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 Prosperity and vitality has been replaced by slums and despair.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.

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

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.