Vanishing Freedoms

“That government is best which governs least.” – Thomas Paine

The evidence of destructive liberal policies are all around us in our once great dynamic and energetic cities… cities such as Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York, Chicago, Washington D.C., Los Angeles to name a few. Most of these municipalities and their states have been governed for decades by liberal progressives that promote a larger government, supported by higher taxes, excess spending and general policies that are unfavorable to family, and business and industry that supply the jobs needed for a financially viable, healthy and vibrant economy. Prosperity and vitality has been replaced by slums and despair.

Curiously, in an added footnote, many of these cities and states are union heavy localities, who for many years have supported the Democrat Party and its policies. But that’s a discussion for another time.

The decay and devastation has just accelerated since the ‘New Deal’ and ‘Great Society’ initiatives, especially in the black community. As an example, North Omaha (Omaha’s black community) was once a flourishing and prosperous area of commerce that has since struggled to recapture its once thriving and proud history. This common scene has been duplicated in many major cities across our country.

It’s true that the racial turmoil of the late 60’s, in conjunction with the destruction of many of the local business establishments helped devastate the commerce that was so prevalent in these specific communities, as well as other prominent cities around the nation. Thankfully, that sad period in our nation’s history is mostly behind us. The pigment of ones skin should never, or ever be an excuse for the failure of an individual to prosper… and our country has done much to remedy that societal problem.

Additionally though, I believe the implementation of malevolent Federal entitlement programs and hurtful policies that contribute to ongoing social decay actually impaired businesses and the people from becoming more affluent, self-sufficient and successful.

Crime, poverty, social unrest and lack of community continue to haunt these particular neighborhoods. Breakup of the family unit is prevalent and commonplace.

The people that reside in these affected municipalities have become more dependent upon government solutions and handouts which stifle ambition, resourcefulness and the incentive to succeed on their own.

It is imperative that our citizens begin to examine more closely the ‘results’ of these harmful policies, and not just the promised government solutions or espoused ‘intentions’ of our political leaders.

Remember, government does not produce our nation’s wealth… it just confiscates it, redistributes it and consumes wealth that is produced by the achievers of our nation.

In addition, if industry, corporations and business cannot afford to stay in business because of burdensome regulations and taxes within that environment, they permanently leave or close their doors, unable and unwilling to hire the additional workers to grow their businesses.

This is currently being demonstrated in states such as California, Michigan, New York and New Jersey, where there is a mad dash by industry and individuals to leave these locations to more business friendly states with lower taxes, and to alternate environments where jobs and opportunity are more plentiful.

Without a healthy environment for the economy and crucial job creation, the citizens cannot financially support themselves or their communities. Neighborhoods collapse into disrepair and are no longer able to sustain its people. The city and state lose a vital tax base for needed revenues that power their local economies.

Without the promise of jobs, the citizens resort to crime and unproductive activities that not only hurt their neighborhoods, but also to the state and the country as a whole. Instead of reversing these detrimental policies, the city, states and federal government perpetuate the problem by governmental hand-outs to those downtrodden that are affected by these expensive and unhelpful policies.

This has become a vicious downward cycle with ever increasing taxes and spending to solve this expanding problem. With no hope for a future, and continuous monetary assistance from government entities, these affected people lose all hope for self-reliance, ambition and incentive is crushed along with self-respect and the ability and desire to succeed.

The individual becomes a sloth… a ward of the state and an easy targeted constituency for the progressive cause.

Instead of reducing the size of government, and excess government spending, supporting individual and corporate tax cuts, economic incentives and creating a favorable environment for commerce and job creation… now local governing bodies around the nation and the Federal Government’, led by progressive leadership, is enacting injurious fiscal and social policies, then taking them to the entire nation for implementation.

However, the increase in crime and destructive activities cannot, and should not be blamed totally on economic reasons. There has been a larger fundamental shift in culture from my younger years.

Most of the families who lived in my neighborhood during my youth were of modest financial means too, but a vast majority didn’t resort to criminal acts or destructive behavior on account of their impoverished conditions. In fact, this form of restrained social behavior was also exhibited during the ‘Great Depression’ years in the U.S. as a whole, where the people survived on much less than what the people do today.

Our societal decline has been caused by factors other than mere economics. It has been a basic breakdown of our long held traditions and values that once supported our American culture and families, and all willfully supported by our current progressive government and their damaging initiatives.

As a people we continue to fight this decline using ineffective means, such as throwing and squandering massive amounts of money at social problems, when what we face are deep cultural and philosophical problems that cannot be solved by only monetary means.

As a country we face a crisis of the soul and societal direction.

It may be harsh but true, but I believe the majority of our people now know the ‘change’ that was promised us by this current radical far-left wing government was just a sales pitch, an illusion… and outright propaganda designed to build a imaginary Utopia… which can never be built.

In our soul searching… do our people continue to subscribe to the damaging progressive agenda of the last several decades… or do we re-adopt the plan of our country’s Constitutional founding? That is, ethical, limited and responsive government… governed by the people, instead of by non-representing representatives and bureaucrats.

And lastly, are ‘we the people’ willing to again follow proven, long-held traditions and the laws of a civil society that are just and forthright, in other words… one that’s guided by principle and morality.

The healthy change that is needed won’t be an easy transition for our citizens, and time is running out quickly for our country.

In fact…the time to choose is nearly upon us…

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have… – Thomas Jefferson

The seeds of ‘Big Government’ were sown during the Woodrow Wilson and the Theodore Roosevelt administrations with the establishment of the progressive income tax, Federal Drug Administration, the Federal Reserve Bank and the League of Nations in the early 1900’s. Along with these events, a populist mentality was established that said government should and was the preferred entity to solve societal and world problems.

But during the Great Depression of the 1930s, a radical and fundamental change occurred that altered the nature of American society. It was called the “New Deal”. The Democratic controlled congress, along with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, instituted a huge array of federal social programs, entitlements, taxes and regulation that circumvented the boundaries of our Constitution by violating state sovereignty and private property rights.

When the Federal courts tried to intervene in stopping these intrusions into the states and individual rights, Roosevelt threatened to pack the court with like minded liberal justices who would advocate his policies, a tactic still used today to change American society when the majority of the general public opposes government policy. Instead of amending the Constitution seeking permission to grant the government additional powers or change established law, as the founders intended, it is simply given more authority through judicial activism and court orders by unelected judges who aren’t accountable to the American people.

Simply put, and so accurately espoused by Mark Levin, Roosevelt’s policies left the U.S with a legacy of massive, unaccountable corporation which has become the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider and pension guarantor, with more and more power given to the central government with every new program initiated. In turn, individual freedom and states authority are being reduced exponentially.

Sadly, the American people’s perception of this authority has fundamentally changed also. The basic founding concept that the “Central Government works for the people”, is being replaced with the false notion that, “Government has the ultimate power that dictates policy”, which in turn, grants freedom and benefits to all states and its people.

In reality, elected representatives and the Federal government are given their powers by the people, and it’s the people for whom they work for and serve, as stated in the Constitution.

However, big government controls more of our economy than ever, it controls more of our daily lives more than ever, and it is changing the fundamentals of our society at an ever increasing and alarming rate. In many ways these profound internal changes are more insidious and destructive than the outside threats of aggressor nations.

The additional threats we now face, are from within… gradual and incremental revolution conveniently cloaked in the flag and patriotism, thus fooling the unaware, ill-informed and un-informed populous. Many of these changes and actions are calculated and deliberately intended and designed to separate the people from their U.S. Constitution and the founding principles.

I tend to believe that the displaced socialist and communist remnants of the failed Soviet state of yesterday had found refuge in the modern U.S. progressive movement and the Democrat Party of today.

Big Central government sponsored “Nannyism” and “Collectivism” is replacing “Rugged Individualism” and “Capitalism”. And as many noted policy makers, historians and scholars have pointed out, once you lose freedoms, it’s almost always impossible to get them back, unless by force.

Reality v. Saldana

Recently there has been a push in California for AB1394, this video’s author test some statements supposedly made by Lori Saldana. Enjoy!

When the Federal Government gets out of the way, and is limited to their stated Constitutional duties, the free market system, the people and the American Republic will flourish.

History is littered with leaders and social/political do-gooders promising to make life better for their peoples, but instead, create conditions that prove to be more controlling, authoritarian and corrupt. Wherever strict government control has been implemented, it has resulted in total disaster for the country, socially, economically and culturally.

Again, the driving statist philosophy agenda is a proven ‘failure’. In all of modern history, no central government has ever succeeded in controlling a nation’s people, economy and managing its industries without creating financial and social ruin for the country or its people. Human society flourishes when government protects individual rights and allows free markets to work. The American Founders understood this truth.

No other country in the world can match the social, intellectual and cultural independence, entrepreneurial success and robust economy of the American system largely because of our unrivaled religious and societal freedoms, free markets, capitalistic incentives and democratic form of government. It’s a proven system that shouldn’t be taken for granted or modified for ideological and political purposes, hence, we all may loose the very things that proved to make our country the greatest in human history.

America is the only country in the world that is ‘unique’ and ‘exceptional’ in this regard, and is worth the individual citizen’s personal sacrifices in order to preserve these positive American attributes.

America has been traveling down the road of collectivism/progressivism (Government Control of the populous) for the last 70 plus years, with progressive government in control, it steadily promotes societal changes (social engineering programs), as in purging God, faith and morality from our everyday life and from American Culture, undermining traditional marriage and fostering/promoting greater compassion/understanding among the populous for the unproductive/dependent class and encouragement of the victimhood mentality. And with willing media accomplices, big government continues to take away initiative and the incentive to be better while robbing individuals of their ambition and independence.

All of this government intrusion and growing entitlement mentality, originally designed and intended to benefit the people are, in actuality, enslaving the people with more government programs, bureaucracy, regulations and taxes. All of which are slowly stripping Americans from their most important heritage… Liberty.

“Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for the rest of his life” – An anonymous wise man…

Make no mistake… there has been a calculated strategy and a constant goal by those on the far-left to transform America into a country that fits their world view, that is, equality and fairness (defined as economic and social equality) for all, imposed and implemented by the central government, at the expense of self-government, capitalism, individual rights and personal freedoms.

The left fails to acknowledge that every human being has different abilities, talents, desires, and ambition. There is no way to equalize those differences, unless by force, with laws that redistribute wealth and penalize achievement.

Instead of pulling the poor and underprivileged up the wealth scale, the left tries to ‘equalize’ society by taking from the producers and achievers and giving their fruits to those of lesser means… in essence, by policies that punish success and prosperity. This is all done under the guise of ‘compassion’ to our fellow man, but you can’t make the poor rich by making the rich poor. This approach only creates animosity, divisiveness and bitterness among the people and does nothing to create new wealth for society, or for that matter, the poor.

The way to improve the poor’s condition is to ‘empower’ them to help themselves and to grow the country’s economic pie so all can benefit. Real ‘compassion’ is to give them a ‘hand-up’, not a ‘hand-out’, in other words, help the less-fortunate to receive the tools to succeed, and to make positive ‘life-decisions’ and become self-sufficient, independent contributors to society.

It’s the government’s duty to preserve and provide the conditions and climate for the individual to succeed, as Reagan had wisely stated during his presidency.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not” – Thomas Jefferson

I personally don’t mind having individuals, society, or the local community, help those who truly need a hand-out, especially if they have exhausted all the avenues for success or are unable to help themselves for various physical or mental reasons. It would be un-American to do otherwise. The American people are some of the most gracious and giving people the world has ever known.

However, when someone ‘earns’ something on their own effort, as opposed to it being given to him, he/she has greater appreciation for it. “Nothing of worth is free in life.”

Once government steps aside, one must realize that ‘opportunity’ is abundant in our country…not a false claim, if one is persistent and willing to search for those opportunities along with investing in oneself. This is one important, of many, life lessons I took to heart when growing up in South Omaha.

The below document are why we celebrate this great day. Please take time to remember why we are here today and why people have the freedoms to celebrate today in their own way. Keep in mind a lot of the men who signed this document met tragic ends due to their very signature. They knew they ran the chance of losing everything to be free from tyranny and went ahead anyways. They knew, freedom isn’t free. Have a safe Independence Day.

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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 to 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 shown 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. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Those who signed the document:

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

From an email I recently received, author unknown.

Last week I purchased a burger at local burger joint for $1.58. The counter girl took my $ 2 and I was digging for my change when I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies, while looking at the screen on her register. I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters , but she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she stood there and cried. Why do I tell you this? It is the result of the evolution in math teaching since the 1950s:

1. Teaching Math In 1950s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?

2. Teaching Math In 1960s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

3. Teaching Math In 1970s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

4. Teaching Math In 1980s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Math In 1990s

A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20.. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their home ‘ s? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it’s ok. )

6. Teaching Math In 2009

Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

7. Teaching Math In 2010

The logging industry no longer exists and the loggers are on welfare. Who cares, just steal the lumber from your rich neighbor’s property. He won’t have a gun to stop you, and the President says it’s OK anyway because it is a redistribution of wealth.

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.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/03/palins-resignation-stirs-debate-political-future/

Why did she step down? Could it be she bowed out under pressure? Or could it be to save her state money invested in defending her against ethics investigations liberal critics keep pounding her with. Where were these ethics investigations before she became the GOP Vice-President nominee? How many other governors are going through the same treatment? Ask yourselves these questions before you make your mind up.

EDIT: 07/04/09. Full text of Sarah Palin’s letter posted today:

Happy 4th of July from Alaska!
Today at 4:55pmOn this Independence Day, I am so very proud of all those who have chosen to serve our great nation and I honor their selflessness and the sacrifices of their families, too.