Congress Needs an Allowance

I received an allowance as a kid. It was a reasonable weekly wage equivalent to the amount of chores I completed. Like clockwork, my dad handed me crisp bills every Friday night, usually after dinner, and I felt such satisfaction. I could do whatever I wanted with the money because I earned it.

When I went to the store and found a toy or a new bracelet I wanted to buy, I pulled open my wallet to see what I had. Too often a wave of disappointment came over me when I realized I didn't have enough. Back to the shelf that gold bracelet went. Even if I tried to pull the old "puhhlleeaassee!" with my parents, their response always included a certain four-letter word: save. You can't spend what you don't have. As much as I hated to hear it back then, I appreciate that lesson today.

It's unfortunate our members of congress didn't have parents who gave them an allowance to manage.

This week, the House approved a short-term $290 billion extension in the nation's debt ceiling, postponing a decision until February about a larger increase in the borrowing cap. Once the House realized that a larger increase may not pass the Senate because of a lack of support, they decided to pass a smaller increase for now. In February they will address a "need" for a larger increase, possibly the $1.8 Trillion increase in the ceiling House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) wants.

This increase in the debt limit raises the total debt the federal government can hold to $12.394 billion from $12.104 billion. Okay, let's go back. Steny Hoyer wants to raise the debt ceiling by $1.8 Trillion ... $1.8 TRILLION. How can any country survive if it is trillions of dollars in debt? How does any average Joe survive if he is billions of dollars in debt? He doesn't. Average Joe knows he can't increase the limit on his credit card to buy a new plasma TV. If his credit card is maxed out, he must deal with that issue first before making a new purchase.

Anyone who has debt understands that you become a slave to those you owe money to. Someone will come after you if you don't pay. Not only is America in debt slightly over $12 trillion dollars, but our interest just on our debt alone is $367 billion. Whose coming after us, and when? The Wall Street Journal writes, "[i]ncreasing the debt ceiling is largely symbolic as the public debt is the accumulation of past deficits, or money already spent. But were the U.S. to breach its debt limit, it would default on its obligations, potentially lose its prized top-shelf credit rating and have to pay significantly higher interest to its creditors. Such a scenario, albeit an extremely unlikely one, would have tremendous ramifications for the wider financial markets."

Getting past the notion that the U.S. has a "top-shelf credit rating," I can't help but wonder why our government believes it is a good idea to spend more money we don't have. Average Joe can't do that, so why does the federal government? I understand I am taking a complex situation and simplifying it to compare with one person's financial lifestyle. But that's why I simplify it. Because it is that simple. Behind every decision lies a principle.

Don't spend what you don't have.
Don't borrow what you can't pay back. In fact, don't borrow more than you can pay back with your next paycheck.
Waste not, want not.

Congress is operating under an entirely different set of principles. Dangerous, frivolous, and destructive. One of my favorite principles is this: he who is faithful in little will be faithful in much. I would vote for Average Joe who balanced his checkbook and successfully managed his personal finances to handle the national budget over such characters as Hoyer, Pelosi and Reid. Just because they are "congressmen" and "senators" does not make them smarter than you or I. They have no right to run up our debt, borrow more than we can pay back and throw our children into financial bondage. We demonstrate daily in our personal finances that we are smarter than that.

Let congress prove they can one run program --one-- successfully, within budget, before we allow them to fiddle with health reform or any other massive program. Let's give them an allowance and see if they can be faithful in little before we give them much-- if at all.

Don't stare too long at this website, it will make you nauseous:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126099939736594429.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news

I took my dog to the dog park recently. As I threw his soggy tennis ball and watched him slide through the muddy grass to scoop it up, I overheard a fascinating conversation taking place between two college students.

A young man stood against the fence and introduced himself to a young woman sitting on the wood bench watching her poodle bounce around. After a few minutes of general conversation, they quickly found a mutual topic to discuss: politics.

Their intellectual prattling intrigued me.

"I don't know why all these people are freaking out about what Obama is doing. At least he's actually doing something, unlike Bush who only wanted to fight a pointless war." The young man shook his head in disapproval.

"Oh, I know. Like hello! There were no weapons-of-mass-whatever. Like we totally wasted all that money and all those people died for nothing." (I forced myself to not count how many times she would use the word 'like.')

"And then there's Fox News out there acting like a reputable news source, when everyone knows it's made up all those conservative whack jobs. Does anyone actually listen to them?" Okay, I thought to myself, he's completely unaware of the size audience Fox News has. He's never watched it. "What news do you watch?"

"Oh, me? I don't know. I don't watch much news. It's so depressing."

"Me too. I pretty much get all my news from 'The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.'" Did he just say he gets all his news from a show on Comedy Central???

"Oh, yea, that's a good one. Did you see last night when he was making fun of Sarah Palin and the whole 'death panel' thing?" She chuckles, obviously replaying the skit- I mean script- in her head.

"No, I missed it."

"Oh, it was soooo good! Sarah's so stupid. Like, you can tell she has no education like whatsoever, because 'death panel' isn't even in the bill. How scary would it have been if she were like in the White House."

"Everyone who is against the health care bill should just...die. That'll save us lots of money!" He grabs his beer belly and laughs.

"I totally agree! Like, seriously, and everyone who says we want to pull the plug on grandma. Well...maybe we should. I mean, old people don't exactly help us out that much anyways. The only people who should get health care are those who actually contribute to society, ya know?"

"I know. It's the same thing as socialism. Everyone freaks out when you say it's actually a good idea, but that's just because they don't understand it."

"Oh my god, totally! Like, I totally support socialism. Everyone would have a job, and money, and health care- so why is that bad?" The woman calls her poodle and stands to her feet.

"I support it also. It's the only fair way for everyone to have a chance. And just because it didn't work well for other countries doesn't mean we can't do it good here." They shake hands, leash up their dogs, and walk to their cars.

Biting my lips and debating whether I should chase them down and unleash upon them any and all common sense they apparently lack, I remind myself that it would do no good. Years of liberal education cannot be undone in a two-minute rant by some crazy woman at the dog park. (Common sense...okay, I would need way more than two minutes.)

I genuinely felt bad for them. Nothing is more oppressive than not knowing what you don't know.

And nothing is more liberating than knowing you're learning the truth.

Obama held his job summit last week. Or should I say, Professor Obama gave a lecture last week in his "Capitalism: Greed, Pollution and Poverty" course at the White House.

What Obama said: "I need everybody to bring their A-game here today. I'm going to be asking some tough questions, I will be listening for some good answers and I don't want to just brainstorm up at 30,000 feet. I want details in our discussion today. I'm looking for specific recommendations that can be implemented that will spur on job growth as quickly as possible. I want to be clear. We won't overcome our unemployment challenge in just a few hours this afternoon. I assure you there is extraordinary skepticism that any discussions like this can actually produce results. I'm well aware of that. I don't mind skepticism. If I listened to the skeptics I wouldn't be here, but I am confident that we'll make progress..."

What I heard: "Now, good students, do your work while I go the teacher's lounge to watch Sports Center. Union members, career politicians, Google management team and environmentalists, don't be afraid to help out your less fortunate classmates- yes, you guys in the back from Wall Street. Stop playing on your Blackberry's like spoiled rich kids (Wall Streeters apologize emphatically).

Bring me the best ideas on how I can fix this economic problem, and turn in your assignment by the end of the day. Does anyone have a red pen? And for those of you who need extra credit to pick up your grade before the end of the semester, ahem ... those in back, write an essay answering this question: (writing on the black board) 'If you spoke to the state-organized media, how would you spin our economic and environmental woes to place the blame solely on small business and the wealthy?' The amount of extra credit you earn will be based on how well your response makes me look." (He leaves the room)

What Obama said: "Despite the progress we've made, many businesses are still skittish about hiring. Some are still digging themselves out of the losses they incurred over the past year. Many have figured out how to squeeze more productivity out of fewer workers. And that cost-cutting has become embedded in their operations and in their culture. That may result in good profits, but it's not translating into hiring and so that's the question that we have to ask ourselves today: How do we get businesses to start hiring again?"

What I heard: (Walking into the classroom) "Sorry it took me so long to come back. Michelle wanted to go shopping for a new cocktail dress before we go to dinner with the Jolie-Pitt's tonight. I see you all turned in your papers here on my desk, and I will be reading and grading them for the rest of the semester.

(Students groan). Now, now, it takes time to solve such severe problems that I didn't cause. Let me tell you a little story. (Students groan again and slump in their chairs) When I was a community organizer in the heart of Chicago, standing face-to-face with mothers who can't feed their babies because of their high cell phone bills, and young brothers who were given guns instead of a chance to succeed because we don't have a national gun ban, I saw how evil America is. That's why I decided to get into politics. I wanted to become your leader and to make America the darkened village on the backside of a hill.

And that's why I brought you here today. Americans everywhere are crying out for a job, but what we need to show them is that they don't need a job. No, they need me. They need my administration. They need their government to blame small business owners for making them slave away for $13/hour wages (cheers from the labor union students). Private business isn't the answer, because private business doesn't hire people (confused whispers amongst students). That may sound weird, but that's just because you haven't been in college long enough. Trust me, soon enough, it'll all make sense. Why do you think I'm a supporter of "W12" (womb-to-12) Schools?" (Winks)



http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=514131
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/jobs_summit_will_not_produce_j.html

"Another Failed Presidency" by Dr. Jeffrey P. Hunt

The following article was published in the American Thinker and written by Dr. Hunt. Enjoy:

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China 20.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?

No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.

But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task--all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

Dr. Hunt is a social and cultural anthropologist. He has had nearly 30 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing research in the field of youth studies, and drug and alcohol research. Currently Dr. Hunt is a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Scientific Analysis and the Principal Investigator on three National Institutes on Health projects. He is also a writer for American Thinker.

Margaret Thatcher Said: "The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money."

James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union Said: "When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both."

"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus

"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own." - Unknown

Education: The New Black For Liberals

University of Massachusetts will have Raymond Luc Levasseur, the former leader of the revolutionary group United Freedom Front, speak at its campus on November 12th. United Freedom Front is responsible for plotting a series of bombings and bank robberies along the East Coast between 1976 and 1984. Levasseur was the former leader of this group which also fatally shot a New Jersey state trooper and attempted to kill two Massachusetts state troopers.

Levasseur is one of three people scheduled to speak at the Amherst Libraries’ fifth annual Colloquium on Social Change. Citing "academic freedom," the school is allowing Levasseur to speak despite possible protests.

In 2007, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was invited to speak at Columbia University. Despite protests, Ahmadinejad's speech spewed many of his traditional beliefs such as his claims that the Holocaust should be viewed as a "theory" rather than fact. He also defended his belief that Iran cannot recognize Israel "because it is based on ethnic discrimination, occupation and usurpation, and it consistently threatens its neighbors." Many of his statements were met with accelerated applause from a portion of the audience, the rest being anti-Ahmadinejad.

William Ayers is the unrepentant former SDS Weather Underground bomber of the 1960s. Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. He is currently a Professor of Education at the University of Chicago at Illinois and an elementary education theorist.

At the University of Chicago, Ayers instructs future school teachers in the areas of social justice, urban educational reform, narrative and interpretive research, children in trouble with the law, and related issues. He was elected by the American Education Research Association (AERA) as vice president and head of its division of curriculum studies in 2008. The AERA defines itself as "the most prominent international professional organization with the primary goal of advancing educational research and its practical application."

Ward Churchill was a University of Colorado at Boulder professor from 1990 to 2007. He famously wrote an essay post- 9/11 called "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" in which he describes President Bush as the world's reigning terrorist, and those businessmen and women who lost their lives on September 11th as "Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized Nazi plans to exterminate Europe's Jews.

In that essay, Churchill wrote, "As to those in the World Trade Center ... true enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire." He also referred to President Bush saying, "He absolutely thumbs his nose at the rule of law. He's the head of a rogue state by definition, and it's a rogue state which dispenses carnage on people presumed to be inferior in some set of terms."

In May 2007, Churchill spoke at UC Irvine's Muslim Student Union (MSU) in which he characterized Israel as a terrorist state and then urged MSU students to go to the pro-Israel booth near the lecture hall, take a slice of cake, and eat Israel symbolically. Churchill was removed from his tenured teaching position citing academic misconduct and plagiarism in 2007. He later filed a First Amendment Lawsuit, seeking reinstatement and an unspecified amount of money.

Interestingly enough, 66% of young voters, ages 18-29, voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 elections. With "social justice" and "academic freedom" reducing the patriotic standard of our educational elite to such a lowly position as to invite the president of a Holocaust-denying nation to speak and home-grown terrorists to hold tenured teaching positions at some of our "finest" educational institutions, it is no surprise that socialism, tolerance and anti-American propaganda is the new black.

As you educate the young, so goes their belief system, so goes their vote, and so goes our nation.

Orgy Of Self-Seeking Reveals GOP Void Of Statesmanship

Profound article recently written by Alan Keyes:

With the withdrawal of Dede Scozzafava from contention in the special election in NY's 23rd Congressional District, we see a clear result of implementing Michael Steele's infamous 80/20 approach to candidate selection. Grassroots conservatives still hampered by their allegiance to the Republican Party need to consider the lessons to be drawn from the Republican party's disappearance from that race. Scozzafava was a candidate typical of the predilections of GOP Party bosses and the majority of its big money fundraisers. They believe that the Party's formula for political victory requires people who oppose or just give lip service to conservative stands on the issues of moral principle, like respect for the unalienable right to life and defense of the natural family, but embrace conservative positions on other fronts, especially when it comes to money issues.

But the problem with candidates like Scozzafava is the priorities they represent. Her eager endorsement of the Obama faction Democrat in the race points to the truth. In principal, politicians like her are in tune with the moral and intellectual culture of the leftist Democrats. Their election stands on money issues are a matter of cynical political calculation. In this respect they are exactly what the left has always accused Republicans of being- people willing to sacrifice issues of human life and dignity to win power.

They put money ahead of every other consideration. Then in order to prove that they aren't just promoters of heartless greed and selfishness, they pander to politically correct notions of "tolerance" and "sensitivity" with their stands on issues that involve respect for human nature and moral responsibility. Newt Gingrich cited her stands on the money issues in the statement reported in an article at politico.com "warning conservative activists that their support for a third-party candidate in a key upcoming New York Special election is a "mistake." The former Georgia congressman then rattled off a list of Scozzafava's conservative credentials. "She has signed a no tax increase pledge. She is endorsed by the National Rifle Association. She has come out against cap and trade…She is opposed to the Obama health care plan. She will vote for John Boehner instead of Nancy Pelosi," Gingrich said. "All of those things together make her – it seems to me – a legitimate, authentic, Republican nominee.'"

Former U.S. House speaker Gingrich wants to make it crystal clear that conservative stands on issues of moral principle are not an essential part of the Republican identity. So long as a candidate is right on the issues of money and power, that's all that matters. In a CNN interview the present Minority Leader in the House, John Boehner, took pains to make a similar point. "Clearly she would be on the left side of our party," said Boehner, who had financially supported the campaign of the New York assemblywoman. "...We accept moderates in our party and we want moderates in our party." He then went on to reject the notion that Scozzafava's failure had anything to do with "pressure by the conservative "Tea Party" movement, citing his participation at rallies in Bakersfield, Calif., and Ohio…. I've work with these people, and what they're concerned about is the growing size of government. They want someone who's really going to actively reduce spending and reduce control here in Washington."

Even as their nominee falls prey to the revulsion caused by her denial of the moral principles of liberty, these GOP leaders want to pretend that the angry uprising caused by the Obama faction's betrayal of American values has nothing to do with moral concerns. They desperately want the votes and power that angry uprising may deliver. But they don't want to represent Americans who know in their hearts that the Obama threat isn't just about money or the usual Washington power grab. It represents a profound destruction of the whole American way of life, destruction rooted in Obama's rejection of the moral idea of God-given individual rights, and constitutional government based on the consent of the people.

The battle with the Obama faction is in the end a struggle to determine whether this moral concept of humanity will continue to be the basis for American government, or whether it will be replaced by a moral vision that discards the whole idea of a distinctive human nature so that human beings can be treated simply as objects for manipulation by an all powerful administrative state. At the grassroots many Americans, regardless of political labels, instinctively grasp what is at stake. They long for leaders who also understand, and will rise to defend the moral idea of America, from which so many have gained inspiration and hope, and for which so many have risked or given their lives.

An appreciation for this longing has been a hallmark of American statesmanship when leaders arose in response to the crises of the past. The Republican Party's founding President, Abraham Lincoln, understood and spoke to it as he represented and articulated the moral causes of the American Civil War. But GOP leaders today not only lack the depth for such statesmanship, they appear utterly devoid of any sense of the compassionate concern for humanity from which it arises.

Their preference for so-called "moderates" proves the point. What is moderate about rejecting the natural right of human family life in order to accept a paradigm of human sexuality freed from the responsible discipline of human procreation? What is moderate about rejecting the idea of natural, and therefore inherent, human rights in order to accept a so-called "right" to murder our offspring? This disregard for the natural obligation that binds one generation to the next is precisely what leads to the disgusting orgy of self-seeking that is piling a Mount Everest of debt onto the backs of our posterity with no regard for the national servitude it represents.

Why should we expect people who claim the right to avoid their present responsibilities by killing their living offspring to care about the harm they do to the generations yet unborn? Why should we expect people encouraged to justify such murder with arguments about the inferior "quality" of the life they destroy to stop at similarly discarding the elderly when age takes the shine from their physical existence? If the idea of humanity doesn't prevent murder in the womb, all the more reason it should not prevail against the murder of those whose life declines toward death.

The idea of "moderation" touted by the GOP leadership orphans the very idea of humanity, and with it the fellow feeling (compassion) that should stay the hand from murder and neglect, especially when the victims include our offspring or the parents who engendered our lives. It rejects the disciplined understanding of liberty that made successful constitutional self-government possible in the United States.

By accepting an idea of right that limited and disciplined our choice, we became a people capable of doing what the scoffing philosophers thought impossible- establishing a government of, by and for the people that promotes order and prosperous decency rather than licentious self-destruction. This is true moderation. Real moderates, therefore, will not support people like Scozzafava, or the covert Scozzafavas the cynical, self-seeking GOP leadership insists on foisting off as "conservatives." They will instead seek out representatives who work to conserve the American idea of right. This is the heart and soul of the conservative cause, which in the end is just the cause of lasting liberty.

WYSIWYG: Experience Matters

This post is a brief comparison of a few select presidents. I compare the pre-presidential governmental experiences of a few past presidents with that of Barack Obama.

George Washington:
- Major, military district of Virginia (1752)
- Lieutenant Colonel in the French and Indian Wars (1754-58)
- Commander in Chief, Virginia Forces (1755-58)
- Virginia House of Burgesses (1758-1774)
- Justice of the Peace (1760-1774)
- Member of the First Continental Congress (1774)
- Member of the Second Continental Congress (1775)
- Commander of the Continental army (1775-1783)
- President of the Constitutional Convention (1787)
- First President of the United States (1789-1796)

Thomas Jefferson:
- Member of the Virginia House of Burgesses (1769-74)
- Member of the Second Continental Congress (1775-76)
- Primary Author of the Declaration of Independence (1776)
- Member of the Virginia House of Delegates (1776-1779)
- Governor of Virginia (1779-1781)
- Member of Confederation Congress (1783-1784)
- Minister to France (1785-1788)
- Secretary of State (1789-1793)
- Vice President of the United States (1797-1801)
- President of the United States (1801-1809)

Abraham Lincoln:
- Short military service: enlisted man in the Black Hawk War, captain of a company of volunteers, private in the mounted Rangers, and member of the Independent Spy Corps
- Postmaster of New Salem (1833-36)
- Served four terms in the Illinois legislature (1834-1841) as a Whig
- Opened his own law firm in Springfield, Illinois with several partners (1837)
- US House of Representative (1847-49)
- Received a patent for a device “to buoy vessels over shoals” (1849)
- Appeared before the Illinois Supreme Court 175 times, 51 times as sole counsel and of which 31 were decided in his favor
- Accepted the Republican nomination for Senate in 1858
- Elected 16th President of the United States (1860)

Theodore Roosevelt:
- Wrote and published The Naval War of 1812 (1882); published a total of 13 books before becoming President of the United States
- New York State Assemblyman for three one-year terms (1881-1884)
- Deputy Sherriff in the Dakota Territory
- U.S. Civil Service Commissioner, Washington (1889-1895)
- President of the board of New York City Police Commissioners (1895-1897)
- Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1897); prepared the Navy for Spanish-American War
- Formed the First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, known as the “Rough Riders,” and served as its Lieutenant-Colonel earning himself a posthumous Medal of Honor in 2001
- Governor of New York (1898- 1900)
- Vice President of the United States (1900)
- President of the United States (1901-1909)

Barack Obama:
- Attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years; transferred to Columbia University in New York and graduated in 1983 with a degree in political science
- Community organizer with low-income residents in Chicago’s Roseland community and public housing developments on Chicago’s south side (1985-1988)
- Attended Harvard Law School (1988-91); first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review
- Civil Rights Lawyer for Miner, Barnhill & Galland in Chicago (1993-96)
- Lecturer of Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School (1992-96), and a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004 during which he worked part-time teaching 3 courses per year
- Organized “Project Vote” for the voter registration drive for the 1992 presidential campaign (April to October)
- Won a Grammy for the audio version of his 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
- Elected Illinois State Senator (1996) after the only other candidate dropped out of the race; served three terms (1997-2004)
- United States Senator (2005-08); missed 82 of his chamber’s 346 (23.7%) votes during the two-year session while campaigning for the office of president
- Published The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (2006)
- Elected 44th President of the United States (2008)


It is not necessary to highlight the steady diminution in patriotic and governmental service of those seeking the office of the president, even though this list is quite brief. But what I do attempt to explain, though trying to avoid oversimplification, is the significance of knowing exactly who you are voting for. President Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and all the others did not know what would be encountered during their years in the White House. But in a providential way, their early governmental experiences prepared each for the challenges they encountered. The collective governing record of Barack Obama is an unfortunate harbinger of social, economical and legislative rulings to come, and it is we the voters who will pay the price. And nine months into his reign, it is already a historically lavish price tag for us and future generations.

Where's The Letter Czar When You Need Him?

The Department of Health and Human Services placed a gag order preventing private health insurance companies from communicating to their Medicare Advantage customers how the pending health care legislation, if passed, could impact them. Last week, Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Chairman, ordered Medicare regulators to investigate and likely punish Humana Inc. for sending out a mailer to its Advantage plan customers (senior citizens) that mislead and “confused beneficiaries.”

Mr. Blum, the acting director of a regulatory office in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), informed Humana of its investigations, and further banned all Advantage contractors from informing their customers what Congress is currently debating and discussing regarding health care.

But it gets better. Who is Mr. Blum? The former senior aide to Mr. Baucus, former health care policy adviser on Obama’s transition team, and now the acting director of the CMS. Mr. Blum’s former boss, Max Baucus, is the one who originally asked the CMS to investigate the companies critical of the health care bill.

Wait…better still. The letter Humana sent to its customers warned that Democratic plans to reform health care could result in benefit cuts, conclusions that the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) supports with its own assertions made to Max Baucus’ committee. On Tuesday, the CBO director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Finance Committee that its plan to cut $123 billion from Medicare Advantage (the program that gives almost ¼ of all seniors’ private health insurance options) will result in lower benefits and almost 2.7 million seniors losing their coverage.

Baucus believes that Humana is purposefully misleading seniors in just another scare tactic. I’m sure it has nothing to do with Humana, a private insurance company, tending to the needs and interests of its own customers, and honestly informing them of the damaging democratic plans to overhaul health care. Since the Obama administration has been so welcoming to opposing points of views, not only meticulously reviewing the Republican versions of health care reform, but also responding to the concerns of millions of American citizens, I’m sure the recent gag order coming from his own appointee to silence unfavorable statistics is simply a coincidence.

And then we have the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP) who has spent millions of dollars on its TV ad campaign and newsletters to its members, including eight million direct-mail letters sent over Labor Day. On its own website, AARP claims that the proposed health care reform will not in any way cut benefits or increase expenses for seniors. AARP markets its version of the Advantage plan, through United HealthCare, and boasts 1.7 million customers. And by the way, AARP happens to be one of the most powerful lobbying groups on Capitol Hill.

I’m sure their letter from Mr. Blum just got lost in the mail, even though our post office is an exceptional example of government funds well managed and budgeted. Just ask Obama.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574431212166204156.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/24/hhs-1997-prohibiting-hmos-informing-clients-pending-legislation-viola

Do Your Homework

Van Jones stepped down as the “green jobs” czar last week. Great, he should leave. Jones is a radical liberal and self-professed communist who was exposed largely because of independent thinkers with a microphone. With Jones out, it’s time the other czars indisputably chosen for such prominent positions by Obama and his administration are exposed for their worldviews. Expose their character and their beliefs, and if needed, take action once again to protect the interests of Americans.

Don’t wait for someone else to look into these czars. Do your homework. My choice for the next target: Cass Sunstein. On September 9th, the same day as President Obama’s speech to congress on health care, Harry Reid (D-NV) pushed for cloture (a method used to close a debate and cause an immediate vote) for the confirmation of Sunstein as the “regulatory czar.” Conveniently, while the media and much of the informed public focused on Obama’s Trojan horse, the senate rushed into voting on a man they probably know little about. How can I be so sure they don’t know who he is? Because this is Cass Sunstein:

- In a speech at Harvard University in 2007, Sunstein expressed his animal rights views. He stated that hunting should be banned, and that subjecting animals to such unjustified suffering is akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.
- He believes the Second Amendment does not protect and individual’s rights to bear arms.
- He believes that animals should have the right to bring suit against human beings, with a human as its attorney, because animals are not property to own. (No, I’m not making that up.)
- He does believe, however, that animals should have the right to own property.
- In his 2001 book, “Republic.com,” he argued that the Internet weakens democracy because it allows citizens to isolate themselves within groups of like-minded individuals, thus cutting themselves off from information that challenges their beliefs, also known as “cyberbalkanization.” Further, he said that the internet must be regulated for “democratic principles.”
- He believes we should have a second bill of rights because no one really opposes government intervention. This “second bill” would advocate citizens’ rights to an education, a home, health care, and a right to protection against monopolies because the Constitutional framers didn’t give thought to social and economic guarantees in the Bill of Rights.
- In his 2004 book “The Second Bill of Rights,” he stated that citizens’ rights exist only to the extent that the government grants them.
- He is a believer in the concept of “libertarian paternalism,” which promotes the concept that regulators will gently “nudge” citizens into making choices they (the regulators) deem are appropriate, thus rewarding citizens for those appropriate choices (a theory he wrote about in his 2007 booked called “Nudge”).

This is America’s regulatory czar; the head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Every piece of major regulation will sit on his desk until he takes a red pen to it. The internet, television and radio will be well within his realm of jurisdiction. This former Harvard Law Professor will be in the back pocket of radical groups such at PETA who salivate with the idea that animals are equal citizens with you and I.

Hours before Obama’s health care speech, Sunstein was overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate in a 63-35 vote. Numerous republicans and all but three democrats voted yes. Our senators voted for a man who has so perverted the original intent of our founding documents and has every intention of influencing society to an extent that could become principally unrecognizable.

Richard Epstein, a liberal law professor at University of Chicago and co-editor with Sunstein of a book about the 2000 elections, supported his confirmation “notwithstanding the many substantive disagreements between us.” Glenn Reynolds, the libertarian blogger and law professor remarked that Sunstein’s confirmation “shows that the Obama administration is perhaps willing to look at new and less intrusive approaches to regulation … there are a lot of people worthy of more concern than Sunstein. If I were advising Republicans, I’d tell them to focus their attention elsewhere.” Too many of the Republican Senators did just that.

Place a frog in boiling water and it will jump out, but start with luke warm water, raise the temperature slowly, and eventually you’ll have frog legs for dinner. This simple concept is what too many extremists within our government understand and are implementing, and what too few conservatives fail to recognize.

It is time for the principles and morality that has served this country (and the world) well for over 200 years to make a quick comeback. The temperature is rising. Jump out of the pot… and fight.

Sources:
http://washingtonindependent.com/58152/attacks-on-sunstein-frustrate-conservative-fans
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2156473/is_cass_sunstein_the_next_van_jones_pg2.html?cat=9
http://stopsunstein.com/

Step Up and Lead

In a previous post, I asked the reader if they had the fortitude to step up to the plate and lead their neighbor or neighborhood for the sake of truth and prosperity.

To be a leader, you must:

"Be" ~ practice what you preach; be the person you say you are

"Know" ~ have knowledge. This includes the integrity to hold only to truthful knowledge, not propaganda

"Do" ~ put your beliefs into action

First things first, let us discuss the "Be" and the "Know".

It is my opinion that if you are to be a leader at this stage in the game, you need to come to the table already an embodiment of someone who practices what they preach. Very simply, I cannot help you with the "Be" portion; you either 'are' or you 'are not'.

While the overall intent of both this blog and the resource links contained within this post is to educate, as a potential leader it is inherent that you already possess at least some degree of knowledge relating the Constitution, the system of Government and the proper role of Government thereof. It need not be a vast and total understanding, just a basic grasp of some history and a few of the concepts in play. Again, at this stage in the game, you must already "Know" some of the basics on your own.

My purpose as the author of this post is only to develope the "Do" portion of this three part leadership philosophy - how to properly put your beliefs into action. First off, I proudly proclaim and admit that you exceed this author in your potential to shape the cause! I have never been one to micro-manage; I am no Wizard of Oz. All I can do is hopefully gain your attention, and show you a few resources to aid you in your pursuits.

I can tell you something, however, that is non-debatable: you must understand that as a leader in a cause such as the survival of our Republic, there are factors that must always be present if we are to accomplish any objective that contributes to the overall endstate:

1. Be prepared to question with BOLDNESS

2. Once you find the TRUTH, hold to it

3. You must speak without FEAR

There is something else as well: you must always accomplish your goals "by, with, and through" the American People. While this may seem obvious, always keep in mind that you are not part of some 'fringe' group. You must understand that you are only facilitating and carrying out the vision what the Founding Fathers intended some 233 years ago.

The below links will hopefully help you shape your discussion. In addition, please take note of the recently updated list of links to the right-hand side of this page. Use them as you see fit, or don't use them at all and make your own way. If you choose the latter, if you would please take the time to make a comment and let us all know what resources you used to aid your path in leadership.

Part I: http://media.patriotpost.us/pdf/edition/09-35a.pdf

Part II: http://media.patriotpost.us/pdf/edition/09-36a.pdf

Red Skelton, in His Own Words

What a Patriot. The date was January 14, 1969.

My Moral Obligation?

On Wednesday, August 19th, Mr. Obama reached out to liberal and progressive religious figures to help spread the “good news” about health care reform and to set the record straight. During that conference call, he addressed those who were “bearing false witness” and spreading lies regarding his heath care plan. He remarked that the numerous false claims were “fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation…I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, and in the wealthiest nation on Earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.”

A moral and ethical obligation…really? Is it a right of every American to have affordable and quality heath coverage? I would argue, no. It is not a moral right for all Americans (or those living in America) to have health coverage. It is a privilege to live in the wealthiest nation on Earth, and with that privilege comes an opportunity to receive the world’s best heath care.

(First of all, there is a difference between heath care and health coverage. Heath care is the treatment and management of illnesses, as well as the preservation of your health through services offered by medical professionals. Health coverage, or health insurance, is insurance that pays for medical expenses. Individuals pay either a premium or taxes to help protect themselves from high or unexpected heath care expenses. Mr. Obama believes it is the moral obligation of government to provide affordable, quality health coverage.)

Those in support of health reform have been asking questions…what about the young couple who have to take out a loan to pay for the birth of their first child because they can’t afford the cost? What about the recently laid-off father who now has to pay for a sudden and unexpected surgery of a sick child? What about the single mother working three part-time jobs and cannot afford to get her own heath insurance? Why should I have to pay for the upgraded cochlear implant that I want, but is too expensive?

According to Obama, I am my sister’s keeper, and it is my moral obligation to help pay for her surgery, health insurance and any future coverage that is too expensive for her or her children … all while paying for my own. But I see a glaring problem with this. I cannot control how my sister lives her life. She may choose to smoke for forty years or maintain a steady diet of Red Bull and Krispy Kremes while working as a crab fisherman off the coast of Alaska. How she lives and the risks she takes are her choice. It is not, then, my obligation to pay for her when she gets sick or injured. Nor is it her responsibility to cover my medical expenses if I decide to go mountain biking around the edges of a quarry in the rain (which is very risky…believe you me).

As my sister’s keeper, I would encourage her to quit smoking, eat a healthy diet and exercise regularly. Or to wait to have children until she and her husband have a steady job that provides heath benefits, or to get rid of her monthly cable (gasp!) and internet bill in order to pay her monthly premium. The point is, I would do a much better service for my sister by encouraging her to make better financial and health decisions.

Of course not all health care needs are a result of food choices or job-related accidents. The cost of prescription medications are high, employers sometimes drop coverage for their employees, some individuals have pre-existing conditions which insurance companies are not willing to cover, and many doctors practice defensive medicine which quadruples your hospital bill. To all of that, I would say TOUGH.

Did I just say that? It sounds so…heartless.

We do not have a perfect medical system in America. No one, including myself, is arguing for the status quo. But what I cannot get passed is the amount of people interviewed on television, showing up at townhall meetings with signs, and writing on blogs who have their own problem. Or they know of Sally Smith’s problem that lives down the road.

I truly believe that in America, given the chance, people will figure out a way to take care of their own. Once upon a time, Americans did this. Previous generations lived through two world wars and the Great Depression. America survived the Jimmy Carter years which produced a worse recession than the one we have today (including unemployment rates that neared 16%). But Americans rose to the challenge each and every time. And we are still – still - living in the most prosperous country in the world.

So I say again, TOUGH. As Thomas Paine said, these are the times that try men’s souls. Find a way. The government must not intervene to fix every problem we encounter. If citizens believe it is the obligation of the government to pay their hospital bills, there is no end to what the government should, and will, control.

Where is the passion to make it on your own? To find a way, when there seems to be no way? To go from rags to riches, without a government handout? In the words of George Washington, “perseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages.” And in this age, I put my trust in the average American to find their way rather than trust the government to find the way for us. I take that as my moral obligation.

For a great article:
The Claremount Institute, "Is Heath Care a Right?"
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1607/article_detail.asp

Un-American?

From a good friend of mine and a good man. He said:

"I just read an article wherein Nancy Pelosi said that people who were crying out about the health care package were 'extremist' and 'mob-like'. She actually described them as 'Un-American'."

A few other thoughts in the form of questions:

*Isn’t the way we are rising up against a political agenda actually the way that we became AMERICA??

*Is Nancy Pelosi so far out of touch with reality that she doesn’t know about the Boston Tea Party?

*To compound matters, the MSM (Main stream Media) is reporting her comment without a proper rebuttal. If a republican had made a statement like that, wouldn’t the press feel obligated to put a negative spin on it?

*Why are regular people, who are speaking highly articulated concerns at town halls, being referred to as 'astroturf' by Ms. Pelosi?

*How is it that a mere concerned citizenry is being labeled as 'radical' and accused of practicing 'mob tactics'? Are they suggesting that any dissent, even if it is a well-spoken logical question, is a 'mob tactic'?

*If you get a little frustrated and visibly perturbed when someone with a microphone at a town hall meeting is repeating things that logically do not make sense, over and over, does that justify your comparison to a 'mob'?

*Have we forgotten the silence of Ms. Pelosi in years past when her anti-war activists were performing mash-pit-rave-concert-style rushing of political stages, meetings, and conventions? Did she ever comment on the blood pouring on war memorials? Where was her press release when 'progressives' burst into sessions of congress to throw blood on anyone who didn't move out of their way? How about the disrespect shown at military funerals by anti-war protesters? Where was her 'leadership' then?

*Where was Ms. Pelosi when a plot was uncovered (people were actually arrested in a raid before they could carry out the attack) to throw acid on members of the 2008 Republican National Convention as they made their way into the convention center in Minneapolis? Was that un-American Ms. Pelosi?

So let's get this straight: if we get mad - at all - about the current health care debate (or the fact that the Obama administration essentially wishes not to have one), we are un-American?

This reform was pushed on us so fast, we hardly had a chance to say "what?" Why does it take years to prosecute known felons or months to overturn a speeding ticket, but a trillion dollar plus health care bill must be passed in a few weeks? Why the rush?

Also....uh...where is the logic here? That's right: there isn't any.

"It is error alone that needs the support of government. The truth can stand by itself."

~Thomas Jefferson

Speaking of quotes, my #1 quote of all time is this:

"The true task of leadership is not to put greatness into humanity, but to elicit it, for the greatness is already there."

~John Buchan

As a young Marine, I read this quote in a classy pamphlet about becoming a Marine Officer. I remember the day precisely. My first thought, after a brief reflection, was that it represented an approach to leadership drastically different from a ram-it-down-the-throat style.

In my youth, at times I felt fairly unproductive and that my life was just a repeating cycle of frustration. I wasn't directing my energies (and maybe a little aggression) at the right things, or at least in the right way.

Knowing the context of leadership, the real stuff in how to define it, would have allowed me better focus. My problem was that I didn't know that I was broken. Not only was I not a leader, I didn't even have some of the basic principles down pat - some of them I had never even discovered.

But I will say this, when I saw others practicing good leadership, I seemed to gravitate toward them. It felt right. Wherever they were going seemed to make sense, and being associated with them not only felt good - it was good. They were always sucessful.

On the flip side of that, many times though as a youth I was just mad at people or things that were attempting to control me. I couldn't stand being controlled by people who didn't seem to stand for anything that seemed to be meaningful. In high school I hated the 'everyone wins-don't-ever-get-mad' ideology, where essentially nothing was worth fighting for - the only great idea was always to just do as you were told.

The Marines changed that in me (except I did as I was told, at least most of the time). From day one I saw that when Marines said something, they backed it up. Outside of my parents and a handful of inspiring adults who influenced me for the better, it was hands down 100% different leadership than anything I had ever seen. It meant something to me, and it was quite a profound thing when I stepped into their recruiting office. Now, that lesson means the world to me. It always will.

I think most people have the instincts for sensing when there is an injustice taking place. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights just defines what the standard is. And now, through this health care debate, Citizens are re-discovering what that standard is. I think many people are shocked at the disparity between what the Founding Fathers intended and what we now see on TV.

Most importantly, what we do based on our discoveries and how we continue our efforts to define the problem through research, and how we continue our research in order to figure out how to fix the problem - that is what defines us! We are defined by independently applying our principles!!! Peaceful action!!!

The recurring thing I find in life is that people will always surprise you. Old ladies you might meet on a plane actually have a great head for leadership. Old men, who are humble as can be, can tell you at story - and they will let you learn the lesson from it.

The point is, listen to the wisdom of our Fathers and stay involved. It must be a constant thing! If recent times seem like a painful and scary awakening, it could have been avoided if we had just kept a rotating 'fire-watch' schedule that kept us all alert 24/7 since 1776. We must all realize that we are our own protectors - always!

As these recent times have taught us, if you belong to any sort of defined group - a workplace, a neighborhood, whatever - stay connected to people who seek the truth in life and who have shown you the ability to think for themselves. Learn from those who stand in front of you, beside you, but also from those behind you who will follow your lead!

It must a remain constant that we revisit what has been learned from history. New complexities are making the situation today seem murky when it otherwise should be simple. Principle can connect the dots for us in that way; principle can make clarity of a mess. Complex things can become simplified. The point is, through the use of principle is what America was designed to be! Use it, fix our Nations problems by applying it, and never let things go unchecked again for so long!

FYI Barak, Nancy, et al. - if you are teaching, never act aloof to your students. You can stop trying to "put greatness into humanity" as though you are better than us. Apparently you don't understand that "the GREATNESS is already there" in the humanity of America. If you are to be successful you may try altering your approach, that is, if you think you have it in you.

In the 2010 mid-term elections we need to use our voting power to rid ourselves of any politician who has skylined themselves as simply inept in understanding the Consitution, history, or what their role is in serving the People. We must realize that it is our Nation's identity and moral fiber to handle our OWN business! Prosperity lies with the individual! Prosperity lies with those who will stand for what is right with others who share similar values and principles!

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."

~Thomas Jefferson

The shockwave that such clueless people have been legally allowed to represent us has finally been felt; the degradation of the quality of our leaders over time is astounding - from Jefferson to Pelosi; Washington to Harry Reid? The realization of this disparity should motivate a revolution of new public servants! Do you have it in you to step up to the plate to serve the interests of your friend and humble neighbor? Maybe even your whole neighborhood, for the sake of truth and prosperity?

If the Constitution were a full glass of nourishing milk, this socialistic agenda is an empty glass with sour milk residue just sitting in the sink. The person who put it in the sink doesn't have the common courtesy of loading it into the dishwasher, and doesn't care or understand why that is wrong. In recent weeks, the common small town man or woman has emerged as having 10 times the character and principle than the Speaker of the House of Representatives! The Greatness is already there!

God Bless America - the place where the People cannot be silenced!

Mr. Obama, I Have Some Questions For You.

As an opponent the current proposed health care plan by President Obama and congress, I would like to practice my First Amendment rights and speak my concerns. Though I am not an economist nor hold a degree in political science, I am still a quizzical American. (Even if Nancy Pelosi wants to call me “un-american” for my dissent … “Hello, pot? This is kettle. You are black.”) So if I were blessed with the opportunity to speak directly with our president regarding the proposed plan, this is what I would ask him:


1. Have you read the bill- completely?

I really don’t think that needs to be explained in more detail.


2. If this “public option” is your best option for uninsured Americans, then will you, your administration and congress be the first to sign up for it?

Around election time, every politician totes their desire to serve the American people to the best of their ability. You swore on a Bible to do just the same on inauguration day. And if our 111th congress is truly proposing a plan that will be the very best they can create for Americans, then I assume it is good enough for all of you and your families.


3. What’s the rush?


Remember the stimulus that “had to be passed” if we were going to save the economy back in February? CNNMoney.com reported on August 8th that of the $787.2 billion stimulus funds, about 29% are just now available for use, and only 15% of the stimulus total has actually been paid out thus far.

And remember TARP? You know, the program that intended to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions in order to strengthen the financial sector? As of February of this year, $194.2 billion in TARP funds were given to 317 financial firms, but only two (yes, two) were required to say what they would do with the money.

Forbes.com reported “[t]he watchdog for [TARP] will push banks and other companies that got federal bailout money to detail what they plan to do with it. Why? The government hasn’t asked.” Neil Barofsky, TARP’s special inspector general, wrote a letter to Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, in which he said “[w]hat remains almost entirely opaque, however, is what has been done with the TARP money.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report stating that the cost of the health care reform proposal will cost at least $1.3 trillion through 2019. On June 15th, TheHill.com writer, Alexander Bolton, wrote “[t]he CBO released a report … estimating the cost of a leading healthcare reform proposal at more than $1 trillion, but that figure looked only at a portion of the bill … [and] does not include an estimate for a highly contentious government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.”

And lastly, we have “cash for clunkers,” in which your congress budgeted $2 billion for the program, estimated to last until November 1st … but ran out of money in four days. This “economic booster” for the American people sure worked well. In fact, six of the top ten car models sold were made by Toyota, Hyundai and Honda.

So. Your administration wants another trillion or more to fix health care ASAP. But the stimulus hasn’t been spent, nor are we sure of its effectiveness. The usage of TARP funds is about as transparent as swimming through a swamp and the financial institutions who received the funds are held as accountable as letting detainees at Guantanamo try each other in court (don't get any ideas). And your administration’s ability to budget numbers for your proposed health care bill and the “cash for clunkers” program are so grossly inept that I wouldn’t trust any of you to balance my checkbook. Maybe it would be best to take some time. Read the bill, study the possible outcomes and costs, listen to those who agree and disagree with the bill and re-read the constitution, bill of rights and federalist papers before you rush to pass something (i.e. anything).


4. How are you going to pay for your proposed plan?

At a townhall meeting this morning, a woman asked Arlen Specter this very question. His roundabout response tried to explain that health care savings will pay for it. Savings found through pre-screening for certain diseases and cancers, as well as pursuing preventative health methods, will keep Americans healthier and thus out of the doctor’s office. The woman asked him again, “but how are you actually going to pay for it?” Specter then replied, “That’s all I can tell you.”

Isn’t that like saying, “I’m going to pay off my credit card balance by only going shopping every other weekend? The amount I save will pay for my bill!” Saving money in the future doesn’t pay for something now. Try that next time you want to buy a Camry.


5. How do you expect to offer insurance for every American and lower costs?

Patients on Medicaid use the emergency department much more frequently than patients with private insurance. Medicaid patients use the ER 82 per 100 people, whereas persons with private insurance use the ER 21 per 100 people (aafp.org). It’s just a fact. If you didn’t have to pay for a service, you don’t care how often you used it, as Medicaid patients prove.

So what happens to the amount of services used if another 20 or 30 million people are now on the government plan, and pay little to nothing? The services are used more, and subsequently, the costs go up. More doctors are needed; more hospitals, more supplies, more drugs, more of everything. But according to you, Mr. Obama, the costs go down. How, exactly?


6. If the “public option” you are proposing is just giving uninsured Americans a “choice,” what’s wrong with the 1,000+ private insurance plan options we can currently choose from?


Mr. Obama, you have been quoted many, many times saying that your health insurance plan would simply be another choice to compete with private insurers, and help keep them “honest.” But doesn’t a free market system do just that? If company A is offering a product that cheats its consumers, and company B is not, then company A will inevitably fail. That’s a free market economy.

Besides, we have over 1,000 current private health insurance plans and companies. You don’t think your government-run insurance company, no. 1001, will keep the rest in check, do you? Unless you have other motives … You know, like when Barney Frank said that this proposed plan is the only way the government will get to a one-payer, universal system mandatory for all Americans… cough, cough.


Thomas Jefferson said, “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.” I believe in questioning boldly. Not because I am conservative and you, Mr. Obama, are a liberal. Not because I’m part of some “astroturf” movement paid by the Republican Party to make a stink. But because our government is for the people, by the people. And I don’t believe our government is either right now.

Here is an excellent article that dives into the details, costs and inevitable consequences of the proposed health care reform:
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg2224.cfm

Judgement of A Judge

The Supreme Court, the “High Court” of the United States, pilots our judicial branch of government with comprehensive judicial authority. Each Supreme Court judge is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and receives life tenure. With such a prominent and extensive position, it would make sense that great consideration and thorough vetting can only answer the question of qualifications. But what many politicians today consider a worthy Supreme Court judge is at odds with the original intent of judges.

However appropriately used, the definition of “qualifications” can vary. For instance, what our founding fathers thought the qualifications of judicial nominees in the late 1700s is vastly different than the qualifications used to determine a solid candidate today. James Madison, the fourth president of the United States and the “Father of the Constitution” spoke on the importance of just representation by judges: “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves would be considered by the judges as null and void.” Alexander Hamilton, the first United States Secretary of the Treasury and co-author with Madison of the Federalist Papers, the primary resource for constitutional interpretation, said “[The Judiciary’s] duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” Hamilton, as well as Madison, believed the constitution was the fundamental document by which judges need to base their rulings upon.

Today we have politicians, including the President of the United States, who gives a vastly different opinion to the role and responsibility of a Supreme Court judge. President Obama provided his qualifications for a Supreme Court judge when speaking at the Planned Parenthood conference in Washington DC on July 17, 2007. "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

What we need, as Obama claims, is a judge who can empathize with the everyday ailments and challenges of struggling Americans (or minorities). It is true the creators of the Constitution believed firmly that the will of the people must be represented by those in the government who make policy, but in no way did that group of men believe personal experience is a worthy qualification to being a judge. A judge’s understanding and interpretation of the Constitution is the primary qualification.

The current Supreme Court nominee, Sonya Sotomayor, has given her own elucidation of the qualifications for a Supreme Court judge. In 2001, she made remarks at Berkeley that were published by La Raza Law Journal. She claimed that for jurists who are minorities, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” She went on to say, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.” Sotomayor also went on to make the following comments: “to judge is an exercise of power … there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives” and “[p]ersonal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.”

Sonya Sotomayor is 54 years old, a graduate of Princeton and Yale who served as a prosecutor, corporate litigator and federal district judge before joining the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. Although her judicial resume is impressive, her beliefs on what the proper role of judges are is unconstitutional.

In a panel discussion in front of law students given in 2005, Sotomayor claimed “[the] court of appeals is where policy is made.” Although she immediately went on to say she didn’t intend to make such a strong statement on camera, the fact is she did. America’s earliest statesmen, including Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Adams and countless others, never intended to give the judicial branch the authority to make policy. One man who thoroughly studied and taught on America’s Constitutional Republic was William Rawle. Rawle was the United States district attorney appointed by George Washington in 1791, and in 1825, he said:

“The Judicial power is general or limited according to the scope and objects of the government. In a word, it must be fully and exactly commensurate with that of the Legislature. It cannot by any terms of language be made to exceed the Legislative power…But it is said that there is generally a propensity in public functionaries to extend their power beyond its proper limits, and this may at some future time be the case with the courts of the United States…In such an extreme and therefore improbable case, as there would be no color of jurisdiction, the whole [judicial] proceedings would be void.”

The earliest American politicians were very clear in their opinion that the judicial branch must be viewed as the weakest (least powerful) of the three branches of government. Immediately following the Constitutional Convention, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers to explain how America’s new government would operate under its constitution. In Federalist #78, Hamilton wrote, “the Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power…the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.” But does President Obama or judge Sotomayor share that same belief?

In the Wall Street Journal from November 29, 2008, Mitch McConnell wrote an article titled, “Obama’s Judges and the Senate.” He commented, “On the campaign trail, the Illinois Senator suggested that one of his criteria for selecting judges would be their ‘empathy.’ That's a far cry from judges as impartial arbiters of the law -- and would be the most untethered standard any President has offered for judicial picks. Without a fealty to the Constitution, a judge is able to bend on the emotions of a case.” And with such prevailing authority, a Supreme Court judge who ruled based on such sentimental assessments is truly a partial and predisposed danger to the original intent of the judiciary.

The America we live in today is different than the America our pioneers lived in 233 years ago, and with sociological changes come changes in political philosophy. Yet underneath the diversity we live amongst is a foundation of principles that leads to a proper and free government which makes up our Constitutional Republic.

The men who created the unique and commanding Constitution purposefully created clear boundaries and responsibilities for the judicial branch of government and its Supreme Court judges. With the ability to be the final authority over a law and, in essence, over the people, Supreme Court judges must be grounded and enlightened in the very document that gives them such authority. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “[E]ach of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution without any regard to what the others may have decided for themselves under a similar question.”

Thomas Jefferson also echoed this warning to the American people: “The Constitution…is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” When our president nominates a judge for the high court based upon her empathy of struggling minorities, and when a soon-to-be Supreme Court judge believes not only that policy is made in the judiciary, but that personal experiences play a significant role in policy-setting rulings, the American people are inevitably left with a judicial branch of government that has been molded in a way unrecognizable to those who first created it. And quite possibly one that cannot be re-shaped.

Note: All quotes from the founding fathers were gathered from Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution & Religion by David Barton, 2000.