Vanishing Freedoms

“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.

Here is my definition of the political spectrum and the ‘control’ each exerts on the individual.

Ultimately, Conservatism is based on our nation’s founding principles. That is strict adherence of and reverence to the Constitution, effective government that operates within the boundaries of the Constitution, dignity of Individual Rights granted by God, not government… for if you don’t believe in God given rights, you must believe that your rights are bestowed by government… a dangerous conclusion because man, who created government, is imperfect and flawed and can take away any rights that he might give.

Conservatism champions the ‘individual’ to be the very best they can be and advocates ‘freedom of life’, liberty, and the pursuit of success through ones own desire and capabilities. ‘Societal change’ is based on “Prudence” and “Wisdom” with focus on experience, informed knowledge, and long held traditions of that society. The individual must be restrained, ethical and honorable, one that rejects relativism which blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong and just and unjust. The individual has a duty to respect the rights of others and the values, customs, and traditions which are tried and tested over time and passed from one generation to the next, and is responsible for his own well-being and that of his family, but willing to (and this is key!)… voluntarily contribute to the welfare of his community and country.

Soft tyranny in the form of Liberalism (Progressivism), on the other hand, rejects the Founders’ idea of the dignity of the individual and the founding principles. One that believes that big government is the ultimate vehicle to societal equality by pursuing uniform economic and social outcomes, continuing to enhance its power at the expense of self-government, which violates individual property rights, individual liberty and choice.

This social and economic uniformity is accomplished by forced wealth redistribution (Communism, Marxism) which is administered by the government.

(Synonyms for Big government: Central Government, National State, Federal Government). Progressives often justify “change” by conferring new, abstract rights, many times through deception, intended to empower the central government and deny man’s real rights. They believe the Constitution is a “dynamic” or living document that can be reinterpreted and construed differently than what the founding fathers intended, even to the point of using foreign law to interpret its meaning which fits their own political or social agendas. The more dependence (or victims) created helps empower big government by enlarging its constituency.

Ultra tyranny in a dictatorial state, are advocates of Totalitarianism (Statism, Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Fascism) that seeks to build a Utopia society, by gathering more and more power to invoke policies, in an attempt to make the unequal equal and the imperfect perfect. The central government demands strict obedience, conformity, reliance and dependence. Individual liberty is the ultimate enemy, for a Utopia is impossible if individuals are allowed to go their own way and do their own thing. Individualism must be shattered through persuasion, deception, intimidation, manipulation and thought control (Propaganda).

Ultimately, the individual must be subordinated to the government and is forced to abandon his personal ambitions for the good of big government.

The media is state run, and the only information released to the people is the information deemed fit by the state. Free elections of leaders are forbidden. A citizen’s first duty must be to the state – not family, community and faith, all of which could threaten the central government… once broken, the individual can be molded by the central government.

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.