Vanishing Freedoms

The Ft. Hood incident should not be astounding to anyone.  What should be astounding is the US lack of understanding of the Koran and its excessive intolerance to any outside of Islam.  Friends, there are enough books out on the shelves at this point from learned scholars who have studied the Koran.  To an individual they agree that the Koran is intolerant to “infidels”.   The definition of an infidel is ANYONE who is not a Muslim. 

What we should be asking ourselves is “why is the world so tolerant of what is done to infidels”?.  A religion that  brings us children who are “honor” killed, women who are mutilated and treated as chattel and avowed Muslims who are allowed into our armed services.  This is one of the biggest disconnects that I have seen in my lifetime.  It’s not just here.  England allows Sharia law.  Basically allowing Muslims to live under their own laws within Britain.  Carried out to its natural conclusion is this really tolerance, or insanity for a civilized nation? 

Do I think all Muslims are ”true” followers?   No, just as I realize not all who say they are Christians practice it.  But the difference is that the Bible does NOT teach intolerance to those who are not believers.  It teaches Christians to be salt and light to a dark world (those outside the faith – including the Muslims).

WAKE UP AMERICA!

What was this man doing in my Armed Forces?!

Ethnic Profiling?  Please and Yes.  Christians are called to be accountable.  Accountable for sharing with those who are in darkness – not for being blind to the facts of what another religion espouses and its implications to our lifestyle.

Yes there are verses in the Quran that talk of peace and love.  But, as his movement gained strength, Muhammad “received new words that canceled out (nasikh) these verses”  Consider the following:

SURAH 4:89, THE NOBLE QUARN:  Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam) take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them.

SURAH 47:4, THE NOBLE QURAN   So, when you meet (in fight – Jihad in Allah’s Cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives).

SURAH 9:123, THE NOBLE QURAN O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you; and know that Allah is with those who are Al-Muttaqun (the pious).

SURAH 8:67,  THE NOBLE QUARN  It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land.

SURAH 9:29, THE NOBLE QURAN Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah (tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued(the Arabic is more like : abject subjection)

SURAH 9:5, THE NOBLE QURAN Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)……

Do we really want to accept this as our next door neighbor?  We are allowing it.

The founder of Pakistan’s fundamentalist movement has written that “Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man.  Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution.  This is jihad.”

According to Mark Gabriel, a former Muslim and (former) professor of Islamic history in Cairo, “A mosque in Islam is the center for worship, justice, war strategy and government.  Throughout Islamic history you can see that all movements of jihad came out of the mosque.”

The list could go on.  These words above ARE the words of the Quran and its advocates.  These are words  that are taught in our country.  I find it amazing that so many are wondering “What has happened in Ft. Hood?”.

Please watch these in order, and share them with your friends and family.

Yesterday our Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declared that the White House would not recognize the result of the democratic free elections to take place in Honduras this fall, also cutting $30 million in aid to the country.

Now, their reasoning at first sounds solid, and well thought out:

“The secretary of state has made the decision consistent with U.S. legislation, recognizing the need for strong measures in light of the continued resistance to the adoption of the San Jose Accord by the de facto regime and continuing failure to restore democratic, constitutional rule to Honduras,” – Ian Kelly, State Department Spokesman

But what is all this about?

Well, Honduras’s former president Mr. Mel Zelaya was knowingly trying to change, and modify the Constitution of Honduras, which would allow him to eliminate those pesky term limits. (Sounds vaguely familiar to what they are trying to do here, although at least they are using the proper procedure to do it) Now why is that a bad thing? Well according to the Honduran Constitution that is a very bad thing:

Title VII, Chapter 1: (constitutional reform)

Article 373: Constitutional reform can only be declared by the National Congress, in regular sessions, with a 2/3s vote of its members. The decree to be voted on will specify the article or articles to be reformed, and it must be concurred by the subsequent session of Congress by a 2/3s vote before it takes effect.

 Article 374: It can not be reformed, under any circumstances, the previous article, this article, the Constitutional articles related to the form of government, the national territory, Presidential term-limits, the prohibition of a President to be re-elected, and the requirements and prohibitions on who can and can not be President.

So why did the Military come in and escort him out? Well, he was fired, and much like when you get fired at a major corporation, many times security will walk you out of the building. It is their job, much like it is the Honduran army’s job:

Article 272: The Armed Force of Honduras is a permanent National Institution, essentially professional, a-political, obedient, and un-deliberate. It is constituted to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, to maintain the peace, public order, protect the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage, and the changeability of the President of the Republic.

Why would all of this be written into the constitution in Honduras? Well, if you know anything about South and Central American politics, you’d know you have the likes of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega and friends have come to their power by taking the democratic process and, well to put it simply, destroying it from the top down, to create their dictatorship. Remember, Hitler was elected to a position of power, and abused it as well to make sure he got to the top and stayed at the top.

So it would make sense, that a small, democratic country surrounded by enemies and dictators, would be very sensitive to any president trying to extend his power.

So back to that San Jose Accord that Clinton found so important, that she decided to shun Honduras until they agreed to it. What it calls for, is the return of Zelaya as president of Honduras, and for the people of Honduras to put up with him until they could have an early election, and vote him out of office.

Wait, what? Put back in power the very man they removed for violating their own constitution? A man backed by the worst dictators on this side of the globe? Even Chavez pledged to overthrow the “new government” of Honduras (how just having a new president means new government, I’m unsure, then again this is a drug dealing dictator talking).

“We will bring them down, we will bring them down, I tell you,” – Hugo Chavez

So what do we have here? We have a free country, that legally ousted a president who illegally tried to extend his power that is now not only attack by their former presidents unsavory and dangerous friends, who are not fans of democracy or freedom, but is now under fire from the EU and what use to be the light of freedom for the world, the United States of America.

Why pick sides in this battle you ask? Well, besides the simple fact that Honduras is one of our allies, they also promote freedom and equality for man, which is something that both the left and the right agree, is basic human rights. It is much simpler than even that though, as this is the law and justice being followed and served, something that I thought we were to uphold and champion.

So which side does the White House choose in this very uncomplicated dilemma? The side of the would-be-dictator, who pals around with human rights violators, drug dealers, and those guilty of financing and supporting guerilla warfare against our allies, and other democratic free nations in South America. What does that tell you about our leaders in the White House? In saying that the United States will not recognize who the people of Honduras elect as president this fall, gives more credit to the likes of Fidel Castro of Cuba, Kim Jong II of N. Korea (who likes threatening to wipe us off the face of the earth with nuclear missiles), and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran (who recently had an “election” and won… then proceeded to beat and kill those who said the election was a hoax).

It seems our leaders are not fans of freedom, democracy, or justice and law. If they don’t support it elsewhere, what makes you think they will support it here?

“I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter,” – President Obama

Are the tenets of the “Inter-American Democratic Charter” higher than the law of the country? No. They are respecting their democratic process, they are exercising the law and are holding elections for a replacement president. It is you President Obama, that is not respecting the democratic norms.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

If you don’t know where the above words are from, I pray for you…

…and to the people of Honduras, the winner of this round is up to you. Stay vigilant, the actions of the White House do not speak for all of us.

It was a big campaign topic in the 2008 elections, “Healthcare Reform” was particularly a pushing point of the Democratic party as they pushed the “horrible truth” that 46,000,000 Americans are uninsured. The stories of families going bankrupt, people dying while waiting for treatment, and malpractice scare stories abounded. It made it seem that if we didn’t act immediately on healthcare, that we were evil, selfish people.

The Numbers…

Well, that would have been a decent argument had they have at least used factual information. First, let us look at the number 46,000,000:

1: Ten million of those “American’s” aren’t American’s at all, they are illegal aliens and non-citizens.
2: According to Census data, 8,300,000 American’s that are uninsured make between $50,000 and $74,999 a year, and can certainly afford to buy their own health insurance.
3: Also according to the Census data, 8,740,000 American’s that are uninsured make over $75,000 a year, yet choose to not have health insurance.

That leaves us with about 20,000,000 Americans that are uninsured, to which 60% said they were in excellent health, and certainly could be an indicator of why they didn’t have health insurance. So never mind the fact that 14,000,000 would most likely be eligible for pre-existing healthcare options such as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

So, in the end we have roughly 6,000,000 out of 306,914,050, which equals 1.9549% of our current population is uninsured, unable to pay for their own insurance, and has no current government options for healthcare. So is 2% a crisis? Let’s say that it is, and that the current estimate of $1,000,000,000,000 dollar price tag, that is most assuredly going to inflate rapidly as all government projects do, is correct. That means that each of those 6,000,000 poor American’s healthcare will be $166,666.67 a year. Even if the projected cost goes out to a 10 year span, that is still $16,666.66 a year in health insurance. Does that sound like an accurate number for how much health insurance costs? Not at all, as a reasonable private offering can be had for around $2,400 a year.

Where is the government planning on getting this money from to pay for this plan? Well, they would start by cutting Medicaid by around $500,000,000,000 dollars a year. Then, they plan on filling in the rest of the $500,000,000,000 – $1,000,000,000,000 by raising taxes on the “rich.” Now, since when is $280,000 a year considered rich in this country? Especially when they already have the greatest tax burden of anyone in the country?

“By 2005, the most recent year data are available, our top 1 percent of filers were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. Every other group saw its share of the tax bill decline, sometimes substantially. Those taxpayers in the 26th to 50th percentile (that is, with an adjusted gross income roughly between $31,000 and $62,000) paid 11 percent of all federal income taxes, down from 20 percent back in 1980, while those in the 11th to 25th percentiles (earning between $62,000 and $104,000 today), paid 16 percent of the federal tax bill, down from 24 percent in 1980.” – Real Clear Markets

Now you decide if it is okay for Medicaid to be cut, and the rich to foot the bill for $6,000,000 uninsured Americans? Most people on Medicaid are living on fixed incomes due to being retired, and having already contributed a lifetime of work to taxes in this country. The “rich” are those that are our employers and provide funding for our venture capitalism, let alone the fact that more taxes may make them move their money and jobs outside of the country, hurting this country even more financially due to the loss in revenue both from their income, but their employees income. So tell me, does this make financial sense having this outrageously priced government program set in place? Well, if you say yes, I would encourage you to read further.

Here is a pie chart for you visual people about statistics in 2001 courtesy Rush:

What healthcare reform promises us…

What is proposed, is a government option for a health insurance plan. Sounds great right? That way it can be competitive and keep private health insurance companies honest with their premiums. Well, that would work if the laws of economics didn’t apply. Insurance companies work on charging premiums (your month to month cost) to fill their bank account with, to pay for expenses that anyone else (and you of course) will encounter while under their plan. The rates change on what risk you are to them. If you are a young, healthy individual that has little risk for diseases and accidents, you will pay a lower premium than someone who is older and has an existing heart condition, or a history of cancer. Why? Because the latter person will most likely require the insurance company to pay more money in doctor and medicine bills in their lifetime. Now, with the government plan, it won’t function like that. Why? Because the ones truly footing the bill for the healthcare will be the American taxpayer, regardless of whether or not they have their own insurance with another company or not. Thus, allowing the government to ALWAYS have a cheaper plan than the private industry.

So logically, as a consumer on a budget, you’d choose the government option so that you could have the spare money for that $200 a month cell phone bill that came with your new iPhone. What does that do to private insurance? Well, less customers means less revenue, meaning that premiums will have to be raised for current plan holders to make up the difference in their books. Sooner or later, private insurance companies would go out of business simply because they could not compete with the unfair, monopolistic practices of the government option.

Now, assuming you don’t want healthcare because you are young, in good health, and don’t believe that you need it, you should be able to choose to not have/pay for healthcare right? Well, in a truly free society that would be correct, but according to what the Democrats and Obama want, you’d have to pay for that “right.”

“Employers who don’t provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers’ wages with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.” – KansasCity.com

So even if you don’t want the healthcare, you are going to pay for it in two ways; once on your taxes, and then as a fine. It is wonderful to live in a free society isn’t it?

Now, you may argue that Canada has had wonderful government run health insurance, so is that why they have wait times from 4-22 hours in their Emergency Rooms? Sounds like our system is much more efficient doesn’t it?

So why do we want to ruin the best medical system in the world?

There are more issues at hand… Such as the rationing of healthcare, which this package would no doubt lead to as it has in Europe and Canada where the healthcare systems for the most part have been taken over by the government. What is rationing? It is when the government decides who gets the limited amount of drugs or doctors based on their worth to society. Don’t believe me? Here is an eye-opening editorial on what the elderly can expect under the Obamacare system. And this article poses a great start for the idea that if the government pays for our healthcare, won’t that give them the right to dictate what we eat, drink and do because it will in some way or another, directly impact what they will pay for us in healthcare costs? How would you like G-men coming into your house to see what was in your fridge? We already have them in line to come into your house and survey your electronics and home to make sure it will be “green enough” with the Cap and Trade bill that is going through the Senate, do you really want them monitoring what you eat and do as well now?

People come from all over the world for advanced treatments and procedures that we do here. The rest of the world uses our advancements in drugs and medical devices to extend life expectancies and cure diseases. Do we really want to further hobble a system that is the best out of any nation on the planet, and responsible for saving lives world wide? The reform we need isn’t in government intervention, it is in deregulation. Why forbid a drug that has to potential to alleviate the pain and suffering of a terminal cancer patient if the side affect could possibly be death? Doesn’t that patient sign a waiver anyway saying that they may die? Why not give them the option to live pain free longer? Why do we allow such frivolous lawsuits against doctors raising their malpractice costs?

“Dr. Paul Tudder figures he’s delivered about 4,000 babies in 21 years, and in that time, he’s never been sued.

Yet, as CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports, his malpractice insurance has gone through the roof. His premium was $23,000 in 2002. Then it jumped to $47,000. This year, he got a quote for $84,000.”

Instead, why don’t we work on ways to make the healthcare profession more efficient to work in? Lowering testing costs by getting rid of some of the most ridiculous FDA regulations, protecting doctors from frivolous malpractice lawsuits, and giving tax incentives to insurance companies to take on higher risk patients?

As President Reagan said that we are “a shining city on a hill,” so is our healthcare system to the rest of the world. Let’s not destroy it, when it affects far more than the people in this country.

*UPDATE*
Arizona is yet another step closer to putting a stop to this Healthcare Reform package from destroying their state’s healthcare! HCR2014 Nullifies the Federal bill in the State of Arizona.

Now, we’ve all heard of Sonia Sotomayor, and some of her highly controversial remarks, but should those controversial remarks hold her from being confirmed?

Let’s first look at what her job would be. According to Wikipedia (which is sometimes useful):

“A supreme court, also called a court of last resort or instance, court of final appeal or high court, is in some jurisdictions the highest judicial body within that jurisdiction’s court system, whose rulings are not subject to further review by another court. The designations for such courts differ among jurisdictions. Courts of last resort typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from the lower trial courts or intermediate-level appellate courts.”

Note, that nowhere in that does it say that the court has anything to do with policy making, or law making decisions does it? Now, without getting into the dry, and long winded explanation from our founders as to what the Courts are for, let me sum it up in this: “The Court system is the 3^rd power in a check and balance system. It is to interpret the law regarding whatever case is in front of it.” Certainly, if we had 3 bodies in our government that could create policy and law, our system would be off balance. Thus, it is only Congress’s job to create policy.

I would think understanding your job, and the responsibilities of your job, would be critical to being hired; especially for such a powerful position. However, as shown in this video clip (and on YouTube) she obviously believes that it is her job to create policy. Now, this would be fine in some other country, but this isn’t how America is run. Obviously, she doesn’t understand her job.

You would think, that if you were interviewing someone for the highest court in this Nation, that you would want answers to crucial questions that she may face as a Supreme Court Judge. Yet when asked things that we, the America public, find to be hot topics, she avoids answering the questions. Now some may think that this is a minor issue, but would you hire someone who wouldn’t answer your question about whether or not they were a felon? Or had stolen from an employer? Or if they even supported the widgets that you produced and sold? Obviously she fears that her opinion will be out of step with what a majority of the American public believes, so she chooses to keep dynamite topics out of reach. She can’t risk a loud public outcry to stop her confirmation.

We’ve heard all these amazing stories about her past, how she grew up, her gender, and her ethnicity, yet do any of these answer the questions as to who she is and how she will rule on cases? No, they don’t. We hear about how she considers herself a “wise Latina,” yet why doesn’t even she say that she is a wise American? She wasn’t born in Puerto Rico, she was born in the Continental United States. She’s a citizen. She’s an American. So why the race card? Why the gender card? Why should we care what color/sex/height/weight she is and not just care that she is an American?

It is where she stands on issues, and what her character is that is most important, and I would have to assume that intelligent people on both sides of the aisle would agree with me on that. So why would we want to support someone who obviously believes that the law should FORCE all men to be equal based on race? Our country and government isn’t here to make all people equal, it is to treat them all as equals. What that individual does with the base of being treated like everyone else is up to them. When she withheld a promotion from all firemen, because there weren’t enough “African-American’s” that scored well on the test, she not only created a racial divide, but she withheld rights from men who earned that promotion. How equal and fair is that?

When one is called a bully by her peers and coworkers, even before she is appointed to be Obama’s first pick for the Supreme Court, you have to question her character. Is she really going to be fair and use sound judgment? Or will she coerce, and push here way through decisions and cases to get what her personal agenda wants? Even after the Supreme Court (the very court she is “applying for”) decided that the 2^nd Amendment is most assuredly a personal right that is not only federal, but extends to states as well, she ignored their decision and many decisions made before them in various cases, and “…held that the Constitution does not protect the right to keep and bear arms against infringement by state and local governments.”
When the 14^th Amendment specifically {imposed new restrictions on the States, forbidding them to abridge the “privileges or immunities” of American citizens or to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”} – RCP

So where does that leave us? We obviously have someone who believes their background, gender, and race should be of matter to her confirmation. She’s a bully who doesn’t understand the job she is eager to start, and has knowingly made decisions that are in direct violation of what the VERY COURT she is awaiting to be a part of. Remember folks, there is no term limit on Supreme Court Judges. Once they are in, they are in until they choose to retire. Is this really the type of person we want hearing the most important cases in this country? Or do we as the American people deserve a judge with less personal agenda and bias? Or do we want someone who knows the duties of their position, and interprets the law with a clear, and un-biased mindset.

When you become a Senator of this great nation, you take an oath of office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Now, I could raise all sorts of issues regarding the many Senators we have had that have knowingly torn various parts of the Constitution out of either disregard, or simple hate. However, that isn’t the issue I want to bring about today. Now, you’d think in an office of such honor, the Pledge of Allegiance would be a joyous moment for you every day in office. To be able to serve such a great nation, and to be in such a place of power would be humbling and amazing at the same time. It seems though, that these people think far more of their personal agenda than they do this nation.

How is this acceptable? How is this in anyway permissible? Whoever you are, liberal, conservative, crazy, Christian, Muslim, etc… Doesn’t such outright disregard and the childish behavior it obviously comes from disgust you?

And yet these people are still in office?!

Stay tuned for updates on how your freedoms as an American are being stolen while you sleep.