Oh I guess its great news that the GOP won in New Jersey & Virginia. I’m personally very disappointed that the Unions succeeded in using the GOP to hurt the only true American candidate in the race in NY-23 (the outcome of which should hence forth be know as Rino’s Revenge) [thanks Newt!]. But any GOP victory rings hollow for me if I know that the winners are no more than Rock-a-fellers who hope to more-competently over see the Fascistic welfare state and slow the inexorable progression of the death of freedom by government constriction. Any real victory can only come from the election of individuals who espouse the reversal of the totalitarian incramentalism. In truth, the tactical victory of defeating Obama Care is a vital first step and yesterdays wins are significant nails in the coffin of Obama’s surge of two-headed fascist monster - Heath Care “Reform” the Carbon Tax but….why elect Republicans just to slow fascism’s progress? Why can’t the citizen’s of the United States renew our constitutional vows by doing five things:
1) Re-Constitutionalize the Federal Government:
Even before the FDR’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court, American Fascists (they have since called themselves “progressives” [and later liberals] after the Austrian Corporal gave their ideas a bad name) had realized that the economic control they envisioned then (and have lately achieved) was patently unconstitutional as per the founder’s doctrine of a Government of Enumerated Powers. Thus in the 1930’s was born, in leftist circles, a counter-constitutional doctrine known then, and now, as a “living constitution” - which is to say no constitution, or at least no constitutional limits on the role of government. No limit in terms of economic, social, regulatory, and ultimately personal interference by governmental fiat. The only limits the left finds are the conflicting political constituencies which they seek to advance. This doctrine holds sway with most jurists on the federal bench today and with out doubt 100% for four of the current nine sitting supreme court justices, 50% with a fifth and in some ways even the “conservative” justices are influences by “a living constitution” in their acceptance of the status quo. What we as a country must achieve is total rejection of the idea of a “living constitution”. To this end we must create a legitimately constitutional government by re-establishing a match between contractually (constitutionally) authorized government activities and an acceptable redefined and limited governmental authority. Two things will need to be done; 1) we will likely need to expand the constitutionally authorized limits of government and 2) we will needs to circumscribe, reduce, and/or limit the government. A constitutional amendment process will be needed for the first and a legislatively redefined federal government will be required for the second. This would perhaps entail reducing the size and scope of the executive departments by 50% of non-defense spending and eliminate or devolve to the States those functions or programs not explicitly authorized by a new constitutional amendment.
2) Create Structures which make expanding federal government power very difficult.
Included in a constitutional amendment we will need to build mechanisms which reverse the current power and authority of the government to tax, borrow and spend. The exact mechanisms can take many forms and may be best proposed by individuals intimate to the legislative process but a few ideas could include; 1) a 66% supermajority in the House for all spending/taxes and a 75% supermajority for new spending/taxes, 2) term limits for the House, 6 or 8 years, and two terms in the Senate, 3) a 75% supermajority in both houses to raise the debt limit subject to a Presidential veto with unanimity required for an override, 4) a debt limit set at a fixed percentage of GDP (at about a tenth of the current level), 5) narrowly defined exceptions to these limits for only a declared war, 6) sever limits on rights-of-action and other tort reforms to prevent the courts form being a bulwark against freedom from government domination. Once redefined and circumscribed the federal government’s power must have superior checks than those which have plainly proved to be inadequate in limiting the authorities and power of the federal government.
3) De-couple votes and other people’s money.
Various great philosophers including John Stewart Mill and Thomas Jefferson recognized that once people realize that their votes can put other people’s money in their pockets – then democratic government is on a path to ruin. Its hard to think of a more succinct description of the modern Democratic party than “a collection of political figures who promise other peoples money in exchange for votes” [Remember Maxine Waters getting a four-hundred-dollar check for each of her California constituents as the price for her vote for Hurricane Katrina relief?] Major reforms must be undertaken to break this connection. It can be done from the voting side – say for example that no one receiving a net government benefit in the year preceding an election can vote. Thereby no government employee, contractor, or beneficiary can vote. Got an earned income tax credit ? no vote, volunteered for the military ? no vote, Federal state or local government employee ? no vote, Food stamps?, WIC?, SSI income? No vote. Working on a government contract? No vote. Military conscript? Yes vote. Receiving social security retirement benefit after putting in your share? Yes vote. Forced onto Medicare? Yes vote. People who receive a net government benefit should not be electing politicians who can extend or increase that benefit. To this end people working for non-profits that receive government grants should also be also be excluded from voting including academics who work on government grants or for state schools or even private schools which operate off of a plurality of government tax relief and direct subsidies – oh yes, and all of those students getting government grants and/or free rides from government supported colleges- no vote. In this way the industry of trading political favors for vote dries up and incentives for the political class are reversed form the current circumstance which richly rewards taking more and more of other people’s money. [This is why Democrats and Republicans seem so similar once in power – the primary way to remain in power is to “bring home bacon” – other people’s bacon that is]
4) Defund or outlaw the political forces which live off the government.
Once organized, people find that politics is a far easier way to make a living than work. Think of the teacher’s unions. For a time Rush Limbaugh played a game on his show in which he asked callers to answer questions from an 1880’s 8th grade graduation exam. The Gilded Age students, [then 13 and many destined to never see the inside of school again] were required to do complex algebra, know the major events of world history including dates, names, places and reasons for those events, know details of world geography, spell and translate Latin words or phrases, know zoological and biological facts and terms – in short these kids were required to have serious knowledge, skills and abilities (including serious handwriting skill). The level of discipline and knowledge required to pass those exams was clearly head and shoulders beyond today’s typical American High School graduate much less an 8th graders but they didn’t even have a computer or a guidance councilor ! Its well known that the Socialistic Aptitude Tests (SATs) have been dumbed-down year-in-year-out since the 1950’s and yet the scores are still weak. All this while, local, state, and most importantly, Federal spending on “education” has soared. How can it be that the more money we spend on “education” the worse the results? The fact is that the “education establishment” is not an institution dedicated to teaching knowledge, skills and abilities but rather is dedicated to preserving and expanding its own power and to that end its control of money and political power. The NEA and AFT are two of the most partisan and hyper-political special interest unions in American politics, and they’re very effective at what they do – because what they do is trade votes for money - not educate children. SEIU, AFSCME, and a host of local and state government employee unions are the backbone of the Democrats’ power base for which they receive support and then give generous contracts from which the Unions extract union dues, from which they then provide money to their political patrons, who use their elected positions to get more money to the unions – on and on. To break this cycle we should simply acknowledge where this vicious circle has lead us – bankruptcy. Bankruptcy in California, bankruptcy in New York and ultimately bankruptcy nationally. Outlaw them. That’s it. Simply disallow government employees to organize. No dues, no political machine. No political machine, no bloated/padded contracts and no organization dedicated to politics rather than working, teaching, collecting the trash (whatever). And the unions are just the tip of the ice-burg because if you scratch the surface you’ll discover that virtually every federally funded charity, non-profit “research” organization, civil rights organization, “human” rights organization, etc…etc…etc… are all Democrat party adjuncts which work for and fund the party - all with and for other people’s money. Cut the funds off and/or cut off their opportunity to vote.
5) Educate the next generation.
Stating in grade school, American children should be made aware of how the American Constitution represents a unique break with human history. The lives and characters of the founding fathers should be standard fare and known to school children who today cannot identify them by name. In middle school students should be required to have knowledge of Ancient and European history as prologue to American History. In high school America’s unique place in history, its founding, expansion, Civil War, growth, European entanglements and an accurate recitation of the expansion and infiltration of collectivism in its various ideologies such as Wilson & FDR’s Fascism, welfare state socialism and it costs and failures. American students should be familiar with WW II and the post war institutions, the cold war capitalism vs. communism, Korea & Viet Nam (the true history and nature of communism) and of America’s sacrifice to hold back totalitarianism. On the college level, institutions which support anti-American professors and anti-American academic departments should be free to preach their ideas – free of tax payer subsidies, free of tax exemptions, free of government guaranteed loans for students, free of government grants, etc.. College level core liberal arts should include serious studies of the American founding, its natural rights foundation, its English law foundation and the original text and intent of the constitution and its debasement in the 20th century.
Armed with knowledge of history, the Constitution’s philosophical, legal, and historic foundation students could function as informed citizens – a distinct disadvantage to charlatan politicians.
Making Elections Count
These objectives would reverse the progress and power of the socialist perversions of the US Constitution and the gross overreaching of federal power in scope and magnitude. Further, it would insulate a-new the rights and freedoms of American citizens. The congress has proven beyond debate to have slipped the bounds of the Constitution must be reconstituted as a less powerful and more restrained institution. Further, the culture of collectivism as a force for moral good should be debunked and its sundry themes of group identity politics (race, gender, class) and economic rectitude must be exposed as the frauds they are. Until candidates espouse themes along these lines - to reverse socialism and re-asset limited government, not to manage it - then victories such as yesterdays remain mildly positive but somewhat pointless.
Late word is that house Democrats just can’t help themselves and their insatiable appetite to wallow in their self ascribed moral superiority. Their latest vanity is to demand that Joe Wilson apologize on the House floor. OK. Joe should do as they request. He should take to the floor – TV cameras running - and catalog all of Obama’s lies citing page, paragraph and sentence for proof of each Presidential lie as presented in Obama’s 9/9/09 address to Congress viewers at home. Mr. Wilson should start with a count of the number of times Obama referred to “my proposal” or “my plan” or “my program” as in fact no such proposal, plan or program exists – none, nadda, zip, zero, - only HR 3200 and four Senate Bills, and the text of Senate bills have not been made public. When the good Mr. Wilson is finished with all of the other lies, he should detail the illegal alien issue, including suggesting that Obama may have been engaged in a Harvard lawyer’s version of the truth by assuming that the Democrats will be able to pass an amnesty bill before Obama-Care goes into effect making the currently illegal aliens, legal (and registered to vote Democrat) and thus Obama was (in his own mind) not lying last Wednesday when saying that “no illegal’s will receive benefits under the plan”.
It’s safe to assume that long before Joe gets to that illegal alien part the Dems will have ordered the cameras shut off – he’d better bring his own. In fact he might just set up a studio with a big background picture that mimics the House well (over at Heritage or some such friendly venue) and have his version in the can so he can release it when Pelosi cuts off the cameras. This truly could be a “teachable moment” and fun too.
TDZ
Rep. Joe Wilson’s calling out of PeBO (President Barack Obama) “You Lie” caused shock and embarrassment to virtually all attendees in last nights joint session of Congress. The embarrassment was based on two things; 1) members of Congress necessarily accepts lies form the each-other because business couldn’t be conducted if the truth or fallacy of every smarmy twisted political posture were worked-out as they are spewed and, 2) Wilson stopped pretending, just for a moment, that Emperor Barack Obama has clothes – tisk-tisk. What passes for positions or arguments from the left in this county, and currently form the most left-wing chief executive of a major power since Woodrow Wilson, are indeed the most audacious spew of naked lies ever uttered by a person judged to be sane. Poor Joe Wilson couldn’t contain himself while America burns (or rather while the Emperor PeBO lays the plans to burn America to the ground). So all those “good” Republicans like Jonney McLaim and Lindsey Gramnisty as well as the noble Ms. Pelosi were shocked, SHOCKED ! that a tiny corner of the veil of decorum was lifted. Does this remind you of anything? Isn’t this the same response that the elected left and their unelected allies in the media have been saying about the Town Hall terrorists! The rouges who won’t let the learned rulers (oops) leaders “explain” how H.R. 3200; 1) will let you keep your insurance (it won’t), 2) won’t cover illegal aliens (it will), 3) won’t tell older Americans that its time to check-out because “We have a government payroll to meet!” (it will) etc…etc…etc… . The acknowledgement of these open lies is where the embracement is most painful. The Democrats have for years advocated all of these positions. Tom Daschle’s book, Ezekiel Emanuel’s article in The Lancet (from way back in January of 2009) and many white papers, articles, speeches have advocated the planks of the H.R. 3200 which PeBO is now at pains to deny. In a way that’s the good news – that they have to deny the legislative facts of their long standing and oft stated goals. God forbid anyone acknowledge the left’s lies, and worse by far, call out the Saint of ACORN, a black man no less (being black also confers instant credentials as a Saint if you’re a lefty (and devil if you’re not) - how could anyone not see that PeBO is thus by definition incapable of telling an untruth? Rep. Wilson what’s wrong with you – the horror! Well here’s another example of how in today’s America being correct, being right, is just no excuse!
As the Democrats are grasping at the straw of righteous indignation over Mr. Wilson’s “no clothes” moment they’ll be missing the point as usual – well they’ll be avoiding the point as usual, because the point is, Mr. Wilson was correct.
For some months during the recent and ongoing battle over the Democrats’ attempt to impose (on an unwilling America public) leftist nostrums under the guise of “Heath Care” reform [ oops – repackaged as “Health Insurance” reform but, in-fact socialized medicine] one thing has been missing from the debate – a clear and identifiable alternative. Granted the Obama White House has done its level best to obfuscate, blur and flat out lie about what it intends, but conservatives have a distinct advantage; we can tell the truth about what we would like, and a distinct disadvantage; our ideas are, like the panoply of realities suggested by the catchall phrase “Health Care” - our ideas are complicated and difficult to explain to a public “educated” by government schools and the MSM. What conservatives and Republicans could really use (in my non-humble opinion) is a short, crisp, memorable catch-phrase which sums up the anti-socialist position for improving or reforming the delivery of medical care in the United States…and here it is; TORT, PORT & SAVE. By which I mean:
1) Tort reform: limiting the rights-of-action of the class action bar, limiting medical mal practice awards and penalizing the practice and pattern of threatening and filling law suits for fun and (mostly) profit.
2) Portability: removing the myriad government restrictions on how individuals purchase health insurance (across state lines and by groups, etc..) including removing state mandates.
3) Save: Medical Savings Accounts which work wonders by transforming consumers from behaving like collage kids with daddy’s credit card, to working people who realize that the money they spend on medical care (or save) is their own.
These three planks do not represent all of the useful or important ideas regarding the reform of the market for medical care, but they do represent three enormous positive steps which will empower individuals, reduce costs and insulate our country form a socialist power grab. Far more can, and should, be said about each of these three planks of a “Health Care” reform package but, for hear & now, the utility is to define the debate as not just anti-socialized- medicine but in favor of TORT, PORT & SAVE. America, I give a rallying cry, a stance, a thing to be for, a rolled-up newspaper to shove in the mouth of MSM attack dogs, a baseball bat to take to Nancy, Harry & BO, an affirmative alternative to death panels and mandated government control of medical care. TORT, PORT & SAVE – pass it on!
SmallGovTimes.com referenced articles on the FIVE FREEDOMS YOU WILL LOSE (under Obama Care); one reader concluded his comments with this:
The Times in a July 7 editorial argued “As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients,” Thus the remaining $239 billions over a decade do not matter.
No one can disagree with this best outcome / evidence-based system, and private insurance, too, will be greatly influenced by this change with the focus on value over volume. !
Dr. Armadio at Mayo clinic says, “If we got rid of that stuff, we save a third of all that we spend and that is 2.5 trillion dollars on health care. A third of that and that is 700 billion dollars a year. That covers a lot of uninsured people.”
Todd Zirkle Replies:
The comment above seems to be parallel to most suppositions put forward by those advocating socialism as the solution - they first miss-state the existing circumstances and then prescribe bigger, more centralized control as the “solution”.
For example: Medicare has a budget of about $450 billion but it actually costs closer to $600-to-$650 billion - how could that be ? (glad you asked).
To make the math easier we’ll assume that the US annual health-care budget equals $100 and of that Medicare equals $20 annually. Because the government tells doctors, hospitals, drug companies etc (I’ll call then the ” vendors”) that the Government will pay $20 for Medicare’s required services and no more, and because in fact those services cost the “vendors” about $27, the “vendors” pad the bills of the other private clients spreading the additional $7 over the remaining 80% of health-care bills. This cost-shifting is well known and not disputed.
The house and senate bills both create a “public option” (which is anything but optional). The Lewin Group, GAO, Heritage, Brookings and a simple reading of the many provisions show that the proposed bills (House and Senate) will force people into the “Govt. Option” to the magnitude of about 150-to-200 million people in five years. [By-the-way, none of these people forced into the “Option” will include current or former members of congress.] Included in the Democrat’s talking points is the concept that once created, the Government Plan will dictate the prices and thereby achieve the savings. Presumably these are the savings referenced in the comments above.
Two problems:
#1) Despite wishful thinking to the contrary, congress cannot outlaw gravity or dictate a reduction in COSTS. It can, and does, dictate a reduction in PRICES for Medicare services which results in cost-shifting. Thinking of my example above; $7 of the $27 Medicare portion of America’s annual health bill is shifted to the other 80% (mostly) private customers. But what happens when the 20% of the pie (Medicare’s approximate share) becomes an 80% share and the same percentage of cost shifting is needed to keep the lights-on in the hospitals, the doctors on staff and the prescriptions filled? Can we now shift the additional $28 over the last 20% (a 140% cost increase for that last, still private, group)? I don’t think so. To whom would we shift the costs? I don’t think the Chinese would be willing and there’s nobody else left to fleece.[1] What happens in all other socialized systems is that when the Government cannot shift costs, it limits care. We know that the vast majority of health-care spending is done for the benefit of 5% of the population, most of which is at or near the end of life. If you read the writings of Tom Daschle or Ezekiel Emanuel (Rom Emanuel’s brother) and other big-wig insiders, this is where they intend to “pay-for” their plan or “find the savings”. In other words a government committee will hand-out death sentences to middle-class Americans so that their tax dollars can “insure the uninsured” including approximately 12-to-15 million citizens of foreign countries, who just happen to be likely Democrat voters - are we getting the picture now?
#2) The Obama White House and various members of congress have floated the notion that the all powerful government authority will dictate a reduction in costs by eliminating unnecessary tests and other redundancies. This a 100% commitment to the efficiency of central planning. Now seriously, friends, fellow countryman, please - do you honestly believe that a centrally planned system can be more efficient that a bottom-up semi-free market system for proving anything, much less a basic and astronomically complex need such as health care for 200 million people? Apparently the Democrat members of Congress don’t think so, because they defeated an amendment which would require them and their families to be in the “Public Option”. Well if it ain’t good enough for them, is it good enough for your family? your kids? your parents? This explains why the White House strategy for heath care legislation has been – “Pass it quick – before they know what’s in it.
A third, but by no means minor, point: If Medicare contains a latent $100 million in savings, why hasn’t somebody just gone ahead and saved the money by canceling those unnecessary tests, unneeded procedures, overpriced drugs or whatever? If the NY Times, Dr. Armadio, you (dear writer) are aware of this $100 million lying around, don’t other people know about it, and if they do, why haven’t they issued the order to just save the money? It’s very easy to estimate a macro value for savings and I have 100% confidence that you are correct in suggesting that significant inefficiencies exit, but if they were so easy to identify then someone would have found them already. By the way; a corollary - if inefficiencies (or systemic fraud & abuse) exist in Medicare, would it not follow that by magnifying Medicare one would also magnify these problems? Would not a “Public Option” be proportionately worse in terms of unnecessary tests, unneeded procedures, overpriced drugs or whatever?
One key driver of unnecessary tests is “defensive medicine”, the practice of doctors thinking of legal liability as a basis for ordering tests and not medical indications. Those advocating a “Public Option” tend to suggest that an all powerful government health care giant will not be forced to make such defensive choices. It should be remembered that one very closest allies of the White House, and the House & Senate Democrat leadership, is the trial lawyers. Do you think that the lawyers will write themselves out business by this legislation? A central premise of the legislation is that all citizens are entitled to health care – hence any denial, big or small, will be the basis for litigation against the government. Remember the “Super-Fund” created to clean-up toxic waste sites? Do you recall what the lawyers did with that one? Something like 70% of the fund went to litigation (to the lawyers) without any actual clean-up being done. The same thing happens with federal law for education, disabilities, electoral reform, urban renewal - you name it – in other words the lawyers will be in thick-as-thieves with the new health care mandate and the imagined “savings” for a reduction in litigation costs (and defensive medicine) will never materialize and may well be the opposite of “savings”.
Get real – Obama care is a train wreck!
Under the tile “Honduras Defends Its Democracy; Fidel Castro and Hillary Clinton object.” Mary Anastasia O’Grady tells the real story behind the Honduran “Military Coup”. O’Grady details how the democratically elected President Zelaya has tried to subvert the Honduran Constitution with the help of Hugo Chavez and the encouragement of other Central-, South- and North-American leftists. The complete text of the article can be found at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html
Check it out to find the truth which is 180° from the message the MSM & anti-democratic leftist Obama campaign are pitching. Sec. Clinton is supporting communist subversion over democratic government – [and you wondered why Obama couldn’t quite bring himself to criticize the Iranian crackdown on democratic forces inside Iran or openly support the principal of popular rule and political rights in the Iranian election protests!]
Kudos & congratulations to the WSJ & Mary O’Grady for undoing the story that the MSM is trying sell to the American public.
Did you notice that after resisting the repayment of TARP funds that the Obama campaign (not “administration” as there is none, just the endless Obama Campaign Against America) started boasting that it was going to accept about $68 billion in TARP repayment and that the government would be “making a profit” on the repayment - leave it to a socialist using OPM (other people’s money) to put out $700 billion, get back $68 billion, and declare a profit! Would somebody please tell the tel-a-prompter that the first dollar of profit is at least $602 billion away - please!
I watched “Taken” with my wife last night. The story line, if you haven’t seen this movie, goes like this;
Liam Neeson, a retired government agent, is the ex husband of Lenore who has remarried an evidently fabulously wealthy man who has in turn given his step daughter everything Neesom has been unable to. The somewhat spoiled 17 year old daughter wants to go to Europe for the summer with her 19 year old girlfriend to follow U2.
She secured her father’s permission under three conditions. Namely, that he is told where and with whom she is staying at all times, and that she calls him every night.
In order to get everything into a 90 minute movie the first 30 minutes covers a lot of territory. No sooner are the girls dropped off by a young man (he’s in on the scheme) they met at the airport than a group of Albanian thugs show up and kidnap them. They do this while Neeson is on the phone with his daughter. He is able to record the call and have his buddies in the government analyze the tape. He heads off for Paris.
After assessing the situation the action begins.
I don’t want to give away the whole story. I’m looking to make a point. This movie can be used as an analogy. Early on in the movie Neeson finds out that his daughter was taken, not for ransom, but, for the white slave sex trade. He also finds out that the chances of finding her after 96 hours are all but nil.
Neeson decides that he will do anything he has to in order to save his daughter. He will use all of his skills to find his daughter. He will beat, kill, torture, and lie among other things to save her from those who will sell her and those who will rape her until they tire of her and then most surely kill her.
So on to the analogy. You know that a terrorist attack in being planned for four days from now. If you don’t stop it by then, it will happen and people will die (perhaps your own children and retainly someone’s children) What do you do? To what actions will you resort?
Don’t even think about the analogy. Put yourself into the shoes of Neeson, or of his ex-wife who simply says “bring my baby back.”
The point of this post is simple. Are the actions taken by Neeson’s character so out of line? Is there anyone who would not take the same action’s were it their child?
Is it that far of a stretch to understand? Is it that far of a stretch to understand the mildly uncomfortable steps taken by our government constitutes nothing close to torture? If that is all our trained intelligence organizations need to do to get vital information shouldn’t we be congratulating them for their restraint?
Our contemporary American culture is made up today of millions of mothers who sacrifice everything, sometimes even common sense to “protect” their children. They do so sometimes, when there is no danger, to the detriment of those children.
But in our world the danger is real. Thousands are being brainwashed into believing that the way to paradise is by killing the non-believer. I think our policy toward the terrorists who are trying to kill us should be something like this: What would (or should) a parent do?
