Let’s take a look at the politics of the federal health care debate:
Big Joe the Stud and little Mary Cheerleader are on their first date. Joe decides they are going to have wild passionate sex so he asks Mary if she prefers the backseat or outside on a blanket. “Whoa” says Mary, “We are NOT going to have sex!”
That’s when Joe found out that Mary was the party of “No”; did not support bi-partisan solutions; had no realistic counter proposals on how they were to have sex; and was no more than an obstructionist.
Just like the federal health care debate, the one with no dog in the hunt beyond getting the benefits are all in favor of the plan they proposed, while the one who is paying the price is offered only the prospect of getting raped.
That’s why we arm our daughters and teach them how to shoot; and THAT is why we have the 2nd Amendment.
The proposed presidential health care summit is to discuss implementation of a proposal that violates the limits of authority of the federal government. The president may think that this is "fundamentally transforming the USA", but according to the COTUS, usurping powers not delegated constitutes treason.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
The fallacy of the health care summit
Response to EJ Dionne's Dems Can't Give Up on Health Reform
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/22/dems_cant_give_up_on_health_reform.html
President Obama is trying very hard to shape HC reform as a compromise between the horrendous House bill and the scabby Senate bill, bypassing the most important issue of all: that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to mandate health care insurance on Sovereign Citizens.
To suggest that “the House and Senate have worked for a year to pass quite similar bills” is an absurdity of the first order. These abominations haven’t been crafted by our elected officials; they have been crafted by 3000 lobbyists. They haven’t been thoughtfully considered and openly debated by our representatives; they have been kluged together behind closed doors by a handful of Democrat congressional “leaders”. It appears that our representatives have not read, and do not understand what it is that they have actually voted to approve so hastily and surreptitiously.
If any legislation comes out of this “summit” it will be a travesty against the Constitution and the Sovereignty of American Citizens, unless it is legislation that eliminates once and for all any discussion of federally mandated health care or insurance.
Dionne, if you would take 30 minutes to read the Constitution, you would learn that elections don’t have nearly the consequences that you apparently presume. According to the COTUS, we elect a federal government to fulfill Constitutionally enumerated responsibilities, and to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS’: only this and nothing more. There is no legal entity of “popular mandate” or “political mandate” in our Constitutional Republic.
According to the oath of office that every federal officer is obligated to swear before being endowed with any federal authority, every one of them should be objecting to this un-Constitutional garbage that this administration is attempting to force on the American people. Those that aren’t objecting should be removed from office for violating their solemn oath of office.
The ‘establishment media’ long ago abdicated their essential responsibility to honestly inform the American voter. If they were doing their job they would be comparing the health care bills line by line with the enumerated responsibilities and authorities delineated in the COTUS, noting that the president, and the Congress are attempting to usurp powers never granted to them by the COTUS: and that is the definition of treason.
The real opportunity of this summit is to demonstrate to the American people if this Congress has the integrity and determination to fulfill their sacred duty; or if they are no more than harlots selling their vote to the highest bidder. There is little reason for optimism that this will be anything more than cheap political theater, orchestrated by this most partisan president, because that is all that he knows how to do. That is after all the role of the Community Organizer.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/22/dems_cant_give_up_on_health_reform.html
President Obama is trying very hard to shape HC reform as a compromise between the horrendous House bill and the scabby Senate bill, bypassing the most important issue of all: that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to mandate health care insurance on Sovereign Citizens.
To suggest that “the House and Senate have worked for a year to pass quite similar bills” is an absurdity of the first order. These abominations haven’t been crafted by our elected officials; they have been crafted by 3000 lobbyists. They haven’t been thoughtfully considered and openly debated by our representatives; they have been kluged together behind closed doors by a handful of Democrat congressional “leaders”. It appears that our representatives have not read, and do not understand what it is that they have actually voted to approve so hastily and surreptitiously.
If any legislation comes out of this “summit” it will be a travesty against the Constitution and the Sovereignty of American Citizens, unless it is legislation that eliminates once and for all any discussion of federally mandated health care or insurance.
Dionne, if you would take 30 minutes to read the Constitution, you would learn that elections don’t have nearly the consequences that you apparently presume. According to the COTUS, we elect a federal government to fulfill Constitutionally enumerated responsibilities, and to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS’: only this and nothing more. There is no legal entity of “popular mandate” or “political mandate” in our Constitutional Republic.
According to the oath of office that every federal officer is obligated to swear before being endowed with any federal authority, every one of them should be objecting to this un-Constitutional garbage that this administration is attempting to force on the American people. Those that aren’t objecting should be removed from office for violating their solemn oath of office.
The ‘establishment media’ long ago abdicated their essential responsibility to honestly inform the American voter. If they were doing their job they would be comparing the health care bills line by line with the enumerated responsibilities and authorities delineated in the COTUS, noting that the president, and the Congress are attempting to usurp powers never granted to them by the COTUS: and that is the definition of treason.
The real opportunity of this summit is to demonstrate to the American people if this Congress has the integrity and determination to fulfill their sacred duty; or if they are no more than harlots selling their vote to the highest bidder. There is little reason for optimism that this will be anything more than cheap political theater, orchestrated by this most partisan president, because that is all that he knows how to do. That is after all the role of the Community Organizer.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Stimulate Economy with the Fair Tax
Let’s talk about the Stimulus: you know, that $650 Billion program to keep unemployment below 8% for which the Congress charged us an additional $150 Billion in ear-mark pork for the pleasure of passing it last year.
The Stimulus was focused on saving the non-jobs in the economy: those that consume revenue not create it: state, local, and federal government jobs, including teachers at all levels. It has done nothing to create self-sustaining, revenue producing jobs.
In the act of creating $800 Billion in new debt, the Stimulus is highly counter-productive by ultimately consuming revenue that could have been better applied to sustaining and growing the free market; and by contributing to future inflation (since this debt was monetized by printing worthless currency to buy Treasury bonds that wouldn’t sell in the free market).
Admittedly, the government jobs sustained by the Stimulus didn’t disappear, so there are still families getting paychecks that can’t be sustained without additional government intervention. At best this is a delaying action, not a solution because these jobs are funded by debt that will have to be repaid. When the debt is repaid it will be with dollars withdrawn from the economy that would be better spent expanding the economy. Claiming these as “jobs saved” is duplicitous at best because they are not sustainable jobs. They are more truthfully described as “unsustainable jobs temporarily retained at great taxpayer expense”.
People out of work don’t pay withholding taxes. People who have lost their homes don’t pay property taxes. People without income don’t buy products and services and therefore those who provide products and services don’t buy raw materials, inventory, or pay for labor. As a result, revenue for government entities at the local, state, and federal level are going to be down dramatically.
Every penny that the federal government spends to keep these jobs going artificially makes the long-term problem worse, not better. Of course to look at the timing of the Stimulus spending it is clear that it’s primary purpose was to make the economy look as promising as possible just ahead of the mid-term elections, with 80% of the Stimulus funding scheduled to be spent, not in 2008 or 2009, but in 2010. The administration admitted in 2009 that all the jobs to be created by the Stimulus were already created when less than 15% of the Stimulus had been spent.
Without growth in private sector employment, the government jobs have to disappear eventually as there will be no revenue to fund them; and no saleable debt to continue to sustain them. If the private sector economy has contracted up to 40%, it is simply a matter of time before the government sector has to contract comparably. If the federal government continues to monetize the debt created to fund these bogus stimuli plans, inflation will cripple what is left of the US economy.
It didn’t get too much press, but the Christmas panty-bomber incident impacted the missions of 69 overlapping federal agencies and organizations: none of which appear to communicate with one another sufficiently to protect Americans. Arguably we can expect similar overlap and duplication in all government functions because unlike the private sector, government has never been forced to justify it’s staffing, resource utilization, or existence by competition or value delivered to consumers. As revenues disappear, this will have to change. Imagine the total savings in tax dollars if such duplication and waste is eliminated. With so much waste, the president’s demand that his department heads reduce operation expenses by 3% was farcical.
The “Stimulus” does nothing to improve the efficiency or effectiveness of government; it merely sustains it. Rather than being called a ‘stimulus’ this should rightly be called a “Government job Sustenance” program. The major problem is that as government revenues continue to decline, these jobs are going to have to be reconciled against available revenue and in the absence of any real stimulus to the private sector, there will not be sufficient private sector jobs to assimilate or compensate for lost government jobs.
Earlier this month the federal government admitted to under-counting lost jobs in 2009 by nearly 1 million! In addition they admit that they have no rational way to count how many unemployed have dropped off the unemployment roles as they have exhausted their unemployment benefits; nor to count how many have simply given up looking for jobs that don’t exist; nor to count how many are working part-time jobs because full time employment opportunities are not available. Despite these caveats, they have the audacity to claim that unemployment dropped from almost 11% to nearly 10% and to claim that we are pulling out of the recession. This is the closest practical definition of “Audacity of Hope” so far: the hope that no one will call them on their complete misrepresentation of unemployment data.
Competition is the wicked mistress that keeps the free market lean and mean. It keeps the products and services continually improving and it keeps the market prices continually reducing as competitors constantly look for better methods in order to corral customers for themselves from whomever has them to start with. As soon as government gets involved in the process competition goes out the window in direct proportion to campaign contributions to the key government decision maker(s). A prime example is military spending for weapons the military says they don’t want that get funded anyway because they come from the Appropriations Committee Chairman’s district, or one of their major political campaign contributors. There are as many examples as there are Congressmen.
Our Founding Fathers understood the danger of giving government control of taxation. That’s why they denied the federal government any authority to directly tax Citizens. This safeguard was circumvented by the 16th Amendment and should be rectified by repealing this Amendment in conjunction with the implementation of the Fair Tax.
The Fair Tax represents the best opportunity to actually stimulate the free market, encourage domestic manufacturing, expand the tax base, recover trillions of dollars sheltered off-shore and force Congress to live within their means while freeing billions of dollars of revenue currently wasted in tax preparation and reporting expense that is better applied to expanding the economy.
If we really want to stimulate the US economy, minimize federal government control of the economy wherever possible; repeal the un-implemented Stimulus; repeal the 16th Amendment; implement the Fair Tax then sit back and watch the economy grow back to health.
The Stimulus was focused on saving the non-jobs in the economy: those that consume revenue not create it: state, local, and federal government jobs, including teachers at all levels. It has done nothing to create self-sustaining, revenue producing jobs.
In the act of creating $800 Billion in new debt, the Stimulus is highly counter-productive by ultimately consuming revenue that could have been better applied to sustaining and growing the free market; and by contributing to future inflation (since this debt was monetized by printing worthless currency to buy Treasury bonds that wouldn’t sell in the free market).
Admittedly, the government jobs sustained by the Stimulus didn’t disappear, so there are still families getting paychecks that can’t be sustained without additional government intervention. At best this is a delaying action, not a solution because these jobs are funded by debt that will have to be repaid. When the debt is repaid it will be with dollars withdrawn from the economy that would be better spent expanding the economy. Claiming these as “jobs saved” is duplicitous at best because they are not sustainable jobs. They are more truthfully described as “unsustainable jobs temporarily retained at great taxpayer expense”.
People out of work don’t pay withholding taxes. People who have lost their homes don’t pay property taxes. People without income don’t buy products and services and therefore those who provide products and services don’t buy raw materials, inventory, or pay for labor. As a result, revenue for government entities at the local, state, and federal level are going to be down dramatically.
Every penny that the federal government spends to keep these jobs going artificially makes the long-term problem worse, not better. Of course to look at the timing of the Stimulus spending it is clear that it’s primary purpose was to make the economy look as promising as possible just ahead of the mid-term elections, with 80% of the Stimulus funding scheduled to be spent, not in 2008 or 2009, but in 2010. The administration admitted in 2009 that all the jobs to be created by the Stimulus were already created when less than 15% of the Stimulus had been spent.
Without growth in private sector employment, the government jobs have to disappear eventually as there will be no revenue to fund them; and no saleable debt to continue to sustain them. If the private sector economy has contracted up to 40%, it is simply a matter of time before the government sector has to contract comparably. If the federal government continues to monetize the debt created to fund these bogus stimuli plans, inflation will cripple what is left of the US economy.
It didn’t get too much press, but the Christmas panty-bomber incident impacted the missions of 69 overlapping federal agencies and organizations: none of which appear to communicate with one another sufficiently to protect Americans. Arguably we can expect similar overlap and duplication in all government functions because unlike the private sector, government has never been forced to justify it’s staffing, resource utilization, or existence by competition or value delivered to consumers. As revenues disappear, this will have to change. Imagine the total savings in tax dollars if such duplication and waste is eliminated. With so much waste, the president’s demand that his department heads reduce operation expenses by 3% was farcical.
The “Stimulus” does nothing to improve the efficiency or effectiveness of government; it merely sustains it. Rather than being called a ‘stimulus’ this should rightly be called a “Government job Sustenance” program. The major problem is that as government revenues continue to decline, these jobs are going to have to be reconciled against available revenue and in the absence of any real stimulus to the private sector, there will not be sufficient private sector jobs to assimilate or compensate for lost government jobs.
Earlier this month the federal government admitted to under-counting lost jobs in 2009 by nearly 1 million! In addition they admit that they have no rational way to count how many unemployed have dropped off the unemployment roles as they have exhausted their unemployment benefits; nor to count how many have simply given up looking for jobs that don’t exist; nor to count how many are working part-time jobs because full time employment opportunities are not available. Despite these caveats, they have the audacity to claim that unemployment dropped from almost 11% to nearly 10% and to claim that we are pulling out of the recession. This is the closest practical definition of “Audacity of Hope” so far: the hope that no one will call them on their complete misrepresentation of unemployment data.
Competition is the wicked mistress that keeps the free market lean and mean. It keeps the products and services continually improving and it keeps the market prices continually reducing as competitors constantly look for better methods in order to corral customers for themselves from whomever has them to start with. As soon as government gets involved in the process competition goes out the window in direct proportion to campaign contributions to the key government decision maker(s). A prime example is military spending for weapons the military says they don’t want that get funded anyway because they come from the Appropriations Committee Chairman’s district, or one of their major political campaign contributors. There are as many examples as there are Congressmen.
Our Founding Fathers understood the danger of giving government control of taxation. That’s why they denied the federal government any authority to directly tax Citizens. This safeguard was circumvented by the 16th Amendment and should be rectified by repealing this Amendment in conjunction with the implementation of the Fair Tax.
The Fair Tax represents the best opportunity to actually stimulate the free market, encourage domestic manufacturing, expand the tax base, recover trillions of dollars sheltered off-shore and force Congress to live within their means while freeing billions of dollars of revenue currently wasted in tax preparation and reporting expense that is better applied to expanding the economy.
If we really want to stimulate the US economy, minimize federal government control of the economy wherever possible; repeal the un-implemented Stimulus; repeal the 16th Amendment; implement the Fair Tax then sit back and watch the economy grow back to health.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Palin sides with the Constitution
In response to:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/09/myth-alaska/1#commentform Myth Alaska
Sarah Palin bounces a reality check. Nick Gillespie from the March 2010 issue Reason.com
Sarah Palin is Everyman to Americans who are sick and tired of Ivy League elitists who harbor nothing but contempt for America, Americans, and the Constitution; to Americans who are sick and tired of being told what to think and how to act by blood-sucking leaches who have never ventured from their ivory tower fantasy world where they hold absolute sway over emerging teens while cocooning in their tenured shells free from the pressures of real competition in making a living (more often than not on the backs of taxpayer subsidies for education and ‘research’).
We understand that when these blockheads ridicule Palin, they are ridiculing the rest of us who believe in America, hold traditional values, and honor our Constitution. It is precisely the attitude that we are “angry people clinging to their guns and religion; prejudiced against people who don’t look like them” that drives us mad.
Everyday Americans don’t care what someone looks like; we only care about how they behave. Legal immigrants have always taken a beating until they adopt American values; at which point they are free to bash others until they in turn adopt American values. We don’t care about “the color of their skin, only the content of their character”.
It is the elitists who search for any characteristic to claim superiority over others. Most Americans resent those who claim special privilege because of race, creed, sexual orientation, gender, or national origin because we believe in equal opportunity and we believe in equal justice: we believe “…that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”
When elected officials violate the Constitution, we get angry: although for the past generation or two we haven’t been getting angry enough. That appears to be changing for the better.
As for Palin’s resignation I suggest you actually read her resignation speech and learn that she did it because her detractors were flooding the courts with bogus law suits that cost the people of Alaska millions of dollars and thousands of man hours; and cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend (all of which have subsequently proven to be without merit). She had a choice: she could, like Barack Obama, ignore the responsibilities that her constituents elected her to handle to hit the campaign (money) trail to pay her legal expenses. She could remain in office and let the Alaska taxpayers fund a never ending stream of baseless charges against their governor: or she could do the right thing and resign. As governor she had put into place competent people who would continue to work for their constituents without her. If only every politician would be so honorable.
Any contention about Sarah Palin’s qualifications to be president, against the backdrop of the utter incompetence and incomparable inexperience of Barack Obama is absolutely laughable. She had more experience in governance after her first week as mayor of Wasilla than Obama has today. She actually accomplished things; she was actually accountable to her constituents; she actually eliminated government waste and cronyism, regardless of which political party was responsible for it.
I think you should take 5 minutes and read Article II of the COTUS. You will find there an enumeration of the specific responsibilities delegated to the POTUS. Take another 5 minutes and read the Bill of Rights and you will learn that not only is presidential responsibility limited to those enumerated responsibilities; but there is specific prohibition against assuming any additional authorities or responsibilities other than those enumerated. Checking the list, I believe you will not find any that require extraordinary capabilities. Nor will you find any authority to “fundamentally transform the USA” by any federal officer or branch of government. Quite the contrary, each federal officer is required a solemn oath NOT to fundamentally change the USA before being vested with any federal authority.
Unlike president Obama, Sarah Palin appears to comprehend that the COTUS was specifically structured to be a “charter of negative rights” regarding federal authority; and a proscription against assumption of any authorities not enumerated in the COTUS.
The left hates Palin because she is a constant reminder that there are very specific rules governing America, and they aren’t the rules of the elitist leftists, but the rules delineated in the COTUS. Progressives (Republican and Democrat) hate Palin because she understands that the COTUS is not a “fluid document subject to social interpretation”, as reinforced by the oath of office of every federal officer required before being vested with any federal authority; but rather a list of specifically strict restrictions on the authority of the federal government.
For the Progressive McCain to select Palin as a running mate was a serious mistake because it brought into clear focus that McCain is not a Constitutionalist, and it demonstrated to Constitution-loving Americans that there were, in politics, acceptable candidates who deserved their support, such as Sarah Palin.
If the attempted destruction of the global financial system, designed, implemented and empowered solely by Ivy League ‘educated’ perpetrators is any indication, we should take an Idaho BA over an Ivy League JD every time. If we consider the never ending, un-Constitutional power grabs of Ivy League ‘educated’ politicians and Justices over the past two generations, we should automatically exclude from consideration any candidate with an Ivy League education. We’d clearly be much better for it.
Our Constitution is written in very direct and clear terms and does not require great intellect to understand it: in fact, it appears that those self-proclaimed to possess great intellect have done it egregious harm over the past 60 years. For example: “the Congress shall pass no law restricting the free exercise of religion”; or “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”; or “no person shall be denied Life, Liberty, or property without due process of law” are as straight-forward and understandable as any expressions ever written. Yet “great intellects” have bastardized them so that neither mangers nor the Ten Commandments can be placed on government property; governments at all levels have infringed the right of the people to bear arms in every way imaginable; and babies are murdered by the thousands every day without the slightest effort of due process of law to protect their Creator-given right to Life.
Regarding the receipt of federal funds by the State of Alaska, it’s probably inconvenient to note that according to the COTUS, it is the Representatives, not the Governor who have the authority to generate federal spending bills. Oh that pesky COTUS!
Those who disparage Sarah Palin are treading on very thin ice. It isn’t common Citizens that renounce her; it is a rightfully ever-diminishing 4th Estate, and other special interests who despise the COTUS. She has the validity of the Constitution supporting her, while her opponents would deny the Constitution.
In a Constitutional Republic, “that dog don’t hunt”.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/09/myth-alaska/1#commentform Myth Alaska
Sarah Palin bounces a reality check. Nick Gillespie from the March 2010 issue Reason.com
Sarah Palin is Everyman to Americans who are sick and tired of Ivy League elitists who harbor nothing but contempt for America, Americans, and the Constitution; to Americans who are sick and tired of being told what to think and how to act by blood-sucking leaches who have never ventured from their ivory tower fantasy world where they hold absolute sway over emerging teens while cocooning in their tenured shells free from the pressures of real competition in making a living (more often than not on the backs of taxpayer subsidies for education and ‘research’).
We understand that when these blockheads ridicule Palin, they are ridiculing the rest of us who believe in America, hold traditional values, and honor our Constitution. It is precisely the attitude that we are “angry people clinging to their guns and religion; prejudiced against people who don’t look like them” that drives us mad.
Everyday Americans don’t care what someone looks like; we only care about how they behave. Legal immigrants have always taken a beating until they adopt American values; at which point they are free to bash others until they in turn adopt American values. We don’t care about “the color of their skin, only the content of their character”.
It is the elitists who search for any characteristic to claim superiority over others. Most Americans resent those who claim special privilege because of race, creed, sexual orientation, gender, or national origin because we believe in equal opportunity and we believe in equal justice: we believe “…that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”
When elected officials violate the Constitution, we get angry: although for the past generation or two we haven’t been getting angry enough. That appears to be changing for the better.
As for Palin’s resignation I suggest you actually read her resignation speech and learn that she did it because her detractors were flooding the courts with bogus law suits that cost the people of Alaska millions of dollars and thousands of man hours; and cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend (all of which have subsequently proven to be without merit). She had a choice: she could, like Barack Obama, ignore the responsibilities that her constituents elected her to handle to hit the campaign (money) trail to pay her legal expenses. She could remain in office and let the Alaska taxpayers fund a never ending stream of baseless charges against their governor: or she could do the right thing and resign. As governor she had put into place competent people who would continue to work for their constituents without her. If only every politician would be so honorable.
Any contention about Sarah Palin’s qualifications to be president, against the backdrop of the utter incompetence and incomparable inexperience of Barack Obama is absolutely laughable. She had more experience in governance after her first week as mayor of Wasilla than Obama has today. She actually accomplished things; she was actually accountable to her constituents; she actually eliminated government waste and cronyism, regardless of which political party was responsible for it.
I think you should take 5 minutes and read Article II of the COTUS. You will find there an enumeration of the specific responsibilities delegated to the POTUS. Take another 5 minutes and read the Bill of Rights and you will learn that not only is presidential responsibility limited to those enumerated responsibilities; but there is specific prohibition against assuming any additional authorities or responsibilities other than those enumerated. Checking the list, I believe you will not find any that require extraordinary capabilities. Nor will you find any authority to “fundamentally transform the USA” by any federal officer or branch of government. Quite the contrary, each federal officer is required a solemn oath NOT to fundamentally change the USA before being vested with any federal authority.
Unlike president Obama, Sarah Palin appears to comprehend that the COTUS was specifically structured to be a “charter of negative rights” regarding federal authority; and a proscription against assumption of any authorities not enumerated in the COTUS.
The left hates Palin because she is a constant reminder that there are very specific rules governing America, and they aren’t the rules of the elitist leftists, but the rules delineated in the COTUS. Progressives (Republican and Democrat) hate Palin because she understands that the COTUS is not a “fluid document subject to social interpretation”, as reinforced by the oath of office of every federal officer required before being vested with any federal authority; but rather a list of specifically strict restrictions on the authority of the federal government.
For the Progressive McCain to select Palin as a running mate was a serious mistake because it brought into clear focus that McCain is not a Constitutionalist, and it demonstrated to Constitution-loving Americans that there were, in politics, acceptable candidates who deserved their support, such as Sarah Palin.
If the attempted destruction of the global financial system, designed, implemented and empowered solely by Ivy League ‘educated’ perpetrators is any indication, we should take an Idaho BA over an Ivy League JD every time. If we consider the never ending, un-Constitutional power grabs of Ivy League ‘educated’ politicians and Justices over the past two generations, we should automatically exclude from consideration any candidate with an Ivy League education. We’d clearly be much better for it.
Our Constitution is written in very direct and clear terms and does not require great intellect to understand it: in fact, it appears that those self-proclaimed to possess great intellect have done it egregious harm over the past 60 years. For example: “the Congress shall pass no law restricting the free exercise of religion”; or “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”; or “no person shall be denied Life, Liberty, or property without due process of law” are as straight-forward and understandable as any expressions ever written. Yet “great intellects” have bastardized them so that neither mangers nor the Ten Commandments can be placed on government property; governments at all levels have infringed the right of the people to bear arms in every way imaginable; and babies are murdered by the thousands every day without the slightest effort of due process of law to protect their Creator-given right to Life.
Regarding the receipt of federal funds by the State of Alaska, it’s probably inconvenient to note that according to the COTUS, it is the Representatives, not the Governor who have the authority to generate federal spending bills. Oh that pesky COTUS!
Those who disparage Sarah Palin are treading on very thin ice. It isn’t common Citizens that renounce her; it is a rightfully ever-diminishing 4th Estate, and other special interests who despise the COTUS. She has the validity of the Constitution supporting her, while her opponents would deny the Constitution.
In a Constitutional Republic, “that dog don’t hunt”.
Anti-Statism is Patriotic
Response to: February 11, 2010 Tea Partiers Are Anti-Statist Radicals By E.J. Dionne
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/11/the_tea_partys_radicalism_100260.html
EJ, like our president, you need to have a grown-up read and explain to you the Constitution of the United States. It's only 4400 words, and if you throw in the Bill of Rights it's only another 1700 words. It isn't like trying to read the health care bill.
The COTUS is the document that defines the lawful responsibilities and limited authorities delegated by the Sovereign Citizens to the federal government. It is most assuredly an anti-Statist document. Anti-Statism is the foundation of America and therefore is the standard. Supporting anti-Statism is patriotic, not radical.
For many irrational reasons we have elected a Statist as president and therein lies the problem. It is inherently impossible for him to fulfill his Constitutional responsibilities, live within his Constitutionally-limited authorities, or to honor his oath of office. Therefore he needs to be removed from office: the sooner the better.
Race has absolutely nothing to do with it. Anyone, regardless of race, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, age, gender, et al who promotes Statism deserves the wrath of American Citizens. For those opposed to Citizen efforts to "preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS", screaming 'racist' is the easiest red herring to throw in their path. That tactic is rapidly losing it's effectiveness as Citizens across the entire political and racial spectrum find offensiveness in Obama's tired, disreputable, radical, Statist politics.
If you (or the president) were capable of comprehending the COTUS, you would discover that we elect a federal government to fulfill their COTUS-defined responsibilities, within the COTUS-limited authorities; and to 'preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS': only that and nothing more. You will not find any authority, anywhere in the COTUS for any federal officer, or branch for that matter, to 'fundamentally transform the USA’. On the contrary, they are sworn to do the opposite before being vested with any federal authority.
There is good news in all this however: as Americans, we believe that people have the liberty to pursue their dreams as long as they don’t infringe on the liberty of others. There are more than 200 countries in the world where Statists can live unencumbered by the COTUS; it’s just that the US isn’t one of them. There are only two kinds of people in America: those who honor the COTUS and those who need to move somewhere else. Delta is ready when you are. There is no discrimination included in this advice; only compliance with America’s founding principles and promise.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/11/the_tea_partys_radicalism_100260.html
EJ, like our president, you need to have a grown-up read and explain to you the Constitution of the United States. It's only 4400 words, and if you throw in the Bill of Rights it's only another 1700 words. It isn't like trying to read the health care bill.
The COTUS is the document that defines the lawful responsibilities and limited authorities delegated by the Sovereign Citizens to the federal government. It is most assuredly an anti-Statist document. Anti-Statism is the foundation of America and therefore is the standard. Supporting anti-Statism is patriotic, not radical.
For many irrational reasons we have elected a Statist as president and therein lies the problem. It is inherently impossible for him to fulfill his Constitutional responsibilities, live within his Constitutionally-limited authorities, or to honor his oath of office. Therefore he needs to be removed from office: the sooner the better.
Race has absolutely nothing to do with it. Anyone, regardless of race, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, age, gender, et al who promotes Statism deserves the wrath of American Citizens. For those opposed to Citizen efforts to "preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS", screaming 'racist' is the easiest red herring to throw in their path. That tactic is rapidly losing it's effectiveness as Citizens across the entire political and racial spectrum find offensiveness in Obama's tired, disreputable, radical, Statist politics.
If you (or the president) were capable of comprehending the COTUS, you would discover that we elect a federal government to fulfill their COTUS-defined responsibilities, within the COTUS-limited authorities; and to 'preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS': only that and nothing more. You will not find any authority, anywhere in the COTUS for any federal officer, or branch for that matter, to 'fundamentally transform the USA’. On the contrary, they are sworn to do the opposite before being vested with any federal authority.
There is good news in all this however: as Americans, we believe that people have the liberty to pursue their dreams as long as they don’t infringe on the liberty of others. There are more than 200 countries in the world where Statists can live unencumbered by the COTUS; it’s just that the US isn’t one of them. There are only two kinds of people in America: those who honor the COTUS and those who need to move somewhere else. Delta is ready when you are. There is no discrimination included in this advice; only compliance with America’s founding principles and promise.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Obama's no moderate!
Joe Klein of Time Magazine writes "...a moderate-liberal President, willing to make judicious compromises, confronted by a Republican Party paralyzed by cynicism and hypocrisy, undergirded by inchoate ideological fervor."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1958996,00.html#ixzz0eZp1ynDI
To suggest that president Obama is a “moderate Liberal” is absurdity at it’s zenith! Redistributing wealth is nowhere in the spectrum of American Constitutional values. Stoking his personal staff with self-avowed Marxists, Maoists, and other proven anti-American radicals is nowhere on the Moderate scale. “Fundamentally transforming the US” is not a legal authority of the president.
We have had more than a year to observe the great chasm between Obama’s words and his actions. We have learned that he is a pathological liar: nowhere better demonstrated than in his SOTU speech. In Virginia, New Jersey, and in Massachusetts the American people have responded to what they have learned about Obama and this Congress. We don’t like what they are attempting to shove down our throats.
We haven’t seen bi-partisanship from Obama or his Congress. We have seen that “elections have consequences”; we’ve seen the outside of closed doors in the House and Senate while a parade of lobbyists, and only a select few Democrat legislators crafted abominable, unsustainable, incomprehensible and un-Constitutional proposals that were unacceptable to Obama’s own super-majority without the most egregious and offensive (not to mention un-Constitutional) bribery to buy the final votes needed to push this garbage forward. We have seen Obama going behind the backs of his own party leadership to craft secret back-room deals with Big Pharma and Big Insurance and Big Labor. In the most liberal of the United States, the people said “no more!” and sent a super-majority buster to the Senate.
It is telling that the overwhelming Democrat majority is unable to accomplish anything without a super-majority: clearly what they are attempting to strong-arm on the American people is unpopular, or one dissenting vote wouldn’t make a difference.
The real problem is not opposition from the Republicans; it is that the American people have discovered that Obama is a liar. The problem with a liar is that it is impossible to give any credence to anything they say: it is impossible to trust them regardless of which side of the argument they are on.
We have learned that Obama will say anything to sway a crowd: he just doesn’t mean it and doesn’t follow-through on what he promises. His actions are completely consistent with being a Community Organizer: stir-up the crowd, make the 6 o’clock news, and move on to the next event without ever accomplishing anything of substance.
If the lies, deceit, thuggery, extortion and bribery that are the ‘sophistication of Obama’s politics’ were acceptable to the People then you wouldn’t being seeing long-seated Democrats turned out of office, or opting out before they have to face another election.
Obama is over. He will have the fight of his life to make it through a single term of office because America isn’t interested in his Statist agenda. We must replace him with someone who actually loves the Constitution and America: the sooner the better!
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1958996,00.html#ixzz0eZp1ynDI
To suggest that president Obama is a “moderate Liberal” is absurdity at it’s zenith! Redistributing wealth is nowhere in the spectrum of American Constitutional values. Stoking his personal staff with self-avowed Marxists, Maoists, and other proven anti-American radicals is nowhere on the Moderate scale. “Fundamentally transforming the US” is not a legal authority of the president.
We have had more than a year to observe the great chasm between Obama’s words and his actions. We have learned that he is a pathological liar: nowhere better demonstrated than in his SOTU speech. In Virginia, New Jersey, and in Massachusetts the American people have responded to what they have learned about Obama and this Congress. We don’t like what they are attempting to shove down our throats.
We haven’t seen bi-partisanship from Obama or his Congress. We have seen that “elections have consequences”; we’ve seen the outside of closed doors in the House and Senate while a parade of lobbyists, and only a select few Democrat legislators crafted abominable, unsustainable, incomprehensible and un-Constitutional proposals that were unacceptable to Obama’s own super-majority without the most egregious and offensive (not to mention un-Constitutional) bribery to buy the final votes needed to push this garbage forward. We have seen Obama going behind the backs of his own party leadership to craft secret back-room deals with Big Pharma and Big Insurance and Big Labor. In the most liberal of the United States, the people said “no more!” and sent a super-majority buster to the Senate.
It is telling that the overwhelming Democrat majority is unable to accomplish anything without a super-majority: clearly what they are attempting to strong-arm on the American people is unpopular, or one dissenting vote wouldn’t make a difference.
The real problem is not opposition from the Republicans; it is that the American people have discovered that Obama is a liar. The problem with a liar is that it is impossible to give any credence to anything they say: it is impossible to trust them regardless of which side of the argument they are on.
We have learned that Obama will say anything to sway a crowd: he just doesn’t mean it and doesn’t follow-through on what he promises. His actions are completely consistent with being a Community Organizer: stir-up the crowd, make the 6 o’clock news, and move on to the next event without ever accomplishing anything of substance.
If the lies, deceit, thuggery, extortion and bribery that are the ‘sophistication of Obama’s politics’ were acceptable to the People then you wouldn’t being seeing long-seated Democrats turned out of office, or opting out before they have to face another election.
Obama is over. He will have the fight of his life to make it through a single term of office because America isn’t interested in his Statist agenda. We must replace him with someone who actually loves the Constitution and America: the sooner the better!
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Where's RICO when we REALLY need it?
Response to: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/03/the_perils_of_prosperity_the_story_behind_the_economic_crisis_100149.html Robert J. Samuelson
To suggest that the bubble was created by the free market is absurd.
The federal government extorted bankers to lend to borrowers who lacked the ability to repay the loans on threat to their charter and/or growth plans. Thank Mr. Dodd and Barney Frank. The brokers took their money and ran.
Fanny Mae immediately bought the suspect mortgages relieving the local mortgage company/bank of any liability for bad mortgages. Congress failed their oversight responsibilities even as many members personally benefited either through investments or especially cheap mortgages for themselves ("friends of Angelo mortgages). What about that Chris Dodd?
When investors balked at buying suspect mortgages Freddie started bundling good and bad, getting them rated as good, collected crazy profits. They protected their exposure with insurance from AIG. Congress failed in the oversight responsibilities and denied there was any potential problem even when it was brought to their attention. Thank you Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
To add another level of commission generation Goldman Sachs et al created mortgage based derivatives, also insured by AIG to provide high profit, low risk (to the investment bankers). The Fed, tasked with oversight of precisely such activity, did nothing.
Unsaid in all this is the common thread of Goldman Sachs alumni: at Fanny and Freddie and the Fed and Treasury and the Congress (via generous campaign contributions to key members like Dodd and Frank and Obama)
What any rational person can see is not some happenstance, but an orchestrated fraud, designed and implemented for unjustified profit; funded by the taxpayer, insured by the taxpayer, guaranteed by the taxpayer and manipulated and managed by the Goldman Sachs alumni club. Oh, and policed by the Fed, Treasury, and Congress (Goldman Sachs alumni or beneficiaries) all co-opted by complicity in the scheme for personal reward. The true Coup de Grace is the complicity of Goldman Sachs in the decision-making process for driving their competitors into bankruptcy and dissolution. John Gotti was never so slick.
RICO was designed for just this type of fraud, but there is no mention of it at all in the aftermath of the collapse of the US, and subsequently the global economies. The current Congressional investigation is designed to assure that no one of importance takes the blame for this fraud or is held accountable for their complicity in this fraud: it has nothing to do with actually finding the cause and implementing corrective action. It has everything to do with covering the tracks of the guilty and providing cover for the enablers.
We continue to rely on the foxes to guard the henhouses. Articles such as this by Mr. Samuelson are nothing more than part of the track-covering, blame the innocent; hide the guilty cleanup operations in the guise of explanations.
God help America.
To suggest that the bubble was created by the free market is absurd.
The federal government extorted bankers to lend to borrowers who lacked the ability to repay the loans on threat to their charter and/or growth plans. Thank Mr. Dodd and Barney Frank. The brokers took their money and ran.
Fanny Mae immediately bought the suspect mortgages relieving the local mortgage company/bank of any liability for bad mortgages. Congress failed their oversight responsibilities even as many members personally benefited either through investments or especially cheap mortgages for themselves ("friends of Angelo mortgages). What about that Chris Dodd?
When investors balked at buying suspect mortgages Freddie started bundling good and bad, getting them rated as good, collected crazy profits. They protected their exposure with insurance from AIG. Congress failed in the oversight responsibilities and denied there was any potential problem even when it was brought to their attention. Thank you Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
To add another level of commission generation Goldman Sachs et al created mortgage based derivatives, also insured by AIG to provide high profit, low risk (to the investment bankers). The Fed, tasked with oversight of precisely such activity, did nothing.
Unsaid in all this is the common thread of Goldman Sachs alumni: at Fanny and Freddie and the Fed and Treasury and the Congress (via generous campaign contributions to key members like Dodd and Frank and Obama)
What any rational person can see is not some happenstance, but an orchestrated fraud, designed and implemented for unjustified profit; funded by the taxpayer, insured by the taxpayer, guaranteed by the taxpayer and manipulated and managed by the Goldman Sachs alumni club. Oh, and policed by the Fed, Treasury, and Congress (Goldman Sachs alumni or beneficiaries) all co-opted by complicity in the scheme for personal reward. The true Coup de Grace is the complicity of Goldman Sachs in the decision-making process for driving their competitors into bankruptcy and dissolution. John Gotti was never so slick.
RICO was designed for just this type of fraud, but there is no mention of it at all in the aftermath of the collapse of the US, and subsequently the global economies. The current Congressional investigation is designed to assure that no one of importance takes the blame for this fraud or is held accountable for their complicity in this fraud: it has nothing to do with actually finding the cause and implementing corrective action. It has everything to do with covering the tracks of the guilty and providing cover for the enablers.
We continue to rely on the foxes to guard the henhouses. Articles such as this by Mr. Samuelson are nothing more than part of the track-covering, blame the innocent; hide the guilty cleanup operations in the guise of explanations.
God help America.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Federal Government causes high health care costs
Government is the problem, not the solution, in ever escalating health care costs.
My only cousin is dying of cancer. She wanted to spend her final days in Hospice. I called to get the details: “$865 a day; unless you have insurance in which case it might be as little as $160 a day. If she’s covered under Medicare, they pay 100%” “What if she is paying for this herself?” I asked. “$865 a day.”
I went to my dentist and asked for a quote for restoring my aging teeth to top condition; fillings, caps, bridges; the works. He quoted over $16,000 but told me that was the “official cost” but if I was paying for it out of pocket it would be only $8000.
I sleep with a BPAP machine to counteract my Sleep Apnea. After several years, the rubber straps for the face mask stretched too much to make a proper seal. I asked the medical supply company how much for a replacement: “We bill $45 but the insurance company only has to pay $20 so you have no out-of-pocket expense for it”.
Everywhere I turn in health care I encounter wildly divergent pricing between quote and actual, depending on if, or what, insurance covers the expense.
If I multiply these numbers by 300 Million Americans it’s easy to see how health care is an entitlement that will bring America to financial ruin.
In all of the federal health care discussions I haven’t heard the first word about this egregious disparity in the pricing of health care services. Why do they exist? What can be done to eliminate them? The biggest influence is government subsidies: Medicare and Medicaid.
Why is Hospice $865 a day?: because Medicare will pay that. Why is dentistry $16000?: because government health care will pay that. Why is a rubber strap $45?: because Medicare will pay that.
Remove federal subsidies and the cost of health care will plummet like a rock. That’s the beauty of a free market: competition won’t tolerate capricious pricing or inefficient processes.
Lasik eye surgery and breast augmentation surgery are two excellent examples of the continuous improvement in quality accompanied by continuous reduction in pricing for these non-covered procedures.
If we remove government subsidies and competition-restricting federal regulations from insurance and medical services; get the government out of health care; and transition health care coverage from employers (itself a result of government interference during WWII wage and price controls) to individuals, health care costs will reduce and become manageable.
If the federal government would replace all existing subsidies and non-value added government regulations with an individual tax credit sufficient to cover a reasonable annual insurance premium (based on the net negotiated price, not the government subsidized price) the savings to tax payers would be astronomical, and the insurance and medical services industries would be scrambling to provide top quality health care at a competitive cost (within the tax credit level).
This same solution could be applied to replacing Medicare with private insurance.
Of course, without the ability to manipulate government subsidies, I’m sure that political contributions to our elected representatives from insurance and health care providers would be dramatically reduced, and I believe that explains why it won’t happen.
My only cousin is dying of cancer. She wanted to spend her final days in Hospice. I called to get the details: “$865 a day; unless you have insurance in which case it might be as little as $160 a day. If she’s covered under Medicare, they pay 100%” “What if she is paying for this herself?” I asked. “$865 a day.”
I went to my dentist and asked for a quote for restoring my aging teeth to top condition; fillings, caps, bridges; the works. He quoted over $16,000 but told me that was the “official cost” but if I was paying for it out of pocket it would be only $8000.
I sleep with a BPAP machine to counteract my Sleep Apnea. After several years, the rubber straps for the face mask stretched too much to make a proper seal. I asked the medical supply company how much for a replacement: “We bill $45 but the insurance company only has to pay $20 so you have no out-of-pocket expense for it”.
Everywhere I turn in health care I encounter wildly divergent pricing between quote and actual, depending on if, or what, insurance covers the expense.
If I multiply these numbers by 300 Million Americans it’s easy to see how health care is an entitlement that will bring America to financial ruin.
In all of the federal health care discussions I haven’t heard the first word about this egregious disparity in the pricing of health care services. Why do they exist? What can be done to eliminate them? The biggest influence is government subsidies: Medicare and Medicaid.
Why is Hospice $865 a day?: because Medicare will pay that. Why is dentistry $16000?: because government health care will pay that. Why is a rubber strap $45?: because Medicare will pay that.
Remove federal subsidies and the cost of health care will plummet like a rock. That’s the beauty of a free market: competition won’t tolerate capricious pricing or inefficient processes.
Lasik eye surgery and breast augmentation surgery are two excellent examples of the continuous improvement in quality accompanied by continuous reduction in pricing for these non-covered procedures.
If we remove government subsidies and competition-restricting federal regulations from insurance and medical services; get the government out of health care; and transition health care coverage from employers (itself a result of government interference during WWII wage and price controls) to individuals, health care costs will reduce and become manageable.
If the federal government would replace all existing subsidies and non-value added government regulations with an individual tax credit sufficient to cover a reasonable annual insurance premium (based on the net negotiated price, not the government subsidized price) the savings to tax payers would be astronomical, and the insurance and medical services industries would be scrambling to provide top quality health care at a competitive cost (within the tax credit level).
This same solution could be applied to replacing Medicare with private insurance.
Of course, without the ability to manipulate government subsidies, I’m sure that political contributions to our elected representatives from insurance and health care providers would be dramatically reduced, and I believe that explains why it won’t happen.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Constitutionality Not Popularism
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/01/obama_can_do_populism__100124.html
David Paul Kuhn, Chief Political Correspondence for RealClearPolitics.com suggests that president Obama should try Popularism.
President Obama doesn't need to try Populism, he needs to understand Constitutionality. From his public statements, Obama clearly neither understands nor honors the COTUS that he swore to preserve, protect and defend as a precondition to being vested with any federal authority.
The COTUS is very specific about the responsibilities and authorities delegated to each branch of the federal government, and quite clear that the federal government is specifically denied any authority to alter those delegated responsibilities and authorities. That can only be done by the Sovereign Citizens via a ratified Amendment to the COTUS.
The COTUS is quite clear: we elect a federal government to fulfill the enumerated duties and protect the COTUS: nothing more and nothing less. No federal branch or federal officer has any authority to "fundamentally transform the USA".
It appears that more Americans are beginning to understand the Constitution, reflected in what is referred to as the Tea Party Movement. As Sovereign Citizens it is our responsibility to remove from office any federal officer who fails to honor their solemn oath of office by usurping authorities not granted.
President Obama needs to learn this lesson more than any other, and he better learn it quickly as our patience is fading fast.
David Paul Kuhn, Chief Political Correspondence for RealClearPolitics.com suggests that president Obama should try Popularism.
President Obama doesn't need to try Populism, he needs to understand Constitutionality. From his public statements, Obama clearly neither understands nor honors the COTUS that he swore to preserve, protect and defend as a precondition to being vested with any federal authority.
The COTUS is very specific about the responsibilities and authorities delegated to each branch of the federal government, and quite clear that the federal government is specifically denied any authority to alter those delegated responsibilities and authorities. That can only be done by the Sovereign Citizens via a ratified Amendment to the COTUS.
The COTUS is quite clear: we elect a federal government to fulfill the enumerated duties and protect the COTUS: nothing more and nothing less. No federal branch or federal officer has any authority to "fundamentally transform the USA".
It appears that more Americans are beginning to understand the Constitution, reflected in what is referred to as the Tea Party Movement. As Sovereign Citizens it is our responsibility to remove from office any federal officer who fails to honor their solemn oath of office by usurping authorities not granted.
President Obama needs to learn this lesson more than any other, and he better learn it quickly as our patience is fading fast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
