December 19, 2009
This is what they would do if they were real Republicans. This is what they would do if they truly had the values that this party is meant to protect. This is what they would do if they had any decency at all within their spirit. This is what a principled conservative would do after their dismal record. But...they will not will they? Because the sad truth is that they are what they ran against. They are career politicians with no regard for the country or the people, only their own personal power and aggrandizement.
This is why the problem with this country is not the Democrats. We know who they are. We know what they do with power. The current Obama administration makes this point tremendously. The problem is the Republican party and it's incompetent leadership. It has become a den of snakes who deceive and betray the very people who put them where they are. That is why the party must be cleaned out top to bottom. Every single member of the current congress with very few exceptions, does not deserve the prestigious position with which they have been blessed. In the upcoming primary elections the people should vote against the incumbent Republican and vote for a principled conservative to replace them. If one is not available then citizens must rise to the call of history and file for that seat. If no one files, then a third party candidate should be voted for in their place. In the case of the House of Representatives our founding fathers allowed only a two year term for precisely this reason. We can elect the dog catcher and he could do no more harm than the current holder of the seat. In two years a principled conservative can be found to replace the dog catcher. Leaving a current member in office is no longer an option.
We are all charged to protect this republican form of government and pass it on to future generations. If we fail in this charge, then nothing we do in our entire life can make reparations for the damage we inflict on our fellow man for decades if not centuries to come. We will have participated in the destruction of the most precious endeavor that mankind has embarked upon; the spread of liberty and free market capitalism which is responsible for all of the great achievements of mankind. To destroy this would truly be a sin which God himself must find monumentally disappointing, and excruciatingly difficult to forgive.
By: Keith D. Rodebush
November 15, 2009
Let us start by addressing a few facts:
1. Barack Obama has refused to even say 'War on Terror' since he's been elected.
2. Barack Hussein Obama has been to many countries since being elected in which he typically apologizes for America, giving the impression that the War on Terror is a result of America's actions, not those of a radical fascist group which has hijack a major religion for the purpose of bringing down western democracy.
3. This administration, and the last, have done absolutely nothing of substance to curtail the Iranian mullahs pursuit of nuclear weapons.
4. After the attack at Fort Hood, the president spent several minutes of his next press conference talking about frivolous issues before addressing the tragedy at Fort Hood where 13 of America's finest were slaughtered.
5. The shooter at Fort Hood shouted 'God is Great' in Arabic as all terrorists do just before killing westerners.
6. The shooter at Fort Hood used a FNH FiveseveN tactical pistol that is preferred by swat teams for it's capability of penetrating body armor.
7. The shooter at Fort Hood is known to have contacted terrorists web sites, spoke in favor of suicide bombers and considers the Taliban as 'brother Muslims'.
8. And yet, Barack Hussein Obama still refuses to call this man a terrorist. Nor will anyone else in this administration.
9. This man boy, now brings the major terrorists in our custody to New York City to stand trial in civilian court with all of the constitutional protections that involves, when military tribunals are already set up and ready to try them as they should be, for war crimes against civilians in a time of war. This is obviously being done for political reasons. Politics is more important than winning the war.
10. Finally, while our troops are fighting a tough battle to keep the Taliban from resurging in Afghanistan, this administration is lackadaisically deciding whether it is good policy to send them the support they need to complete their stated mission. While he dally's around, our boys are dying.
11. Nidal Hasan is listed by the George Washington University as being a participant in Barack Hussein Obama's transitional team. (page 29 "Thinking Anew - Security Priorities for the next Administration")
Any reasonable person can only come to the conclusion that this is a weak president that will be viewed as such by all the world. This will cause our enemies to be emboldened. They will fight harder. They will recruit more with the promise that we can be defeated. More Americans will die as a result. This is the fate that will befall us because we were so naive as to ignore the history of a rookie running for the highest office at a time of war. What have we done?
This country must come to grips with the fact that we are at WAR with a tenacious enemy that wants nothing more than to kill as many as they can in order to soften our resolve to track them down and kill them first. If we do not, then many many more Americans will die than need to. We kill our own. God have mercy on this nation.
November 6, 2009
There was a time not that long ago; I know because I still remember it and I'm not THAT old; when a man was judged by his character. We were taught that your word and your honor was all that you had that no one could take from you. It was the most important thing in a man's life. From this foundation all other aspects of his life evolved. The success or failure of his work, his faith, his relationships are all determined by the strength or weakness of his character. This fundamental aspect of human nature has been the bedrock of the rugged individualism that has allowed this country to thrive in liberty; for one must have character to keep liberty. Lack of character requires another source of discipline to fill the void and tyrannical governments are all too happy to accomodate.
One could always find lack of character in some individuals but the extent to which it is lacking today is shocking. The following is but one example, many others can be found in almost any organization in America, from Congress to so-called religious groups to the much maligned journalists painting the pages of dying rags across this great land. This involves one of our favorite pastimes meant to distract us from this very problem...football. Last weekend a college team was playing and one of their young men; and he is a man, not a boy, not a kid, a voting age, drinking age, warring age American man; was involved in a pile up at the end of the play. This young man then proceeded to try and force his hand into the ball carriers facemask with the obvious intent of gouging the eyes of the victim. Now, please just think about that for one moment...
Here is a man who is willing to purposely harm, perhaps severely, a fellow human being for his own personal advancement or advantage. I submit to you that you need not know anything else about this young man. Please understand, as a redeemed soul I have great faith in the power of forgiveness and redemption. But this comes after long periods of soul searching and personal criticism followed with more long periods of rebuilding ones character. But this story is not just about this young man, it is about all of the people around him. What would you think should be the punishment for a man who is willing to bring physical harm, completely outside of the collateral injury inherent to the game, to a fellow player? How about a half game suspension? Yes, my friends this was the sentence handed down by this organization. After some criticism on the airwaves the young man has 'voluntarily' agreed to sit out a whole game, oooooh. No one that I have heard is asking for what should really be done. This man should never play organized sports again. This type of action is unacceptable in a civilized society. The thought that some day this man could be reaping huge rewards in a professional league after this action is enough to turn ones stomach. Our young men will never develop the character that they so desperately need if so called adults refuse to hold them accountable for this type of activity. This man is by no means alone and the examples are too numerous to name, and I don't have to. You have several running through your mind right now. You do because they are so prevalent in this society.
We can never preserve our republican form of government without first rebuilding our national character. We must start in the most natural place to start, with our children. We cannot teach our children anything that we do not ourselves know. We must collectively develop our own character and in turn require our children to follow suit. Yes, some among us will pay a heavy price, such as this young man losing his chance to participate in a sport he has spent many years pursuing. However, the rewards far outweigh the price for they are respect, honor, trust, faith, liberty and freedom from the shackles of those who would fill the void with their own brand of character; one which is beaten into our brow with the blunt stick of tyranny.
October 23, 2009
Well, it's looking more and more like the Democrat party is using any means necessary to pass legislation which will take over anywhere from 18-20% of our increasingly nationalized economy, public opposition be damned. Behind closed doors, (transparency for Democrats,) Senate majority leader Harry Reid, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, and Obama's 'brain', David Axelrod are busily bypassing the legislative process by essentially reconciling the several health care reform bills into one. These people have only contempt for you and your petty Constitutional protections. Reid, Pelosi, and Democrat stenographers in the press continue to blame Republicans for the difficulties they are having, and are seemingly oblivious to the fact that Republicans are completely powerless to stop any legislation! Remember Obama's admonishment, "We won?"
This is only the most recent contradiction of the radical-lefts promises of "open" and "transparent" governance when they were wresting control of our country from the ravages of the "Republican monopoly on power." But now the shoe is on the other foot and faced with the reality of actually governing the radical left sees no problem with a monopoly of their own. The fact that the Mao-admiring left holds itself to no standard is nothing new and to enumerate their hypocrisy would be a Quixotic endeavor. But I digress.
What I cannot understand, however, is why otherwise intelligent people, with so many examples of government ineptitude on display, are so willing to surrender their personal sovereignty to an incompetent federal government with its unaccountable bureaucrats. All of the greatness enjoyed by this nation are the product of liberty and the free market system and yet we seem indifferent to turning it over to an ever more powerful central government, our grandchildren be damned. Today significant numbers of people cannot get a swine flu vaccine because of the 1993 Clinton-era Vaccines for Children program. This law compelled vaccine producers to sell vast quantities at half price directly to the feds to be distributed to the poor and uninsured. Who could be against that, right? The unintended consequences however, were a dwindling number of producers and routine shortages of all types of vaccines. Oh but it will be different when we get health reform and let the government run it all. Um....right. The dirty little secret is they have got to have government run health care because Medicare/Medicaid is quickly going bankrupt. (See, "A Case Against Government Health Care" http://tinyurl.com/nsa98t)
The Imperial pay czar Ken Feinberg is kneecapping company executive salaries that took TARP funds. On principle, I feel if you get in bed with the government don't complain when you get smothered. However, as a stockholder, is capping salaries in the best interest of the long term prospects of the company? Honestly, put yourself in the position of having your salary cut by 90%. Regardless of whether you make minimum wage or millions, are you willing to stay and take it? If you're honest, you'll admit that you would go looking for work at a non-TARP company. What do you think will happen when all of the talent leaves the government run companies? And when the central planners in White House get slapped in the face with that reality guess what happens next? Well, then the government will be 'forced' to put the same pay restraints on those who did not take the TARP money. It's only fair right? And, maybe, the government will just have to take over the other companies anyway. It's the only way we can get the peoples money back from those greedy Wall Street types, you know?
Our country has lost its skepticism of power and those who seek to obtain it; we notice only the slick packaging and promised results. In granting power to fewer and fewer at the highest levels we must ignore the tyrannical nature of concentrated power and suspend the principles of human nature and economics in order to convince ourselves that the predictable results will be different this time. Isn't that insanity? Are you truly willing to bankrupt your grandchildren for your own personal gain? Are you truly willing to give up liberty, fought for with blood and treasure, for your own comfort, leaving future generations no choice but to expend more blood and treasure to retrieve it? We simply must wrap ourselves in the armor of knowledge. Never leave it to the wolves to assess the danger in the bush.
One of the original hippie idealist, Benjamin Franklin said it best "...it is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."
Won't you take on your first responsibility?
Minor editing by: Keith D. Rodebush
October 18, 2009
Hatred is the most powerful of all human emotion and is very useful to those who want money and power. For tens of thousands of years, corrupt, self promoting tyrants have used fear and hatred to consolidate the ignorant populous behind their bid for power. Whether it be the Roman's leading a propaganda campaign against the Gauls or Hitler trashing the Jews or Al Gore inciting fear and hatred of those evil corporations (which he owns and operates btw); politicians hungry for money and power find it useful to incite fear and hatred of their opponent to mobilize the masses to 'defeat' them, and by default elect the instigator. And we fall for it; time and time again. We fall for it. Because we are sheep who have lost our sense of self reliance we now turn to government for answers. But they only have one answer, regardless of party affiliation. "Give us more money and more power and give up more of your liberty and we will save the day!" Of course they never do; in fact they always make things worse. Yes, even the iconic Ronald Reagan who did more to slow government growth than any modern president, nevertheless grew government, spent more and solidified government control by backing such programs as Medicare, public education, and Social Security. Yes, he argued against all of these, but in the end he signed multiple bills that further ensconced the federal government as the ultimate authority in all areas of our lives - cradle to grave. And we fell for it. We always fall for it. And we will fall for it again and again. Isn't that the epitomy of insanity? Can an insane country survive?
There is only one answer. Vote them out. All of them. Start with the leaders and work your way down. We usually do the opposite. When we are upset with one party, we vote out the peons of the other party, leaving the 'leadership' in place, then elect them to run the country. Then we sit back and whine, "Why doesn't anything change?". Start with the leaders of the Republican party in next years primary. Vote them out and replace them with principled conservatives. Not one on the ballot? Then RUN RUN RUN! Your country needs you! Vote them out in the primary. Then in the general election, vote out the democrats. Then, next election vote them out again in the primary. Clean out the whole rat's nest. The only politician that deserves your vote, is one that has voted against every single bill that expands government in any way shape or form. Any politician that voted to raise pay, expenses or benefits doesn't deserve your vote. Any politician that voted for more government spending of any kind, on any program other than the few constitutionally mandated areas does not deserve your vote. Regardless of what they say in the next campaign, if they have voted even once for a federal spending program, they do not deserve your vote. If you fall for it again, then not only is there no hope for you; there is no hope for your children or grandchildren; and your great grand-children will have to fight a bloody revolution to take back the liberty that the last several generations have frittered away. Are you insane? Well, prove it, sheep!
by: Keith D. Rodebush
October 13, 2009
Back in February, speaking to Justice Department employees on the topic of racism, US Attorney General Eric Holder said "We have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, a nation of cowards." He followed up with a less terse statement saying that "Americans of all races should stop avoiding the difficult issues of race." I'm not so sure about the charge of cowardice but maybe we are just so browbeaten when it comes to issues of race. So, at the risk of inviting more ad hominem attacks, let's talk about race.
The other night my wife and I watched the Clint Eastwood film Gran Torino. The story is quite moving in its juxtaposition of racism and redemption. Without spoiling the plot, it's a story of a recently widowed retired man whose once blue collar neighborhood is becoming more and more a community of mostly Asian immigrants. Still struggling with the demons of his service in the Korean war, he grudgingly befriends the immigrant Hmong children next door after saving one of them from a brutal gang attack. The following day, I saw the horrendous video of Derrion Albert, an honor student on his way home from school, killed by black gang thugs simply because he stumbled upon this brawl. An innocent black kid with a promising future killed by black kids with no regard for themselves or anyone else for that matter. Positively senseless. Earlier in mid September, also caught on video, a white student was beaten by two black students on a school bus in some sort of dispute over a seat. In both instances the attack was seemingly unprovoked -maybe some words were exchanged earlier in the day, who knows. But perhaps even more disturbing is the apparent fact that this is just a normal every day occurrence for these kids. Why would any group of people or culture look the other way when such despicable acts happen in their midst? I see these things and I ask, is this how you want to live? Do you wish to live as animals? Is this how you want to be perceived by others? Is it your intention to continue to fall on the crutch of racism and proclaim yourselves helpless? If so, I can assure you -it is a dead end road that leads to misery and loathing.
Continuously branding broad groups of people with the baseless charge of racism will, in the log run, do two things. First, it trivializes the true meaning of the word thus drawing an ever diminishing reaction from the accused. I have been called racist so often that I refuse to answer the charge. It no longer has any meaning to me because it is always pre-qualified by my political vantage point. Second, it sows deep the seeds of mistrust and resentment. The former can be easily reversed simply by stopping the behavior. The latter, if not reversed, will steep for generations and will undo what was fought for with blood and treasure since this country's founding. And oh what a tragedy it would be.
October 11, 2009
This week the Nobel committee gave the Nobel Peace Prize to president Barack Hussein Obama. The nomination for Obama came less than two weeks after he took office. President Obama now joins the ranks of such historical pillars of peace as Kofi Annan and the terrorist killer of women and children, Yasser Arafat. The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke to any thinking person with a modicum of knowledge of world history. Throughout known history, peace has been achieved by freedom loving peoples applying targeted aggressive use of force to annihilate dictatorial leaders and their armies who spread violence and fear in their realm of influence.
From Herodotus' The Histories to any tome following the second world war, the oppression of peoples around the world has been ended by good people, yearning for liberty and peace, not just for themselves but their neighbors. These principled men and women used massive force with deliberation and focus. They gathered all resources necessary and available to overwhelm and kill as many of the enemy as needed to make the oppressors kneel in a genuflecting observance of power. This aggressive use of force has freed more peoples world wide, resolved regional conflicts, fed more hungry, stabilized more countries and led to the building of world wealth more than any speech or Utopian desire of the misguided leaders among us.
The United Nations spent 10 years and passed almost a hundred resolutions trying to get the dictator Sadaam Hussein to stop harassing his neighbors and terrifying his own people. He raped, pillaged and plundered all the while. He raised two sons who were poised to take over his oppressive regime and continue their terrorism of the Iraqi people and their neighbors in perpetuity. Only the aggressive use of force by the United States under the visionary guidance of president George W. Bush put an end to this tyrants reign. What the impudent 'peacemakers' of the U.N. could not accomplish in 10 years, president George W. Bush accomplished in 5. For that he has been scorned and ignored by the 'noble (Nobel) peace prophets' of the modern era. And yet, this same committee has no qualms about a man who bombed airplanes, murdered people in the streets, blew up old men, women and children in markets and on buses only to be made a leader of his people and engage in 'peace' talks that were nothing more than capitulation by the West. His people have continued their terrorist ways and fomented world wide aggression towards the Jewish people, resulting in the current crisis with an Iranian government whose stated goal is to wipe Israel off the map and currently is seeking to build a nuclear weapon to that end. To this man, Arafat, they awarded a Nobel Peace Prize on December 10,1994. Whose next Ahmadinejad? Kim Jong Il?
Congratulations, president Obama on this 'prestigious' award. If our president had one decent bone in his body, he would send a United States Marine, in full combat dress with loaded M-16, to accept the award on behalf of the U.S. military and their families who continue to bring peace and prosperity to a world which largely ignores the debt they owe to this great nation and it's aggressive use of force to physically stamp out the evil oppressors of mankind.
The Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than a sick joke on the world so they may continue to pretend that love of fellow man, capitulation and negotiations are sufficient to stop the terrorism of peace loving peoples around the world. Sadly, this impotent leadership actually has caused the death of millions throughout history. Millions have died because of the misguided policies of those who share the philosophy of the Nobel Peace prize committee members. Think about that the next time you see a U.S. soldier. It is abundantly clear in the case of liberal leaders especially in Europe, when it comes to bringing peace to the world, the 'Emperor' has no dress!
October 4, 2009
Life is full of ironies. Books have been written on the subject. One of the tragic ironies of our age and particular to our nation is that of our greatest strength becoming our greatest weakness. America was founded on Christian principles by mostly faithful men who based their belief in liberty and freedom on the concept that it was God given and therefore to be cherished and defended even to the death. They dedicated their property, their fortunes and even their very lives on this principled stand against despotism. Two of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers by trade; John Witherspoon of New Jersey was a presbyterian minister and Lyman Hall of Georgia was a congregationalist pastor. Our founding fathers did not draw a distinction between the protection of liberty and the teaching of the Gospels. They were one and the same fight. Religion in America today has become a part of the problem that threatens to steal our liberty and replace it with soft tyranny.
Religion is compassionate and giving by it's very nature. People of faith tend to be believers in the human spirit and want to give their fellow man the benefit of the doubt. This unfortunately extends to politics. As our country has grown and the level of communication has tied us together ever more expeditiously, religion tends to look at the country as a whole as one big congregation. It is only natural, given that perception, for them to look to the federal government as a means to spread the compassion of the faithful to the 'congregation' in need.
The problem with this of course is that it is short-sighted and fails to perceive the inherent evil of a strong central government that our forefathers consistently warned against. While a minister may extol the virtues of providing health care to our senior citizens in the form of Medicare, do you expect that he has foreseen the bankrupting of future generations to that end? While the former is compassionate the latter is despicable. How many ministers when excoriating their congregations for not doing enough for the needy, have thoughtfully and logically determined what is best for them? If you give blindly to the needy without regard to future ramifications, are you helping the needy; or just your self image? Is it compassionate to break up families for generations as welfare has done? Is it compassionate to steal your grandchildrens liberty for your health care? Is it God's will to ignore one of His greatest gifts, Liberty, in pursuit of His greatest charge to aid the poor?
The big lie is that you cannot do both. The people that envisioned this country were very savvy. They knew of our capacity for kindness and giving. They also knew of the evil and corruption of an all encompassing government. They gave us the framework to do both, protect liberty and provide for the comfort of millions; the free market capitalist system coupled with a republican form of government meant to give power to the persons closest to the people. This is how you provide for your neighbor while never trusting your government. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Government is by it's very nature your enemy. Keep them closer. Local and state control at all costs. Federal solutions for only issues of freedom, liberty and leveling the field for all to participate in the free market system. Capitalism has done more to help the poor and disenfranchised people of the world than anything ever conceived by Man. Government has done more to perpetuate poverty and dependence than anything ever conceived by Man. No system is perfect and people must be held accountable for their actions. But nothing is more compassionate than to protect free market capitalism and a repubican form of government for the generations yet born. The protection of liberty and capitalism will put you in God's favor more than anything a tyrannical government can possibly conceive.
by: Keith D. Rodebush
October 3, 2009
Is there anything about this country that the President finds worthy of praise? Is there anything good about us as a nation? Listen to any of his foreign policy speeches he has made and one could understandably come to the conclusion that they were listening to Hugo Chavez or Dear Leader Kim Jong Il. Liberals quickly become defensive when someone "challenges their patriotism" or suggests they might not hold this country in the highest regard. We need only revisit recent remarks of the President to understand why that is so. Several times during his campaign Obama allowed his true colors to shine through the centrist veneer he presented. The following was one of the most profound and frankly, quite disturbing. "We are 5 days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" he said at a campaign rally in Missouri the week before his election. President Obama is not stupid and chooses his words carefully. A country needing fundamental change is a country flawed to its core. It means it cannot be salvaged. It must be razed to its foundation in order to be reconstructed. In other words, America doesn't just have problems, it is the problem!
In just nine short months President Obama has - in the interest of restoring America's global standing and reputation - apologized for our existence in Egypt, France, Ghana, London, Russia, and Turkey but just can't bring himself to say anything nice about us. Latest on the appeasement tour was his first address to the United Nations. Just days after kicking sand in the face of Poland and Czechoslovakia, Obama wasted no time in throwing Israel under the bus. The day prior to his address, former would-be President for life, Manuel Zalaya -undoubtedly emboldened by Obama's support- was smuggled into the Brazilian embassy to rouse his rabble in Tegucigalpa. Then there was the spectacle of the worlds despots praising our President at the UN. Why wouldn't our enemies laud the person who seeks to abandon our eastern European allies, emasculate our military, and hamstring our economy, all while adding harmony to the global cantus firmus of "it's America's fault." Is it just me or does it seem Obama is more interested in kissing the posterior of the world's dictators than acting in the interest of the country which he represents and to which he is beholden?
So what is being accomplished by the President's eorum culpa? I suppose he could he be employing the Corleone maxim of keeping your enemies closer but I don't remember Vito being so transparent about it. This seems to be directed to and for the consumption of his left-wing base which -it appears- has grown to include many of the world's tyrants. (Democrats, that's why we often challenge your patriotism.) He seems to be saying to his base and to the world "you know those old white guys that preceded me, they really screwed up and I apologize for it. But the good news is I'm here to make you feel better about us." Now while that may sound comforting to the emotionally-driven domestic "blame America first" crowd to the international thugocrats this only exposes just how weak he is. I came to the conclusion early in the campaign that our world adversaries had already sized up all of the candidates running. That knowingly or not they had ranked them according to their own preference. Obama most assuredly was their top pick. Not because he would return America to greatness. To the contrary, he seemed to share their loathing for this country. I guess love really does mean never having to say you're sorry -doesn't it Mr. President?
September 26, 2009
Once upon a time there was a Party whose ideas were old and had failed every where they had been tried. When policies became increasingly ineffective the people began to criticise the Party. The Party responded by calling them racists. The people were sensitive to this attack as many of them fought hard to end racism. The tactic worked so well and so often that the Party nominated a special presidential candidate. This candidate, with no executive experience and numerous relations with people of dubious repute, was thought to be shielded with race-plated armor. The people voted for the candidate and rejoiced in the hope that the post-racial era would begin. Then one day a black professor cried "racism"! The President immediately scolded the people, to whom it was obvious that the professor was the racist. The people were confused. Then the President proceeded with the same failed policies and the people again rose up in opposition. Sadly, the Party cried “racism"! Anyone who opposed the President's failed policies was branded a racist. This angered the people deeply, because they were not racists, they simply wanted change. Many of them had voted for the President. They thought that electing a black President would atone for the country’s original sin. Over time, race relations were set back decades as the Party had pitted one group of Americans against all others. The President and the Party fell out of favor, but the damage had already been done. The people were sad that such a magnificent gesture of solidarity had been used to divide the country once again.
The moral of this story:
A vacuous cry of racism breeds cynicism; darkening a nations soul...the minority disenfranchised; the majority skeptical & resentful.
Tribuo nos cado
September 13, 2009
Our founding fathers worked studiously to draft a constitution that would ensure that the central government would never overpower the people themselves. They understood that a free person, with the tools of a free market capitalistic system is the most inventive, innovative and successful weapon to fight any of the ills that may be thrust upon us. Do not be fooled by the arm chair historians who claim that our forefathers had no idea of how complicated modern life would be. They spoke of it often. That is why they laid down a philisophical foundation; that all government is inherently oppressive, and that the best solutions to any problem will be found by free individuals exercising their will within a free market system.
Our government has become a soft tyranny. What started with Theodore Roosevelts Progressive Party, was perverted by Franklin D. Roosevelts Democrat Party, and expanded by modern day liberals is nothing more than a monstrosity ever hungry for more power and money. With ever the mantra that they only want to help those that can't help themselves; itself a spurious indictment of the human spirit; the liberals constantly push for more government programs to fill the gap that previous government programs have developed. Any reasonable entity would soon recognize the futility but a government that has as it's only true ambition the collection of as much power over it's citizenry as possible will never acknowledge the obvious. No problem encountered by a free people can be solved by an enslaved people. Government is never the solution and is always the problem either directly or indirectly. Either through excessive use of it's power or by dereliction of it's true constitutional duty.
Power once derived is never given up easily. It usually requires the use of force and the spilling of blood. However, again we find our forefathers were very intuitive in structuring our government. By giving the House of Representatives a two year term, they allow us the opportunity to greatly change government in one election. As a check against ill conceived change, the Senate terms rotate on a two year basis so it takes ten years to replace all of them. Therefore, we can replace the entire congress in ten years. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a position where this may be necessary. However, a greater problem exists within the party structure. While an observant pol would certainly recognize constituent unrest and change his/her position on any given issue, to change the attitude of those who enter public service will be a long fought enterprise. This battle will require changes to the education system, recognition of parental responsibility in the area of civic duty and self discipline of the electorate to become immune to the patronization of the current flock of public servants.
The question before us all is this: Do we have the fortitude to embark on a generational battle to fundamentally return our government to a government of the people, by the people and for the people? This will require a focused electorate heretofore unrealized. The question is not if the federal government should stop expanding, but that it should retract. That it should return to the states the powers that the constitution supposedly protects. This will take decades and any politician not dedicated to that priniciple must be summarily dismissed from their position at the earliest opportunity regardless of their pleas for mercy. All Americans should cherish liberty for a variety of reasons. We are at a critical period in what has been a century long battle to steal this republic and turn it into something very different. If this generation does not begin the long battle to take back this republican form of government entrusted to us by the blood of our ancestors, we may well go down in history as the generation that lost the American way of life for all generations to come. What will your place in history be?
September 4, 2009
Peoples of all nations have always had differences and difficulties. But all peoples of a republic have a bond stronger than any difference or difficulty should succeed in undermining. All of us rightly should protect at all cost our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are not just words. They are dreams, ambitions, goals, adventures, rights, responsibilities, truths, obligations. While we have our duty to ourselves and our immediate family, we must never forget our higher duty to those who will come after. "No greater love hath any man than to lay down his life for another." You may not have to lay down your life, but you may have to sacrifice. You may have to forego comfort or pleasure so that you may honor and protect the sacred rights of generations yet unborn to enjoy the liberty you naively take for granted today.
If you are a liberal you should cherish liberty. You want to make art and music and love without the state monitoring or censoring your talents. You want to speak freely and criticize those who take advantage of the poor, pollute the environment or frivolously make war. You want to be free to form a collective of like minded people to express your thoughts in deeds as well as words. You want to worship freely and with tolerance for differing lifestyles. A government strong enough to strike down a capitalist is strong enough to destroy you and your community group. Beware the power you put in the hand of a friend, for it may find it's way into the enemies grasp!
If you are a conservative you should honor liberty. You want to be free to innovate and create without fear of losing the fruits of your labor. You want to worship without fear of government reprisal. You too want to speak freely and congregate and raise your family as you see fit. You want politicians accountable for decisions, especially those that involve the ultimate sacrifice of it's citizenry. You too want a voice in how our earth is both used and protected. You want to protect your right to defend your family as you see fit. Beware the power you bestow on your leader, for he shall pass the torch!
All clear thinking Americans should be patriots. All should despise government as no more than a necessary evil. Many governments have been tried and are yet being tried. None are so special as ours. We submit no power to centralized government other than that needed to protect us from them. The states and local governments can provide what we deem necessary to the progress of our lives. The federal government has only to ensure that all citizens are free, that all commerce is freely engaged in and that all enemies are defeated. Any more, is tyranny. Soft or hard, tyranny is oppressive and steals the potential of all who allow it to infect their country. So, my fellow citizen, when the dirt is shoveled over your grave, what will you leave posterity? If not Liberty - what?
September 2, 2009
A new president comes along with the same old promises that he alone can bring you to the promised land. He alone can break the cycle of slavery. He alone can take the unrightful riches of the white man and distribute it amongst the worthy minority that votes for him. Then, once the election rhetoric has worked and he has found himself in the position of untold power, what does he do almost immediately? He takes away a school voucher program for poor black kids in Washington D.C. that has been extremely successful for the kids it gave hope to. He took that hope away from any future generation. He put them back in their place. In the chains of the system he exploits to obtain his own power and riches. He embarks on a spending spree unknown to mankind with no real consequence to poor black Americans. He trashes an economy that is the only hope of the poor. The poor always suffer most in recessions. He knows that. Then he tries to pass a bill that would increase the energy costs of all Americans knowing full well that the poor and the minorities he claims to champion will be hit the hardest with the energy price increases. But then it's not about them is it? It is about power and money. Then he proposes a takeover of the health care system thereby enslaving the entire population to the ever expanding 'benevolent' government.
Look down at your chains. Look down at your shame. Look down at your pathetic dependence on a group of people who have used you for their own gain, all the while keeping their kids in private schools so they don't have to mingle with your kids. Do you really believe that they care about you?
My fellow Americans - black, brown or whatever; you are free! You can read. You can study. You can learn, practice, work, act and accomplish anything your heart desires. There is no guarantee of success but you can try. Every road block whether fair or disdainful is but an opportunity for you to increase your knowledge and use your God given talents to overcome and excel. Liberty is the means by which you can break your chains. Liberty that has been provided by white men who owned slaves. Regardless of your belief as to their intent, they have left you the most precious gift with which you may rise above poverty and prejudice. LIBERTY! I implore you to take advantage of it while you still have it. For those who claim to carry your banner would enslave you once again - along with the rest of us.
August 28, 2009
In the past years there have been multiple stories on the front page of the New York Times and other papers discussing Top Secret programs or information that has been leaked by government bureaucrats. Members of Congress have stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate and proclaimed our defeat. Members of Congress have accused the American soldier of murder, accused them of being like Nazi's, accused them of randomly killing civilians for no good reason; all without any proof or firsthand knowledge. Imagine that you are the enemy and you see these things transpiring in the camp of your foe. What would your attitude be? "We are winning! They fight amongst themselves! We must keep the pressure on!" These actions provide comfort to the enemy, provide intel that can be used to train their soldiers and demoralize our own troops. All of this KILLS AMERICAN SOLDIERS!! Citizens of the United States that aid and comfort the enemy of the United States are traitors and deserve a traitors death! THEY KILL AMERICAN SOLDIERS!!
Definition of Treason: Any attempt to overthrow the government, or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of one's government.
Dick Durban, John Murtha, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have all commited treason. They are not the only ones, but they are the most egregious. Whoever leaked Top Secret information to the New York Times has commited treason. While I vehemently despise the editor of the papers for printing this information, I feel their crimes do not rise to the level of treason. They have received information from a government official that is important, informative and shocking to some; therefore it is newsworthy. However, the individuals who leaked the information swore an oath not to do so. In doing so, they have put the lives of American soldiers at risk. They are traitors.
"The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer." Theodore Roosevelt
"I have learned to hate all traitors, and there is no disease I spit on more than treachery." Aeschylus
"The liberties of our country, and the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazard; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks." Samuel Adams
"A nation can survive it's fools, even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within...for the traitor appears not to be a traitor...he rots the soul of a nation...he infects the body politic until it can no longer exist." Cicero
Traitors are the most despicable of all evil doers, for they subvert the very people who give them comfort to do so. They cause the death of the very people who defend them from an enemy that would as soon cut their head off as listen to their politically expedient drivel. Traitors deserve no more than a traitors death, hung by the nearest lamp post as a warning to all enemies foreign and domestic that this country will not abide by vermin who bring danger to the defenders of this great nation. God have mercy on their souls; and God...forgive me - for I cannot do likewise.
by: Keith D. Rodebush
Authors note: When our nation goes to war, having been given authority from Congress, having assisted in multiple resolutions at the United Nations intent on preventing war and having given fair warning to the enemy; this country should stand behind the effort publicly at all times. If you disagree with the war, vote the parties out. If you lose the vote, wait until the next election and try again. But never undermine the authority of the president as commander in chief. However, and this is most important. After the war is over, and our troops have come home to a heroes welcome; then all vigorous and vociferous debate should be had about how and why we went to war and how it was fought! This is our right as free men and our duty as citizens of this republic. But for the sake of our children, who are called upon to fight in our stead - wait until the conflict is over and they are safely home. To do otherwise - KILLS YOUR OWN!
August 27, 2009
Are we not all Americans? We the people are united, not in political discourse, but by a much stronger and enduring bond. We are united by an innate belief in the undeniable rights of Man as articulated so brilliantly by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. No cynic or cunning strategist should be allowed to divide us on these basic truths. The rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were singled out as those most worthy of defending by Mr. Jefferson. While other rights may be considered such as the right to worship freely one may argue that they would be included in the pursuit of happiness. What is not included, and should not be included are necessities, i.e. food, shelter, health or companionship. Rights in this context are endowed by our Creator. Our Creator did not endow us with the right to food. He provided a planet populated with plants and animals for our use. He did not endow us with a right to shelter, He provided materials and a curiosity and intellect that allows us to provide our shelter as we see fit. And - he did not endow us with a right to health care. He gave us multitudes of medicinal plants; He gave us a superior brain that allows for innovation and invention; and He gave us the capacity of sympathy for our fellow Man.
For the sake of discussion let us consider the following as goals agreed upon by all Americans:
- All Americans should have access to quality health care
- Americans with unavoidable chronic illness should not be denied health care
- Truly needy Americans, incapable of self-reliance, should receive assistance from their fellow Americans
My previous post, A Case Against Government Health Care, is an intensive study of the folly of government programs designed to address the above goals. It is critical that you peruse that article before continuing. Any reasonable study of government run programs cannot conclude other than; they are inefficient, costly, encourage unwanted behavior in the citizenry, and through mandates, regulation and bureaucratic control infringe on the liberty of the people and deny the rights guaranteed in the X Amendment.
Therefore let us, within the framework of the U.S. Constitution and the principles of the free market, determine viable methods to reach the above stated goals, as Americans, as neighbors, as children of God. The following solutions are put forth with an understanding that current federal programs cannot and should not be capriciously ended and would necessarily need to be phased out with strict guarantees to all current participants.
Constitutional Free Market Solutions to Health Care:
1. The federal government shall embrace it's constitutional role in regulating interstate commerce and remove all barriers, including federal regulations, to the purchasing of health insurance.
2. All federal regulations regarding the access, provision, delivery, payment or cost of health care services shall be repealed.
3. A state Attorney General, I suggest Texas but I'm prejudicial, shall sue the federal government under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for usurping the rights of states and the people, thereby creating a SCOTUS opinion that will permanently bar the federal government from interjecting itself into a private industry.
4. Pursuant to Article I section 8 of the Constitution the federal government will pass a law regulating all commerce related to the provision of health care amongst the states in regards to the peoples right to access to services without discrimination. This is the only constitutional power of the federal government in this issue.
5. Congress shall pass a law putting reasonable limits on the amount of damages that can be levied against a health care professional or institution who/which acts in good faith on behalf of their patients without regard to injury by tragic accident. Gross negligence being proven against an individual health care provider shall have no such restriction. Gross negligence being proven against an institution will result in limited damages in addition to penalties and censorship, with multiple offenses resulting in loss of privelege to provide medical services. Additionally, the right of the people to sue for discrimination will be protected. (I am not a lawyer, but this should include discrimination for age in the case of someone who carrys insurance for some period of time. In other words, insurance companies should not be allowed to drop someone's insurance because of an illness or an arbitrary age has been reached. While this will necessarily raise rates across the board, other provisions herein should result in a net decrease in insurance costs.)
6. The states, with discretion to their individual constitutions and in cooperation with county governments will pass laws establishing community health centers for the dispensing of basic health care services. These centers are to be not for profit entities subject to local inspection and control. Pricing for services will be based on known business & accounting standards on a cost + 2% basis. The 2% shall be kept in reserve under state control for emergency assistance during unforeseen circumstances such as an epidemic. (states would also be free to use some portion of this percentage for the indigent care proviso)
7. State government shall levy a tax to be used for indigent health care and care for persons with unavoidable chronic ailments. It would be preferrable for these taxes to expire every 6 years at which time the state legislature should review the program and reinstate the tax.
8. State and federal government should do everything possible within the constitution to encourage competition among the insurance and health care industries. Insurance companies or any other industry should not be allowed to collude in regards to pricing of goods and services. Personally, I am for banning national unions or associations. This falls under the federal governments constitutional mandate to regulate commerce among the states. Collusion for the purpose of setting rates and stifling competition is in direct opposition to the free market and should not be allowed.
9. State boards should be set up to review the cases of citizens with pre-existing conditions in regards to eligibility for indigent or chronic assistance. Criteria should be drafted with attention paid to the circumstances surrounding the loss of coverage. In other words, the case of an able bodied person who voluntarily quits working and subsequently cannot pay premiums and loses insurance should not be equal to the case of a person laid off during times of recession who subsequently cannot afford to keep insurance. Pre-existing conditions are the most difficult for insurance coverage. It is akin to wrecking your car and then asking the insurance company for a policy that will grandfather in the recent crash. No business practice could sustain itself with that policy. However, states should look to fold these citizens back into the insurance customer base after they can afford coverage, perhaps with tax breaks, grants or cooperatives.
I have purposely shied away from specifics such as the type of insurance that should be available. The free market should determine this with the federal government insuring free access enjoyed by all. Personally, I believe that educating the public to the reasonable approach to purchasing catastrophic coverage while maintaining a Health Savings Account, or simply using cash for day to day health care such as colds, cuts, broken bones etc. is the most prudent path for most families in America today. These choices need to be promoted and encouraged, but the final choice remains the individuals. If one prefers maximum coverage for a maximum rate then so be it. If one prefers no coverage at all, then so be it; just don't complain when illness assaults you. Regardless of our choices, good or bad, no person should be denied basic life saving care such as what is being provided in our emergency rooms today. This is NOT the same as treating sniffles and minor cuts and bruises in emergency rooms at your neighbors expense. This does not include long term world class care for fatal diseases such as cancer. If an individual freely decides to expose his/herself to risk, then they do not deserve extensive care. This is wasteful and unreasonable. They should, however, receive basic care and pain relief out of compassion, paying what they can afford, and relief of liability for the remainder.
One of the most important aspects of this plan is that the states are not mandated by federal law regarding their citizens health care. They are required to have equal access to care. The citizens of the country will vote with their feet. States with reasonable coverage and freedom will keep people and business. States with too much involvement will discourage business and have higher taxes. Their economy will suffer, prompting changes. States with too little coverage will lose taxpayers, again prompting changes. This is how the forefathers intended our country to work. They were very smart and intuitive and I challenge all of my fellow citizens to read their writings again and again until it soaks in just how deep their understanding of government and freedom was. They were voracious readers and they studied every government past and present before designing this wonderful republican government we have so far enjoyed. Let us be dutiful in passing these liberties to future generations. Libertas! God Bless America!
August 24, 2009
The first serious foray into government provided health insurance was by the Progressive Party under Theodore Roosevelt (TR) in 1912. It is important to understand that this was in the context of an overall strategy by TR to gain control over what was perceived as a blight of runaway corporations who were engulfing the resources of the country and hoarding indefensible profits on the backs of the common worker. The industrial revolution was in full swing and the astronomical growth of the economy (a good thing) had caught government off guard. The inherent slowness of government to react reasonably (a bad thing) had resulted in a huge populuous movement to reign in the corporate powers and restore the riches of the country to it's 'rightful' owners, the people who produced it. If that sounds familiar, it should. Several liberal politicians of our age have echoed the same sentiment, though I propose, with much less sincerity than Mr. Roosevelt. There was a sense that balance needed to be restored between business, labor and consumers. While Woodrow Wilson proposed doing so by weakening business, Roosevelt believed in doing so by strengthening the other two. As part of this attempt, the Progressive party endorsed social insurance as part of the platform in an attempt to beat Wilson and Taft in the upcoming presidential election. Another important note to make here is that it was more political than altruistic. (TR The Last Romantic, H.W. Brands 1997. -- Timeline: History of Health Reform in the U.S., Kaiser Family Foundation 2009 [kff])
TR's cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) would again take up the banner for universal health coverage during his terms as President of the United States. However, FDR was acutely aware that this could end up torpedoing his primary concern, the Social Security Act (1935). In the end, FDR abandoned the inclusion of universal health coverage in the Social Security Act in the interest of easing it's passage through both houses of Congress. Interestingly, this began a decades long give and take between the American Medical Association (AMA) and government, in which the AMA fights legislation in the beginning of the political process but then lobbies for access and control, quite successfully, towards the end of the process when legislation seems eminent. (Despite popular belief the AMA does not represent 'doctors'. Only 20% belong.)
One must not diminish the importance of this administration in the eventual takeover of private industry by government. FDR was much more liberal than his public persona, believing in "cradle to grave" protection, including health insurance for all Americans. He always believed that these programs would lead to an ever more dependant class needing ever more government assistance, from guess which party? Within the first hour of their meeting to determine her nomination for Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins and FDR had agreed upon much of the social welfare system as it has existed since. To Ms. Perkins astute observation; that much of this government involvement would be considered unconstitutional; FDR stated that "...we can work something out when it comes." This of course, would lead to the famous Supreme Court packing incident that was the eventual demise of FDR's perpetual presidency. (FDR was the first and only president to break with George Washington's tradition of only serving two terms as President of the United States) Make no mistake about it, this again was about power and money, not charity to the American public. As the debate in Congress was going on about the New Deal proposals, FDR waivered back and forth as the political winds blew. Frances Perkins was ever frustrated at his lack of solid support. Another clue into the political as opposed to ethical aspect of these programs was the fact that negroes need not apply. Yes, that is correct, Social Security, unemployment insurance and minimum wage under FDR all had employer exemptions that allowed for discrimination against blacks. New Deal programs lead to the fundamental change of the federal government from one that was meant to protect a citizens rights and access to the means to 'pursue' happiness, to one that provided 'happiness' in the form of security. Politicians to this day are abusing this corruption of the Constitution to bring fear to elderly and poor citizens claiming their 'rights' will be taken away if they vote for the wrong party. (The Defining Moment-FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope, Jonathan Alter 2007.)
Though FDR did not include health coverage in the Social Security Act (SSA), it in no way stopped the government infusion into this private industry. While politicians from Truman to Kennedy attempted to gain traction for universal health care a plethora of government programs, mandates and regulations began the long trek towards complete government takeover. These include but are not limited to:
The inclusion of grants for Maternal and Child Health in the SSA, essentially restoring the Sheppard-Towner Act.
The Interdepartmental Committee to Coordinate Health and Welfare Activities.
National Health Survey.
Department of Health and Human Services is established as Federal Security Agency.
Attempt to pass the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill in 1943 for cradle to grave coverage.
FDR's economic 'Bill of Rights' 1944.
Social Security Boards call for compulsory national health insurance.
Hill-Burton Act 1946.
1949 SCOTUS affirms National Labor Relations Board rule that benefits may be part of collective bargaining, strengthening labor unions.
1950 National Conference on aging.
1951 Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals.
Federal Security Agency becomes the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
In 1965, the Johnson administration pushed through the Social Security Act which included single payer health care for seniors (Medicare) and single payer coverage for the 'poor' (Medicaid). At the time opponents to the bill claimed that the predictions of costs were grossly understated. History has shown that even they had no idea how much of the federal budget would eventually be spent on these programs. Once again, the original intent was to have complete government control of healthcare, but once again they were willing to use an incremental strategy.
In 1995 Robert Ball (Social Security administrator under Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon), made the following astounding admission...30 years after the fact:
"For persons who are trying to understand what we were up to, the first broad point to keep in mind is that all of us who developed Medicare and fought for it...had been advocates of universal national health insurance. We all saw insurance for the elderly as a fallback position, which we advocated solely because it seemed to have the best chance politically. Although the public record contains some explicit denials, we expected Medicare to be a first step toward universal national health insurance, perhaps with "Kiddicare" as another step."
Robert M. Ball, "Perspectives on Medicare: What Medicare's Architects Had in Mind," Health Affairs (Winter 1995): 62-72
Think about this for just a second. Here is a top administration official, admitting that the entire administration was consistently lying to the public in order to achieve their utlimate goal. If your goal is simply helping people, why on earth would you have to lie? However, what if your goal was more sinister? What if your goal was centralized governmental power over the people? What if your goal was known to be completely unconstitutional? Now THAT is a reason to lie!
If you still do not believe in the incremental approach to full governmental control of health care, peruse the following list of additions to Medicare/Medicaid since 1965:
1967-Social Security amendments broaden Medicaid coverage and add Early and Periodic Screening and Diagnostic Testing (EPSDT) benefits
1972-Medicare benefits are extended to persons under 65 with disabilities (the definition of which will change over the years) and persons with End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)
1974-Health Planning Resources Development Act mandates state programs for health planning
1977-Health Care Financing Administration established under the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
1980-Home Health benefit under Medicare broadened. Medi-gap supplemental insurance brought under federal control
1981-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 81) puts additional mandates on states regarding pay and coverage of Medicare services.
1982-States allowed to expand Medicaid coverage to certain children with disabilities. HMO's are added as an option to garner more plan participation. Hospice benefits are added.
1983-Federal employees are required to participate in Medicare
1985-Medicare mandatory for newly hired state and local government employees
1986-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 86) loosens qualifications for coverage for the poor
1987-National Medical Expenditure Survey collects information on households from medical and insurance providers
1988-Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act greatly expands Medicare coverage. Though the act is repealed the next years, some elements are maintained such as state mandates for paying premiums for poor.
1989-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 89) mandates coverage for pregnant women and children under 6 at 133% of the poverty line
1990-Federal Budget Reconciliation (OBRA 90) mandates coverage of children 6-18 under poverty line
1993-Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax applied to all wages rather than the lower capped SS amount. States required to expand coverage and benefits. Clinton Administration attempts complete health care takeover by the government but fails amid stiff resistance.
1997-Balanced Budget Act mandates extensive changes in Medicare and Medicaid. Some intended to cut administrative costs, others to expand coverage and benefits including Medicare+Choice (optional managed care plan). Interestingly, payments must be reduced to providers to maintain solvency of HI which began only 4 years previous. State Childrens Health Insurance Program is adopted with block grants to states to cover federal mandates. States are allowed to cover working disabled up to 250% of poverty line.
2000-Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act allows Medicaid coverage for breast and cervical cancer treatment regardless of income or resources
2003-Medicare Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act creates a voluntary prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Benefits provided under private plans and Medicare Advantage (formerly Medicare+Choice). Interestingly, many seniors opt for this plan without knowing their benefits actually decrease and they pay for services previously covered under Medicare (field observation by RN).
Legislation allows for Health Savings Accounts (HSA's) in conjunction with high deductible insurance plans.
2005-Deficit Reduction Act makes broad changes in premiums, cost sharing, benefits and asset transfers
2007-Many legislative attempts are made to expand or limit Medicare coverage, change tax exemptions and deductions, or extend S-CHIPS. All fail to be passed by Congress and/or signed by the president. Political divide on government provided health care widens with democrat Congress and republican President.
(kff, -- "Medicare, a profile, Celebrating 35 Medicare, Chronology of Legislative Activity" 1990)
This list is thorough but not comprehensive. Regardless of the obvious good intentions or seemingly charitable outcome, the stunning reality is that once government becomes involved in any industry, the tendency is to become ever more restrictive in that industries day to day operations. If you care to read any of the above legislation pay particular note to the use of the words: allow, mandate, require, regulate, fine, tax and fee.
Medicare and Medicaid costs, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product has tripled since 1970. If left alone, Medicare/Medicaid spending could be as much as 19% of GDP by 2082. Government spending on health care now makes up approximately 45% of all health care expenditures in the United States. In the meantime, out of pocket expenses for recipients has gone down from 33% to 15% with projections of 13% by 2015. 25% of the beneficiaries account for 85% of expenditures. (Congressional Budget Office)
Social security, Medicare and Medicaid were over $1,000,000,000,000.00 in the fy 2006 federal budget. Despite popular belief, Medicare spending is only 53% funded by payroll tax. The rest comes from the general fund. (U.S. federal budget fy 2008 - Mandatory spending)
Now, put your thinking cap on. What happens when you give something to people, then you constantly expand what they can get while lessening their personal burden? Exponential growth, increased demand for benefits, ever expanding sense of entitlement. One thing that politicians will always rely on is the old adage that you can't prove a negative. In other words, no one can say what the condition of our health care system would be today if government had stayed out of it. Some historical data shows that the best way to increase medical care is to increase economic standards for all people. Our economy has grown by a factor of 20 in the last 40 years. How can anyone assert what the rate of uninsured would be if government regulation and control of almost 50% of our healthcare system did not exist? How can one know what the effect on the cost of health care would be if the government did not take out the needed revenue from everyones paycheck? How can one know how much more the economy would have expanded if government expenditures did not include government run health care? How can one know what the effect on the value of the U.S. dollar would be if the federal government was not so deep in debt? Very simply you can not. What one can do is to empirically prove what happens when government does control a large portion of health care. Costs go up, use expands exponentially, personal responsibility plummets, freedom is incrementally reduced, government mandates and regulations expand, free market solutions are stifled, doctors become disillusioned, etc. etc. etc. And the most tragic is that society tends to look only to government for solutions when in fact government is what is wrong.
All of the above is irrelevant. Yes, that's what I said, irrelevant. The reason is that everything that government has done, from Social Security to the GM bailout is unconstitutional. These things do not provide for the 'general welfare' of the U.S., they provide for the 'specific welfare' of individuals and businesses. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to 'regulate' interstate commerce. In the context of this clause, regulate means to 'keep regular' or to keep states from impeding each others ability to conduct business within these United States. A perfect example would be the ability to purchase insurance from another state. This is an area that the government should be involved in to the extent that it should remove barriers preventing this interstate commerce from occurring. The sad truth is that the exact opposite is being done. Government regulation now prevents such purchases! Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to take over industries such as health care, insurance, banking or car manufacturing. And yet, they do, and are even arrogant about it to the extent that any critics of this oppression are laughed off as extremists or out of touch. This arrogance and condescension is precisely why our founding fathers warned against too much control being afforded a central government. Never forget that power corrupts.
If allowed to continue, and there is little chance it won't, the federal government will indeed, one day control the entire health care industry. What this means for the average American is that almost every aspect of your daily lives will become a line item to the bureaucracy. Holding down costs will be their constant mantra, because without personal responsibility and with coverage for all and coverage for everything, the cycle begun by Medicare/Medicaid will only be exacerbated. That means that if you ride a motorcycle, you are at a greater risk to require medical care. If you don't exercise properly you will be more likely to need heart medication. If you swim, boat or participate in any sport your risks of injury will be higher. All of this will be studied, numbers will be crunched, recommendations will be made, regulations will be made, mandates will flourish and taxes will rise constantly. The government will allow some activities while discouraging others. Once medical care is completely provided by government, then all activities that may lead to medical care; in other words living your life day to day; will become a point of interest to the bureaucrats in Washington D.C. whose mission it will be to constantly work to lower health care expenditures and increase tax contributions. If left alone as is, Medicare/Medicaid will consume the federal budget before the end of this century. That level of spending is unsustainable. Cuts will have to be made and revenues will have to be increased.
The indisputable evidence is that the federal government has caused more problems in the health care industry than it has solved. It has taken responsibility out of the health care equation. It has caused costs to increase with regulation and mandates. It has corrupted the political process by collusion with certain industries and unions. It has spread it's power and authority without regard to it's Constitutional mandate. It has encouraged future constitutional abuses. It has methodically forced dependency on a large portion of the population. And, most despicably, it has bankrupted future generations for it's own short term power trip and called it compassion.
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is about power and money. It has always been about power and money. It will always be about power and money. Our forefathers knew this. That is why they constantly admonished that all government by it's very nature is corrupt. The only way to minimize the effect on the liberty of the people is to diminish governments role in daily life as much as possible. It's not about the details, it's never about the details. It's about the philosophy. Big government=less freedom. Small government=more freedom. Freedom promotes ingenuity, invention and production. Government diminishes all three. The title of this blog is ignarus semino dominatus, ignorance breeds tyranny. The acceptance by a large portion of the populous of these States United, of Social Security and government health care are perfect examples of the truthfulness of this old idiom.
What is the solution? My next blog post Health Care Solutions for American will solve these problems constitutionally if we, the American voters, have the character and resolve to implement it.
by: Keith D. Rodebush
Charts for reference:
August 10, 2009
Here are a few pictures from a Health Care Takeover protest at the Capitol building in Austin Texas on Sunday August 9, 2009. The word was that the democrats were going to put on a rally in support of the bill. The word got around by email and twitter and hundreds of patriots showed up to protest this takeover of a private American industry. Some came from as far as San Antonio to show their disgust with the direction of this country. Only a handful, less than 10 with signs, showed up in support of the Obama administration's attempted takeover of health care. Everyone there was respectful, kind and courteous but extremely worried about the ever growing federal government and the resulting loss of liberty associated with it. There were independents and republicans alike. There may have been a few democrats on our side but they were too ashamed to admit it as far as I know. The local news to this point, 9:00 a.m. 8/10/09 has not covered this at all. Not a peep. It is possible that this was a bait and switch and that a rally for the bill may have been held at the city hall instead, but I have not confirmed that as of this writing. The diversity of the people and the originality of all of the hand written signs is a testament to the truly grass roots character of this protest. There was a whole other section of people in the shade behind the photographer here. (Sorry, these are cell phone pics) Speakers not only bashed the Obama spending spree but equally bashed the Bush administration for it's excessive spending. At one point a cadence call was started saying, "No RINO's! No RINO's! No RINO's!" As you can clearly see, there are no swastikas, Brookes Bro's suits or GOP organizers. Just normal folks who are sick and tired of this country's leap to the left. Freedom over tyranny!! All liberals and left leaning Republicans should beware. We are coming for you at the next primary! You haven't seen riots till you see the working people riot!
August 5, 2009
An intellectual exercise in the innate nature of freedom and liberty in the soul of Man.
The Great Divide http://hubpages.com/hub/GreatDivide
A somber look at the state of our nation.
Musings of Keith D. Rodebush.
August 4, 2009
I have received preliminary approval by the board of my local Republican group to initiate a plan to create a coalition of groups that will monitor the votes of legislators on critical constitutional issues. We will warn the politicians not to vote against their principles or the Constitution on a specific issue, i.e. Cap and Trade or Bail Out/Control of private industry . If they ignore the warning, the coalition will work to defeat them in the next primary. We will support their opponent, fund raise for advertisement to remind their constituency of how they voted and use email and internet to expose them to their voters at the critical time of the primary. We will focus on one at a time, thereby exponentially expanding our power to extract a pound of flesh. It's a ONE strike and you're OUT program!
This coalition of groups will be loosely organized so that each maintains autonomy, but we all come together for focused efforts on individual actions. In this way, when a letter is sent to a legislator, it will not be signed by John Doe, it will be signed by hundreds or thousands. All of whom will pledge to actively work to defeat them in the next primary if they don't respect their principles and the U.S. Constitution. Because of the scope we will be unable to hold all accountable but instead we will pick specific instances to focus on. We will use them as examples for the purpose of warning others. If we can get one politician defeated, then others will pay closer attention when their letter of warning arrives! We really don't even have to defeat them, just make it close and scare them.
This can only work if like minded Americans finally decide that they want to DO something instead of just being disgusted at the corruption and tyranny that our Congress has come to be so well known for. Are YOU ready to DO something? If you would be interested in actually holding elected officials accountable, please email me and I will give you more details.
Collectively we need to let the government know that the Lion has been awakened! We will not go quietly into the night!! It is time for the silent majority to ROAR!!!
God Bless the United States of America!
by: Keith D. Rodebush
July 31, 2009
by: Keith D. Rodebush