This stuff is largely not describable using the written word alone. Therefore:
Was he eluding to something when he spoke to LeMoyne-Owens College in Memphis on April 14, 2012?
This man, along with the Black Panthers, Al Sharpton, Van Jones (Obummer's former White House green jobs czar), and the service employees international union (SEIU) have all shown solidarity with the occupy movement. But why? Or more importantly, how could this be?
The fact that Louis Farrakhan's 'Nation of Islam' group and the New Black Panther Party are working in unison should not surprise anyone. Each has a strong faith with deep philosophical roots in the islamic religion.
But Van Jones is not a muslim; rather, he has openly admitted to being the founding member of STORM, a communist organization originally formed in protest of the 1991 Persain Gulf War. What about the SEIU - why would guys in teamsters jackets be supporting occupy? This pathetic Milwaukee demonstration doesn't answer that question specifically, but it does provide a documentation of various groups coming together:
Of course, the final and most noteworthy group is the people 'literally in the streets' of the occupy movement, the vast majority of which are white youth with an admiration for anarchy and a strong displeasure with organized religion. Over the weekend they smashed business windows in NYC after an anarchist book rally.
So why did the Council of American-islamic Relations (CAIR) get an official invitation to join the occupy movement last October? Imam Aiyub Abdul Baki of the Islamic Leadership Council, and Linda Sarsour, a leader of the Arab-American Association of New York, both spoke at occupy wall street last fall and then led a large islamic call to prayer, chanting "Allahu-Akbar!" or "allah is great!"
Now, wait just a second, I thought God actually wasn't so great according to most of the anarchists? Exactly. Welcome to the discovery channel; organized islam has long since been joyfully granted an exception to the communist/anarchist's no religion rule and is officially welcome at occupy. Imagine that.
Ask yourself this: if the United States, a [former] relatively homogeneous capitalist nation, and the Soviet Union, a die-hard communist nation, were able to unite during WWII in order to wipe out Germany, why should we have a hard time believing that radical islam, communists, socialists, and anarchists would unite in order to defeat capitalism and the United States?
Know this: the conspirators of this new world order ARE conspiring at the very highest levels. On a daily basis, each of their 'independent' public messages use the same 'new slogans of the day' in responding to news (I call this wordology). We all know allied media organizations do this - on its own Foxnews creates a heap of stupid buzz words everyday. But over the last three years, the media, government, and community organizers from North, South, East and West all come out on day x using the same go to phrases in unison, and they begin spouting them before 9 a.m. Folks, it is obvious that these well-prepared remarks are all in non-conincidental alignment. They are not just hearing each other's buzz words during the a.m. and then doing a monkey-see, monkey-do with their remarks in the p.m. Can anyone say sychronized swimming team?
Either there is a divine force granting fresh clairvoyant powers to the speech writers of leftist politicians AND community organizing radicals every 24 hours, or all of these George Soros-funded organizations are having regular conference calls with government officials. When you take a step back and view all the coordinated rhetoric from seemingly unconnected groups, common sense clarity begins to show that this collective represents a clear and present danger to the United States of America, that is, if we intend on remaining a Republic. If you're cool with an elite-run oligarchy, then no worries....you can go back to your Real Housewives show or final four bracket.
I will present in a later post that this collusion extends to the very top of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Sunday, April 8, 2012
It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.... (Calvin Coolidge, The Inspiration of the Declaration)
This week, the President warned the justices, which he called an “unelected group of people,” not to take the “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” His Affordable Care Act, and the Solicitor General charged with defending the 2,700-page law, have received less than amiable critiques of its contents. The justices sought clarity, at one point questioning whether the government could create commerce in order to regulate it.
But Mr. Obama believes that the legislative branch, the proud authors of the law, received majority support from Americans. After all, who doesn’t want health insurance? That in itself is reason to implement the law. (Just think where this trail of logic could lead.) Let’s say the healthcare law did receive majority support—which clearly it has not— but regardless, if it did, would this be archetypal and consistent with the legislative’s characteristics?
Hardly. Our government has a long record of creating programs and enforcing laws on its citizens that those same citizens never voted for. Little by little, election by election, the legislature has intentionally tightened its grip on liberty’s throat in an effort to eventually see it collapse to the ground, lifeless and suffocated.
Exaggeration? Consider that 40,000 new laws went into effect January 1, 2012, and as MSNBC reports, the laws range from “getting abortions in New Hampshire, learning about gays and lesbians in California, getting jobs in Alabama and even driving golf carts in Georgia.” California enacted many laws on January 1, including the California Booster Seat law, which outlaws parents, guardians or drivers from transporting any child under 8 years old without securing that child in an appropriate child restraint meeting federal motor vehicle safety standards. They also established the California Gay History Law, which mandates that school textbooks and social studies include gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender accomplishments.
With 40,000 new laws implemented—equal to 109 laws each and every day this year—I would like to know how the American people keep track. How is it possible to remain aware and conversant of what our government is doing?
Progressives support the recent advancements of government authority and oversight. They believe history tells of an oppressive, abusive and backwards society. They are fighting for something different— the Occupy movement, the labor movement, Code Pink, and their cohorts. There is a reason the Declaration of Independence is only 1,337 words in length and the Constitution is only 4,543 words: government was not created to regulate a man’s life. The government of the United States was created to be transparent—allow the individual to look through its guiding principles that affirms liberty, and in turn, supplies innovation.
But the President has established a limit on the government. He does not want the judicial branch of government untethered, like a child let loose inside an art museum with finger paints. No, he needs the Supreme Court wearing a monkey backpack, clipped around its waist, and a leash extending from the monkey tail straight to Obama’s wrist. Given the negative commentary presented by the justices during the Healthcare hearings, he has reason to be concerned. The high court may do what its long history has often done—check and balance.
But he was a Constitutional law professor, so maybe his recent comments about the high court are a matter of semantics: the democratically elected Congress that represents the will of the majority.
In January, Mr. Obama bypassed the confirmation process for several appointees of federal positions, ignoring the Senate’s role to provide advice and consent on presidential appointments. Obama made four recess appointments, even though the Senate was not on recess, while Senate Republicans used filibusters to try and block nearly 200 other agency nominations proposed by Obama.
More recently, Obama’s administration mandated that health insurance include coverage for contraceptives which applies to religious institutions, such as Roman Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies. Kathleen Sibelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, said the mandate would guarantee women access to contraceptives “while accommodating religious liberty interests.” But for Obama, much to the chagrin of the Catholic Church (and all those religious Americans).
And then we have the budget. That pesky balance sheet that asks the federal government to track the money coming in and the money going out. Obama and the Senate Democrats have passed the 1,000-day mark without passing a budget. Last week Obama’s own $3.6 trillion budget proposal was shot down without one vote in favor—clearly a case of the right hand knowing what the left is doing (with all of us somewhere in the middle).
Clearly the President is not concerned with what the strong majority wants; but he is very interested in what he believes the strong majority wants. Since he was elected, he appoints his staff and he criticizes the role of the Supreme Court, he knows best. But a philosopher who influenced our Founding Fathers, Algernon Sidney, recognized what grave mistake awaits people who place their trust in elected officials:
..And as ’tis folly to suppose that princes will always be wise, just and good, when we know that few have been able alone to bear the weight of a government, or to resist the temptations to ill, that accompany an unlimited power, it would be madness to presume they will for the future be free from infirmities and vices.... (Discourses Concerning Government)
We can’t expect those who we elect to make the right decisions. We can’t expect that they will not become drunk with power and abuse their authority. And we are not supposed to. Which again is why the Constitution is only 4,543 words long. It was not written in order to describe the can’s and cannot’s of a man’s life; the length of the Constitution is a symbolic representation of the way our society should operate: less government is more— more liberty, more creativity, and more opportunities.
Aristotle, another influencer of our Founding Fathers, wrote, “For the beginning seems to be more than half of the whole, and many of the things that are inquired after become illuminated along with it” (Nocomachean Ethics). Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution represent more than half of our whole— our past, our present, and as we return to its original meaning, a future illuminated.
Today we can witness the results of a government that operates by the consent of the governed. No other government in the world’s history has a greater influence on the advancement of civilization than what began in 1776. The fact that America’s charitable giving is the third largest economy in the world is proof enough that the establishment of our Constitutional Republic allows the most prosperity and charity, the most innovation and economic stability, and the most justice and protection. The American experiment worked. Those who say otherwise only want to ignore what has been done and replace it with another system— the one of Obama’s dreams.
No oppressed people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters. (Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on the Constitution and the Union)
This week, the President warned the justices, which he called an “unelected group of people,” not to take the “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” His Affordable Care Act, and the Solicitor General charged with defending the 2,700-page law, have received less than amiable critiques of its contents. The justices sought clarity, at one point questioning whether the government could create commerce in order to regulate it.
But Mr. Obama believes that the legislative branch, the proud authors of the law, received majority support from Americans. After all, who doesn’t want health insurance? That in itself is reason to implement the law. (Just think where this trail of logic could lead.) Let’s say the healthcare law did receive majority support—which clearly it has not— but regardless, if it did, would this be archetypal and consistent with the legislative’s characteristics?
Hardly. Our government has a long record of creating programs and enforcing laws on its citizens that those same citizens never voted for. Little by little, election by election, the legislature has intentionally tightened its grip on liberty’s throat in an effort to eventually see it collapse to the ground, lifeless and suffocated.
Exaggeration? Consider that 40,000 new laws went into effect January 1, 2012, and as MSNBC reports, the laws range from “getting abortions in New Hampshire, learning about gays and lesbians in California, getting jobs in Alabama and even driving golf carts in Georgia.” California enacted many laws on January 1, including the California Booster Seat law, which outlaws parents, guardians or drivers from transporting any child under 8 years old without securing that child in an appropriate child restraint meeting federal motor vehicle safety standards. They also established the California Gay History Law, which mandates that school textbooks and social studies include gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender accomplishments.
With 40,000 new laws implemented—equal to 109 laws each and every day this year—I would like to know how the American people keep track. How is it possible to remain aware and conversant of what our government is doing?
Progressives support the recent advancements of government authority and oversight. They believe history tells of an oppressive, abusive and backwards society. They are fighting for something different— the Occupy movement, the labor movement, Code Pink, and their cohorts. There is a reason the Declaration of Independence is only 1,337 words in length and the Constitution is only 4,543 words: government was not created to regulate a man’s life. The government of the United States was created to be transparent—allow the individual to look through its guiding principles that affirms liberty, and in turn, supplies innovation.
But the President has established a limit on the government. He does not want the judicial branch of government untethered, like a child let loose inside an art museum with finger paints. No, he needs the Supreme Court wearing a monkey backpack, clipped around its waist, and a leash extending from the monkey tail straight to Obama’s wrist. Given the negative commentary presented by the justices during the Healthcare hearings, he has reason to be concerned. The high court may do what its long history has often done—check and balance.
But he was a Constitutional law professor, so maybe his recent comments about the high court are a matter of semantics: the democratically elected Congress that represents the will of the majority.
In January, Mr. Obama bypassed the confirmation process for several appointees of federal positions, ignoring the Senate’s role to provide advice and consent on presidential appointments. Obama made four recess appointments, even though the Senate was not on recess, while Senate Republicans used filibusters to try and block nearly 200 other agency nominations proposed by Obama.
More recently, Obama’s administration mandated that health insurance include coverage for contraceptives which applies to religious institutions, such as Roman Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies. Kathleen Sibelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, said the mandate would guarantee women access to contraceptives “while accommodating religious liberty interests.” But for Obama, much to the chagrin of the Catholic Church (and all those religious Americans).
And then we have the budget. That pesky balance sheet that asks the federal government to track the money coming in and the money going out. Obama and the Senate Democrats have passed the 1,000-day mark without passing a budget. Last week Obama’s own $3.6 trillion budget proposal was shot down without one vote in favor—clearly a case of the right hand knowing what the left is doing (with all of us somewhere in the middle).
Clearly the President is not concerned with what the strong majority wants; but he is very interested in what he believes the strong majority wants. Since he was elected, he appoints his staff and he criticizes the role of the Supreme Court, he knows best. But a philosopher who influenced our Founding Fathers, Algernon Sidney, recognized what grave mistake awaits people who place their trust in elected officials:
..And as ’tis folly to suppose that princes will always be wise, just and good, when we know that few have been able alone to bear the weight of a government, or to resist the temptations to ill, that accompany an unlimited power, it would be madness to presume they will for the future be free from infirmities and vices.... (Discourses Concerning Government)
We can’t expect those who we elect to make the right decisions. We can’t expect that they will not become drunk with power and abuse their authority. And we are not supposed to. Which again is why the Constitution is only 4,543 words long. It was not written in order to describe the can’s and cannot’s of a man’s life; the length of the Constitution is a symbolic representation of the way our society should operate: less government is more— more liberty, more creativity, and more opportunities.
Aristotle, another influencer of our Founding Fathers, wrote, “For the beginning seems to be more than half of the whole, and many of the things that are inquired after become illuminated along with it” (Nocomachean Ethics). Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution represent more than half of our whole— our past, our present, and as we return to its original meaning, a future illuminated.
Today we can witness the results of a government that operates by the consent of the governed. No other government in the world’s history has a greater influence on the advancement of civilization than what began in 1776. The fact that America’s charitable giving is the third largest economy in the world is proof enough that the establishment of our Constitutional Republic allows the most prosperity and charity, the most innovation and economic stability, and the most justice and protection. The American experiment worked. Those who say otherwise only want to ignore what has been done and replace it with another system— the one of Obama’s dreams.
No oppressed people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters. (Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on the Constitution and the Union)
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Health Care Compromise: the Worst Possible Scenario
The more information I gather regarding the current debate in the Supreme Court over Obamacare, the more I find that independent minds generally perceive the individual mandate of the law to be unconstitutional. Many 'experts' are predicting that the individual mandate will be scrapped, and the remainder of the law kept in place.
You need to be extremely alarmed, for these two reasons:
1. the judicial branch of government was NEVER designed to 'line-item-veto' upon receiving a case to judge a law's constitutionality. It must either uphold the law as is, or strike down the law as is. That's it. Only the legislature has to ability to design laws and pass them. Therefore, if the Supreme Court modifies the law in any way by cherry picking certain clauses, but striking down others, it has just taken on the role of legislating. Based on my fifth grade understanding of checks and balances, that is a no no.
2. If the individual mandate is scrapped, but the remainder of the law kept in place, the item from the remainder to focus on is the 'pre-existing conditions' clause. The clause states that no person can be turned down for pre-existing conditions. Wow, so caring and lovely, right? What it means is that a person can have no insurance, get AIDS, cancer, a degenerative disk in every single vertebrae all at once, and require sponge baths for the rest of their life, and then after the diagnosis decide that they need insurance. By law, then, if the remainder of Obamacare passes, the pre-existing conditions clause means that no insurance company can refuse the needy person health care. Doesn't this go against the concept of insurance? Yes. Why would anyone carry health care? Good question. Wouldn't this put every insurance company out of business? Maybe.
The above scenario will certainly cost insurance companies a lot of money. But if there is an individual mandate forcing people to buy health care, this will give insurance companies a lot of money. The big enraging question is: what happens if the individual mandate is dropped, but all of the other clauses, particularly the 'pre-existing conditions' clause, is kept?
The answer is that every private health care company will go out of business. It will be impossible for them to pay their rent, much less turn a profit, within one month of the law being fully implemented.
What you have to realize is that this thing is going to be sold to you as a compromise. They want you to think that you have won. They have purposefully focused on the individual mandate as the big thing. They will part ways with it faster than you can say 'one payer system'. By parting with it, you have just been duped into government run health care. What is extremely alarming is that Solicitor General Verrilli, who argued all aspect of Obamacare in the Supreme Court on behalf of the government, seemed to sound like he was the member of the JV debate team when TRYING to explain the validity of the individual mandate.
On the other stuff, he was his normal respectable self. Weird.
When Obummer said "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it" here is what he meant: I really don't care about your health care plan, but that really doesn't matter. You won't be able to keep your health care plan, because that company is going to go broke, I promise. But you can keep it if you want to. Snicker snicker, giggle giggle.
The whole law must be struck down, or we will be fundamentally changed as a nation. Wake up.
A few more helpful videos for background:
You need to be extremely alarmed, for these two reasons:
1. the judicial branch of government was NEVER designed to 'line-item-veto' upon receiving a case to judge a law's constitutionality. It must either uphold the law as is, or strike down the law as is. That's it. Only the legislature has to ability to design laws and pass them. Therefore, if the Supreme Court modifies the law in any way by cherry picking certain clauses, but striking down others, it has just taken on the role of legislating. Based on my fifth grade understanding of checks and balances, that is a no no.
2. If the individual mandate is scrapped, but the remainder of the law kept in place, the item from the remainder to focus on is the 'pre-existing conditions' clause. The clause states that no person can be turned down for pre-existing conditions. Wow, so caring and lovely, right? What it means is that a person can have no insurance, get AIDS, cancer, a degenerative disk in every single vertebrae all at once, and require sponge baths for the rest of their life, and then after the diagnosis decide that they need insurance. By law, then, if the remainder of Obamacare passes, the pre-existing conditions clause means that no insurance company can refuse the needy person health care. Doesn't this go against the concept of insurance? Yes. Why would anyone carry health care? Good question. Wouldn't this put every insurance company out of business? Maybe.
The above scenario will certainly cost insurance companies a lot of money. But if there is an individual mandate forcing people to buy health care, this will give insurance companies a lot of money. The big enraging question is: what happens if the individual mandate is dropped, but all of the other clauses, particularly the 'pre-existing conditions' clause, is kept?
The answer is that every private health care company will go out of business. It will be impossible for them to pay their rent, much less turn a profit, within one month of the law being fully implemented.
What you have to realize is that this thing is going to be sold to you as a compromise. They want you to think that you have won. They have purposefully focused on the individual mandate as the big thing. They will part ways with it faster than you can say 'one payer system'. By parting with it, you have just been duped into government run health care. What is extremely alarming is that Solicitor General Verrilli, who argued all aspect of Obamacare in the Supreme Court on behalf of the government, seemed to sound like he was the member of the JV debate team when TRYING to explain the validity of the individual mandate.
On the other stuff, he was his normal respectable self. Weird.
When Obummer said "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it" here is what he meant: I really don't care about your health care plan, but that really doesn't matter. You won't be able to keep your health care plan, because that company is going to go broke, I promise. But you can keep it if you want to. Snicker snicker, giggle giggle.
The whole law must be struck down, or we will be fundamentally changed as a nation. Wake up.
A few more helpful videos for background:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)