise of federal power over the states, and they should oppose the bill.

N.B. In recent months, supporters of federal limits on medical liability have pointed to a November 2012 paper written by Paul Clement, who presented the case against Obamacare before the Supreme Court, as proof that the federal liability limits are allowable under the Commerce Clause. However, in his paper Mr. Clement never discussed the impact of the Obamacare opinion on the issue of federal medical liability limits.

Senate GOP Jobs Plan Rewards ObamaCare Forces Crushes States Rights


The new Senate GOP jobs plan released yesterday by Senators John McCain and Rand Paul might spur economic growth if enacted, but it has one enormous and extremely serious flaw. It explicitly includes a section titled, “Medical Malpractice Reform (S. 197 – The Medical Care Access Protection Act),” abbreviated as the “MCAP Act.” That bill, introduced in January by Republican Senators, is very similar to H.R. 5, the House Republicans’ bill to impose federal limits on health care-related lawsuits, about which I’ve written often here. That bill has been frozen in the House, thanks to the Constitutional and political objections of many House Republicans. By referring to S. 197, the Senate GOP jobs plan would enact many of the goals set forth in H.R. 5.

For starters, the introduction in the MCAP Act states that “health care and insurance industries are industries affecting interstate commerce and the health care liability litigation systems existing throughout the United States are activities that affect interstate commerce.” So the Senate GOP would continue to accept the expansion of the reach of the Commerce Clause begun under Wickard v Filburn, the Supreme Court decision condemned by conservative legal experts such as Randy Barnett and Rob Natelson and by Tea Party-side politicians such as Sen. Paul. That expanded scope reached its most extreme in the enactment of ObamaCare. Professors Barnett, Natelson, and other conservative experts point out that neither “health care” nor “tort law” are among the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, and that expansion of federal law into those areas violates the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.

The MCAP Act crushes each state’s right to manage its own civil justice system with respect to any lawsuit related to health care (i.e., providers and insurance companies). It imposes, for the first time in American history, federal limits on certain damages to be awarded in a health care-related lawsuit filed in either federal or state court. It mandates a standard for the award of punitive damages in any health care-related lawsuit filed in any court in America. It establishes, in federal law, a rule to determine the proportionate fault of each party in any federal and state court hearing a health care-related lawsuit. In doing all this, the act, included in the Senate GOP jobs plan, forces a one-size fits-all legal system for these lawsuits on the states. It also abridges our right to a civil jury trial, protected in the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution and beloved by our Founding Fathers.

The MCAP Act explicitly limits an attorney’s fees to a decreasing percentage, based on the increasing value of the amount awarded. Here’s the scale set in the bill:

(1) 40% of the first $50,000 recovered in the lawsuit;

(2) 1/3 of the next $50,000 recovered;

(3) 25% of the next $500,000 recovered; and

(4) 15% of the amount of the recovery in excess of $600,000.

So the bill imposes federal wage controls on just one industry, lawyers who charge contingent fees, regardless of the amounts normally charged by an attorney in the normal course of his business. And the bill lets federal judges cut the contingent fees to be paid for any reason, with no real limit on a judge’s authority. No other profession in America – certainly not the medical profession – face a federal law mandating a specific wage scale. That is outright communism. And the bill changes other legal standards and mandates them across every courtroom hearing any health care-related lawsuit in America.

The House equivalent of the MCAP Act was roundly condemned by Professors Barnett, Natelson, and other conservative legal experts, including two who are highly critical of trial lawyers. All stated that a federal law limiting health care-related lawsuits violates the Constitution and subsumes states’ rights. Professor Barnett, one of the co-counsels in the anti-ObamaCare lawsuit which will probably be heard by the Supreme Court, called Republican backers of H.R. 5 “fair-weather federalists.” The Senate GOP intentionally ignored their warnings and endorsed a sweeping takeover of state health care and tort law and state courtrooms, relying on the same excessive interpretation of the Commerce Clause relied upon by Democrats in enacting ObamaCare.

But it gets worse. This portion of the Senate GOP jobs plan not only grants special legal protection to one industry above all others, but it benefits those medical associations which have endorsed and heavily lobbied for the enactment and implementation of ObamaCare.

That’s right: the Senate GOP caucus, including Rand Paul, is explicitly rewarding the AMA and those medical associations which were the co-conspirators in the enactment of ObamaCare, with its communist individual mandate to buy health insurance. Our Republican Senators are abandoning states’ rights and our right to seek a civil jury trial to protect the doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies who pushed for ObamaCare with the promise of millions of forced patients. They get special legal protection that they don’t deserve and benefiting no other industry or group in America.

We should be stunned, disappointed and angry that Senate Republicans, especially those Members supposedly pledging allegiance to the Tenth Amendment, trashed our rights and the Constitution to help ObamaCare’s backers. We should demand that they abandon that section of the jobs plan and pledge that it will never become law.