Brandenburg Gate; and Our Heroes at Check Point Charlie

By David A. Black, Sr.

On June 12, 1987, President Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin and said, “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace; if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe; if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

On November 9, 1989, just two years after Reagan’s Brandenburg Gate speech, the people of Germany did tear down the Berlin Wall, and hundreds of millions of people were liberated from communism.

Berlin just celebrated the twentieth anniversary of that momentous day.  Unlike our fearless “Commander and Chief”, I chose to acknowledge it.  I did so by talking to retired Veteran I know.

I wanted to present his thoughts of the subject as a tribute to Veteran’s Day this year.  I will apologize for failing to meet my self-imposed deadline, but the message is too important to allow, a little issue like, timing to prevent its telling.

Let me introduce you to a man I know as Paul.  Twenty years ago, he was known as Chief Master Sergeant, stationed at Templehof Air Force Base, Berlin, Germany.

“I was there.”  Paul informed me.

“There?”  I inquired, noticing he was reading a VFW magazine article about the fall of the Berlin Wall.

“Here!”  He said, holding up the magazine to display a picture.  “Berlin, Germany, November 9, 1989.”

“Really?”  I replied, inquisitively.  “What was it like?”

And this is what he had to say…

…My wife and I were living off base in Berlin.  Scattered information was all over the news.  We did not know exactly what was happening yet, but I knew something big was in the works.  I told my wife that we needed to go see what was happening, that we could possibly witness history.

We hailed a cab and when the cabby asked where we wanted to go, I told her, “We want to go see what is happening!”

“Me too!”  The cabby responded, and then drove us to the Check Point Charlie.

When we arrived, my wife and I found a large crowd of people at the gate and we edged as close as we could.  On the East German side, a great number of people had amassed.  The crowd was growing exponentially by the minute.  As the crowd grew, the people began to surge toward the gate, each time edging nearer and nearer to the “No Entry Zone”.

I think everyone there was collectively holding their breath, in fear that the soldiers would begin firing at the crowd.  We all knew the soldiers were trained to “shoot to kill”, but the people continued to chant and cheer raucously, and the surging continued, closing the distance to the gate.

A collective sigh of relief came when, instead of drawing their side arms, the East German soldiers, guarding the gate, interlocked their arms, forming a human wall.  The crowd continued surging right up to the soldiers.

Suddenly, the soldiers broke ranks, stepped to the side, and tossed their helmets into the crowd, joined in cheering, and allowed the people to pass freely.  The crowd rushed the gate and began to pour through.  The cheering grew unbelievably louder, and as East Germans streamed through Check Point Charlie, they fell upon the ground, hugging the pavement of the street, kissing the ground, almost every one of them dropping to their knees.

As the people passed through the gate, we picked them up, we hugged them, we kissed them, welcoming them with open arms and hearts to liberty and freedom.  Everybody was hugging and kissing, chanting, yelling, and crying.

I can only tell you, I had never seen anything like it before, and have never seen anything like it since.  It was amazing to see the people react to each other.  It was happiness beyond compare.

At one point, my wife stood upon my shoulders, her hands braced on the wall, as she peered over the top to see the mass of people still making their way to freedom.  Only an hour before, she would have been shot dead for even getting close.

The things you remember.  Some of the people that came through the gate had never tasted an orange or a banana.  They could not get fresh fruit over there.

An impish smile creased Paul’s face, remembering a long passed sight.

It’s funny, we used to toss oranges over the wall, before all this happened.  We would watch people sneak over to pick them up and secret them away.  It was amusing to us, yet made us feel sorry to know that little things we took for granted, were so cherished by others.

We have pieces of the wall, my wife and I.  We kept them all these years to remind us of how special that day was.  We did witness history in the making, and it was amazing.

I made arrangements to speak with Paul again and mentioned that I would like to write his story to share with others.  Paul was all too happy to oblige me.

When next we met, Paul showed me a plaque, presented to him upon his retirement, to commemorate 33 years of service to our military.  A beautiful brass map of Germany, etched with the names of significant cities and appropriate borders.  He also has a toy car he keeps as a reminder, a replica of the type commonly driven in Germany at that time.  And then he handed me a chunk of concrete, about the size of my fist, with his and his wife’s names carefully scrawled on it, identified as a piece of the wall from Check Point Charlie.

I asked Paul, “How significant, do you believe, was President Reagan’s ‘Brandenburg Gate Speech’ in promoting the fall of the Berlin Wall?

“It was very important.”  Paul informed me, a matter of fact.  “You have to understand that the movement toward freedom started long before President Reagan.  President Reagan voiced support for the people, and that acted as a catalyst.  In the end, the people proved to be a task that could not be controlled by the communists.  The people wanted freedom, and they would not be denied.”

“Paul.”  I inquired.  “As a member of the United States Military, stationed in a foreign country, in a non-combative role, when you watched the people surge toward the gate, and finally pour through to a free world, how did it make you feel?”

“Let me tell you.”  Paul said, his face brightening, and eyes sparkling.  “At just over five and a half feet tall, I’m not a big man; but that day, I felt like I was ten feet tall.  I was proud to be a witness to it, and I was proud to represent our nation in support of the people abandoning the tyranny of communism.  Not only was I proud to be in the military, but mostly, proud to be an American, welcoming those people to freedom.”

Paul, my friend, I believe I echo the sentiments of anyone that reads this article when I say, “Chief Master Sergeant, thank you.”

A Lesson in Patriotism

I had become a little hungry and entered a local establishment to grab a bite to eat.  Approaching the entrance of the restaurant, I looked up to see a sad sight.  There, dangling from a flagpole, looking more like a rag than a proud symbol of the greatest nation known in the history of mankind, hung the tattered remnant of our proud Stars and Stripes.

I approached one of the employees to register my complaint.

“May I help you, Sir?”  The girl asked pleasantly.

“Yes.”  I said, a certain sternness in my voice.  “I want to register a complaint.”

“Oh, the complaint department is outside.”  She said, humorously.

“No.”  I said, allowing the expression on my face to convey the seriousness of my resolve.  “The ‘Complaint’ is outside.”

“Excuse me?”  She questioned, now comprehending the seriousness of the potentially combative conversation.  “What can I do for you, Sir?”

“Your flag is tattered and torn.”  I informed her.  “The bottom is completely torn free from the fastener.  It looks more like a rag and is disrespectful.”

“OK.  I’ll let our manager know about it.”  The young woman replied, confusedly attempting to placate me.

“Look.”  I countered.  “There are regulatory codes regarding the displaying of the American Flag.”

She simply stood there, staring at me in disbelief.

“I will not make an issue of the fact that the flag may not be properly illuminated.”  I continued my complaint.  “However, you cannot display a flag that is wind torn and shabby in appearance.  It must be replaced.”

“Illuminated?”  She questioned.

“Yes.”  I stated, seizing the opportunity to teach her a lesson in Patriotism.  “A flag flown after sunset must have adequate lighting as to make the flag easily distinguishable to passersby, and must be an ‘all-weather flag’ if flown during inclement weather.”

“Lighting?”  She queried.

“Yes.  Lighting.”  I continued.  “There are very few flags that are excluded from this regulation.”

“Really?”  Her expression confirming her lack of knowledge of the subject.

“Absolutely.”  I confirmed.  “Among the exceptions of  flags that fly permanently, without lighting, is the flag flying proudly on the moon, the flag flying at the South Pole, and the flag atop Mt. Everest.”

“I’ll tell my manager.”  She was trying to quiet me now.  “Really, it’s not my job.”

“Your job?”  I demanded, feeling my blood beginning to boil.  “That is a Flag of the United States; respecting it is everyone’s job!”

“Well, we just had a bad storm.”  She threw out her defense.  “The wind was pretty bad.”

“I understand that.”  I considered her claim.  “But, that flag must be replaced.”

“But, we don’t have anyone to do it this evening.”  She pleaded.

“OK.”  I conceded.  “But, if it cannot be replaced till morning, it should, at least, be removed tonight.  The condition your flag is disrespectful and offensive.”

“I’m sorry, Sir.”  She said, earnestly.  “I don’t have anyone that can remove it tonight.  I
will make sure my manager knows about it first thing in the morning.”

“OK.”  I relented.  “But, I will return in the morning to check on it.”

“You’re going to check back on the Flag?”  She asked, astonished.

“Absolutely.”  I responded, resolutely.

“Thank you.”  I heard from behind me.  “For noticing; and for stepping up to say something.”

I turned to face the speaker and found half a dozen other patrons had gathered to listen to the exchange.  After the man expressed his thanks, the rest of the small group began to clap in support and appreciation.

“No.”  I exclaimed, noticing the tattoo of a marine ‘Globe and Anchor’ on the man’s forearm.  “Thank you, for your service.  I will return in the morning, to see that they remove the insult displayed instead of a ‘Flag’.

I am proud to report, the Flag was removed early the next morning.  Now, its replacement waves proud and free, the way it should; an inspiration to the few of us who shared the experience.

For my part, I could not help myself.  I returned to the restaurant, sought out the young woman, and thanked her for following up on her commitment, and told her that I am proud of the patriotism she displayed in doing so.

Now, you know what happened in a small restaurant in mid-America.  Now, like the few who were there that night, you too, should be proud of a young woman for her patriotism, and her manager for supporting her.  But mostly, be proud of our Stars and Stripes, the colors for which so many have fought and died.  Be proud of our flag, and the freedom and liberty it represents, and those who fight to protect it.

Are You Serious?

By David A. Black, Sr.

The question is, as asked recently by a CSNNews reporter; specifically, where does Congress derive Constitutional authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance?

Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, of Maryland responded to this subject by citing the ‘General Welfare Clause’.

Representative ‘Stinky’ Hoyer said, “Well, in promoting the ‘General Welfare’, the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to that end.  We’re trying to make health care more affordable, so I think this is within our constitutional responsibility.”

At least ‘Stinky’ gave his honest opinion when he said, “Congress has broad authority to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote the ‘General Welfare’… we mandate other things as well like paying taxes”.

When asked if there is a limit to what Congress can mandate that an individual purchase in promoting the ‘General Welfare’, ‘Stinky’ said, “I’m sure the [Supreme] Court will find a limit.”

As ‘Stinky’ is the House Majority Leader, apparently the Democrats do not believe there are any limits to which they may dictate how we each spend our hard earned money.

‘Stinky’ is not alone, however.  Senator Patrick Leahy (D), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not cite the Constitution when he responded to a similar question.

Senator ‘Leaky’ Leahy (as Rush nicknamed him) said, “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?  Why would anybody say there is no authority?  I mean, there’s no question there’s authority.  Nobody questions that.”

Then Senator ‘Leaky’ goes way off the map when he tried to justify his statement saying, “Where do we have the authority to set speed limits of an interstate highway?”

Excuse me.  Senator, the States set the speed limits.  The Federal Government simply coerced the States to change the speed limits by threatening to withhold funds.

I’m not going to say that ‘Leakys’ response was ignorant, yet I can’t help but ask; Senator, shouldn’t you be questioning?  Isn’t that part of your job as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee?

Wait a minute.  Wasn’t ‘Leaky’ involved in a recent, ‘high profile’ case?  Oh yeah, that Valerie Plame thing.  That figures.  He couldn’t get that one right either.  Thanks to his adamant ignorance, an innocent man was incarcerated.  Can you say “A Danger to Society”?

Back to ‘Stumpy’.  Maybe he was referencing the Preamble of the Constitution, which states,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But, that says “promote the Welfare”, not provide for the Welfare.  The founders never intended for the Government to implement policies that encourage, or force, the citizens into a state of dependency on the Federal Government.  Rather, they designed a set of limitations by which to avoid “national dependency”, understanding that dependency of the People, on the Government, only leads to tyranny.

On the other hand, maybe, he was referencing Article I, section 8, which states,

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Article I, section 8, lays the responsibility to “provide for the common Defence and the general Welfare of the United States”, not provide the Welfare of the individual People of the United States.

Article I, section 8, goes on to list the responsibilities of the Congress in plain English, defining the responsibility of the Federal Government to the several States.

Now get ready, I saved the best for last.  When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked a similar question, she responded with her typical ‘vermin in the headlights expression’, “Are you Serious?  Are you Serious?”

Screecher Pelosi’s press spokesperson, Nadeam Elshami, later explained that questioning the authority of Congress to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, “Is not a serious question.”

Apparently, the Screecher put out a press release in September claiming Congress has ‘broad powers’ to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce under the ‘Commerce Clause’ in the Constitution.

The ‘Commerce Clause’ is listed in the list of congressional responsibilities under Article I, section 8, stating,

The Congress shall have the Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

The Supreme Court ruling in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is the closest precedent to Screecher Pelosi’s argument.  The Court ruled against Mr. Filburn for planting twelve more acres of wheat, grown for personal consumption, than was allowed by regulations in the Second Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

Justice Jackson reasoned that although Mr. Filburn’s wheat alone was trivial, more than twenty percent of all wheat grown, at that time, was privately consumed, and therefore affected interstate commerce by reducing the overall supply and demand.  The Court, determined that the cause and effect of individuals, toward the supply and demand of the market, inherently gives Congress power over the individual under the “Commerce Clause” and thus expanded the powers of government.

The ruling of Wickard v. Filburn followed the logic of the “Commerce Clause” case of United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941), which questioned the authority of Congress to institute the Fair Labor Standards Act to institute parity of labor rates to neutralize seemingly unfair interstate competition.

All this said; if Congress truly wanted to regulate health insurance under the Commerce Clause, they should create legislation that allows health insurance to be purchased across States lines.  Congress should disallow States from mandating specific insurance requirements for their State, making it impossible for insurance companies from other States to provide competitive coverage.

What’s that?  A Conservative idea that remains within the confines and limitations of the Constitution?  No.  That’ll never fly in a Congress led by a Liberal Majority.  It does not expand the “Powers of Congress”.  We can’t have that.

As to Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Senator Leahy, and the rest of the blithering idiots in Congress who are trying to force their Socialistic version of Government on America by attempting to “nationalize” our Health Care System;

ARE YOU SERIOUS?  But, then again, we’re not supposed to question the authority of those in Congress.

America, why do we even have these… PEOPLE in Congress if they cannot even correctly cite the Constitution of the United States of America, which they all swore an oath to support?

Health Care Reform – A Means to Something More Sinister

Part 3 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

Part of the problem with the Proposed Health Care Reform Act is that we cannot expect to hear the truth of the issues in “honest debate”.  For instance, the “Death Panel” was adamantly denied, until it was removed from the proposal.

The proposal will allegedly cover the health care of illegal immigrants.  Supporters repudiate this, claiming the language forbids coverage of illegal immigrants.

However, there is nothing in the proposal to allow verification of any recipient’s legal status.  When Conservatives offer legislation to amend the discrepancy, Liberals reject the amendments.

Liberals forget there are laws prohibiting illegal immigration; yet they are here.  Because illegal immigrants ignore our federal immigration laws, it is logical to assume they will ignore any legislated restrictions to “nationalized” health care.

In his speech to the Joint Houses of Congress, President Obama claimed to promote “choice and competition” by officially announcing a “Public Option”.

The president declared, “I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors.  I just want to hold them accountable.”

Ironically, that is similar to President Obama’s comments about not wanting control of General Motors, Chrysler, and companies affected by the “Financial Bail-Out”.  In the aftermath, we find that the opposite is true.  The president, and his administration, have asserted unprecedented control of “Private Industry”.  Why should we expect Health Care to be treated any differently?

The president went on to say, “… it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance…  In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.”

Remember, I wrote to begin with, “we cannot expect to hear the truth”; you decide.

The president first cites to the falsely inflated number of 15% of Americans being uninsured at some point, and then exaggerates the number by doubling the time period, erringly assuming that doing so automatically doubles the number of people affected.

How so?  He claimed that one in three Americans goes without coverage at some point; that is more than 30%.   Then something closer to the truth slips out when he cited the CBO saying, “…only 5% will sign up”.

Mr. President, is it 15%, 30%, or 5%?  You referred to, or quoted all three percentages in the same speech.  With all due respect Sir, annoying little facts, known as the truth, will come back to bite you when they are misrepresented.

President Obama promised the following points in his “sales pitch” for the “Public Option;

1.  No tax subsidies for the “Public Option”.

2.  No additional deficit spending.

3.  Not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for the “Public Option”.

4.  Greater security for the middle-class, not higher taxes.

Ignoring the fact that President Obama contradicted every point in his speech, and assuming the president intends to abide by these four points.  Logically, to accommodate the “Public Option”, the president is proposing another Government Subsidized Entity, similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Who, along with GM and Chrysler, the newest GSE’s, are going bankrupt)

Think about it!  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Chrysler, and the financial industry staggering under the weight of the government…These are prime examples of what to expect for our health care system under a “Public Option”.

The only way for a “Public Option” to abide by the four points in his “sales pitch”, and maintain “choice and competition”, is to mandate that the ‘Public Provider” abide by the same laws enforced on “Private Providers”.  This means, among other things, the “Public Provider” would be required to establish “security holdings”, (typically 70 – 80% of their policy values) to ensure the financial ability to cover claims.

In order to stay in existence, insurers must guarantee the principles, which are the premiums paid by the people.  To do this, insurance companies invest the premiums they collect to cover claims that may exist on their policies and for their own business returns as well, including operating costs.

This means, the government, through the “Public Provider” would necessarily purchase stocks, bonds, real estate, and commodities to amass profits. (Not a far stretch after the Auto and Financial Bail-Outs)

Politicians engaged in such activities create obvious potential dangers.  In short, your tax dollars would be risked, or “invested”, in the stock market to cover the costs of the “Public Option”.

Keep in mind, during his speech, President Obama informed us that nationalizing health care through a “Public Option” is only a part of his plan; he reminded his “Progressive Friends” that, “The ‘Public Option’ is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goals.”

What are the “ultimate goals” of the presidents “Progressive Friends”?

Government “investing” tax dollars in “Private Industry” is a one-way ticket to corruption.  It will not be long before politicians assume massive control of the market through legislation, to “protect” the investments of the “tax payers”.

Considering the government prints money at will, this creates an environment in which private insurance companies cannot compete.  In relatively short time, financial pressures will force “Private Providers” to file for bankruptcy.

There is no better “investment” than to acquire failing competitors.  Therefore, through “free market capitalist investing, “private assets” would end up in the government’s possession.

DANGER! The president is proposing a “hostile takeover” of our nation.  He is simply using Health Care Reform as a vehicle to reach a more sinister destination.  The “Public Option” creates a potential “enemy from within”, using Capitalism, to accomplish Socialism.

Nationalized Health Care is, by its nature, another form of Socialism being introduced to a “free” society; another attempt to gain control of all major methods of production in an effort to confiscate wealth and dictate the lives of individuals through mandates and distribution of means.

Redistribution, or the practice of taking from one societal group to provide for another group, is Socialism.

The government dictating compliance by mandating involvement of private individuals in government run programs is Communism.

America was created, by design, as a Capitalist Society; a social system based on individual rights through the separation of the economy and the Government; with a limited government, relegated to the duties of protecting the rights of the People.  America is founded on the rights, of individuals, to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.  Americans enjoy the right to possess private property, and maintain the right to individually contract to, and profit from our own labor.

The right to Life and Liberty guarantees us to freedom from oppression, freedom from burdensome government, and the right to freedom of actions in our individual Pursuit of Happiness, so long as no person or group infringes or violates the rights of another.

Previously, in “The Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – Crisis or Coercion”, I disputed the “facts” the president termed “undisputable”.

In “National Health Care and the Constitution”, I called the president out, defying him to present an argument, giving him or Congress the Constitutional Power or Authority to legislate “National Health Care Reform”.

Now, I am declaring the potential dangers of a sinister agenda.

I reject giving the President, or Congress, the Power to implement legislation that could, so easily, be used as a means to anything as sinister as what I have described.

The Founders intended to create a nation of “free men”, fundamentally rooted in societal and economic capitalism, to preserve the natural rights of each individual.  Any attempt to vilify capitalism, or provide support of socialism is, in a word, un-American.

I maintain, that if America allows the nationalization of our health care system, we are only a step away from saying goodbye to our Representative Republic, and hello to a Socialist State; in essence, saying goodbye to Liberty, and welcoming Tyranny.

So long as a single Patriot fights for Liberty, Freedom lives.  Never stop fighting.

Part 1 of 3:  The Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – Crisis or Coercion

Part 2 of 3:  National Health Care and the Constitution

National Health Care & the Constitution

Part 2 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

Lately, we have heard an earful about Death Panels, nationalization of health care with forced participation, the Public Option, and using taxpayer’s money to pay for abortions and provide medical benefits for illegal immigrants.  With all of the recent debates over Health Care, our Political Representatives in Congress, along with our President, have forgotten the most important debate of all; or possibly, they are purposefully avoiding it.

In an effort to promote the beliefs represented by their ideology, they are forgetting, or ignoring, their responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States of America.  Let me take a moment to remind them of the burden they have been elected to carry.

The Founders of this nation went to great lengths to limit the Powers and Authority of the Federal Government.  In doing so, they outlined the purpose of the Government in the Preamble of the Constitution, which states,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Sic)

NOTE: The key phrase is “promote the Welfare”, not provide for the Welfare.  The founders never intended for the Government to implement policies that encourage, or force, the citizens of our nation into a state of dependency on the Federal Government.  Rather, they designed a set of limitations by which to avoid “national dependency”, understanding that dependency of the People, on the Government, can only lead to tyranny.

I know!  The Liberal argument points to Article I, section 8, which states,

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. (Sic)

NOTE: This section lays the responsibility to “provide for the common Defence and the general Welfare of the United States”, not provide the Welfare of the individual People of the United States.  Article I, section 8, refers to the responsibility of the Federal Government to the several States, in representing the United States to other nations, in the establishment of foreign policies, and the power to establish the means, within the limits of the Constitution, to pay for the country’s debts.

Then there is the pesky Bill of Rights.  The President’s proposal of a $1900 penalty for failing to comply with his wishes is a fine for violating a law.  This “penalty” means people will be found guilty of a crime without the benefit of a trial.  This violates our individual right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, which states,

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Sic)

We must stop allowing “leftist” politicians to misinterpret, thus purposefully molest the intent of the founders, and pervert the Constitution.  The Power and Authority to provide for the People is reserved to the individual States respectively, or to the People, under the protection of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, which state,

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People. (Sic)

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People. (Sic)

How many members of the U.S. Senate have abandoned their loyalties to their party, and exercised their responsibility to argue for the interests of the State they represent, and protect the Constitution of the United States of America by enforcing the limitations of Government mandated therein?

It is important to remember, the Constitution was implemented, by the Founders of this great nation, as a tool to limit the Powers and Authority of the Government, and to protect the rights of the People.  President Reagan understood this when he said, “We are a People with a government, not a Government with a people”.  Therefore, we must remain diligently cognizant of the attempts, by the Government, to usurp our rights, and stop them.  As President Lincoln once said, “We are the Masters of our Government and of our Constitution”.

Though I am tempted, albeit for a different reason, I will not say, “You lie!”

However, I will say, “Mr. President, you are wrong!  Again!”

Mr. President, I have already disputed your “undisputable facts”.  I have challenged that you and the Liberal Democrats in Congress are misrepresenting the facts.  I have also accused you and the Left of using a “protection racket” riddled with “fear tactics” to coerce America, into reconfiguring our health care system.

Now Mr. President, I dispute the fact that you, and your socialist-minded sycophants in Congress, possess the Power and Authority, under the limitations of the Constitution, to usurp the rights of the several States and the People.

I hereby defy the President, to present a sound argument that would give him, or Congress, the right to legislate a National Health Care Reform Act.

I, for one, deny and reject giving the President, or Congress, the Power to implement legislation that would, in any way, “nationalize” our health care system or “socialize” our country.

Unlike the President, I am not, nor have I ever been, a Constitutional Professor.  I am however, a red-blooded American Citizen.  I am a student of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  I am proud of the Founders of our nation, the product of their labors, and their vision for America.  As such, I refuse to apologize for the exceptionalism of our nation, or willfully allow for the degradation of our traditions and values, or the destruction of our Freedom and Liberty.

If America allows the President, and his supporters in Congress, to succeed in nationalizing our health care system, we are only a step away from saying goodbye to our Representative Republic, and hello to a Socialist State; in essence, saying goodbye to Liberty, and welcoming Tyranny.

The Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – Crisis or Coercion

Part 1 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

In his speech to the joint houses of Congress on September 9, 2009, to stump for National Health Care Reform, the President compared our health care to that of other nations saying, “We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people.”

What President Obama failed to point out is, while other countries may provide medical coverage to all their citizens, many of their citizens come to the United States seeking the medical treatment they cannot obtain at home.  What good is medical coverage, if you cannot obtain the necessary medical treatment?

Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals are unifying against “Nation Health Care Reform” for the aforementioned reason and others, a few of which I will identify here.

The premise of the “crisis” false.

The President claimed that Health Care Reform is “central” to the future of our nation, and that Congresses failure to meet the challenge for the past six and a half decades has led us to the breaking point.  This claim bolsters his statements, citing health care as a primary cause of the National Deficit. (Remember, Congress spending more money than is available is the cause of the deficit.)

While painting a grim picture of the future, due to the exploits of the “Greedy Health Care Industry”, the President resorted to “scare tactics” attempting to play to the emotions of the American People.  The President argued that a large number of people are “one accident or illness away from bankruptcy”, that the cost of health insurance is unaffordable, and that Americans who are willing and able to purchase health insurance are routinely denied.

The President manipulated the facts when citing a 2006 census estimate, stating, “There are more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage.  In a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point”.

The claims, provided by the Census Bureau, assert that 15% of the U.S. population, or approximately 50 million people, were uninsured at one point during the calendar year 2006.  Contrary to the President’s claim, the report did not identify this group as unable to obtain Health Care; nor did the report identify this group as uninsurable.

Furthermore, the President conveniently failed to point out a fact detailed in his book, Liberty and Tyranny, by conservative radio talk show host, Mark Levin; the 15%, to which the report refers, includes illegal immigrants, people between the ages of 18 – 35 who opted not to obtain health care, and yet another group that qualifies for medical coverage through Public Assistance and did not apply for it.  When the truth is considered in the equation, we find less than 5%, of Americans unable to obtain health insurance; less than half of the number the President claims.  To clarify the results, another detailed study would be necessary to determine why the effected people are without insurance.

I will be first to agree, every American citizen should be able to obtain minimum health coverage.  However, with a population of over 300 million, the needs of less than 5% of the people, while meriting serious consideration, does not qualify as a “crisis”.  Logically, this means approximately 95% of the population, or more than 285 million people, are happy with their current health care, or at least have coverage available.

To determine that “one in three Americans goes without health coverage at some point” President Obama simply doubled the numbers for dramatic impact.  His statement assumes that if approximately 50 million people were not covered at some point in one year, then 100 million would be left uncovered in a two-year period, thereby camouflaging his claim of “one in three”.

Though the number of people experiencing periods of being uninsured would probably increase in the second year due to the rise in unemployment levels, the President chooses not to consider that a large number of the same people are counted a second time in the subsequent year.  The President’s skewed approach of simply double the time period, equals double the effect, misleads the nation, using “fear tactics” to manipulate us into accepting Health Care Reform.

There is no true intention to cut costs.

The President said, “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it.”  He goes on to admit that, “those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it – about $1000 per year pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care”.

How much of what we are forced to pay, goes to providing care for the above-mentioned people?  Remember, Federal Law prohibits refusal of treatment to any person, regardless of ability to pay.  Other than using it as a talking point, how much wasteful spending is due to fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid systems?  What steps have been proposed to identify and correct the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in these programs?

How much of what we pay goes to wasteful costs due to excessive, bureaucratic red tape, unnecessary tests, and the exorbitant cost of malpractice insurance to protect Doctors from litigation, because the Government refuses to enact Tort Reform?  Instead, the President is directing his Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward with an initiative to set up “demonstration projects” on Tort Reform.  If Tort Reform is a “good idea”, why not recommend that Congress legislate it?

How much more must Private insurers pay for the treatment of their Policy Holders, to offset the amounts left unpaid by the Government?  The President failed to tell us that the Government only pays approximately 20% on the bills they receive for the treatment of those covered under Medicare and Medicaid; health care providers are expected to write off the remaining balances.

Additionally, what about the excessive, confusing, redundant paperwork, required by the Government, and insurance companies, as a means to provide excuses to deny payments for services?  The Government practice of short paying bills and denying payment due to improperly negotiating the maze of “red tape” encourages fraud.  Correct these issues first.  We may be possible that the entire health care system is in need of Reform.

In trying to force compliance, the President’s proposal sets a “minimum cost of insurance coverage”.  A minimum cost is the effect of the proposed tax penalty, of up to $1900, charged to those who do not purchase health care insurance, otherwise referred to as an “incentive”.  Insurance companies will set that amount as a minimum rate.

Additionally, the tax penalty does nothing to correct the alleged problem; if health coverage is not purchased, and a person needs medical attention, under the President’s proposal, they would have the $1900 less to put toward their medical bills. The whole process of using tax penalties to force compliance is a “protection racket”, a tactic used by organized crime where damage is inflicted, then followed with an offer of protection for a fee. (I hear this was one of Al Capone’s favorite tactics of extortion.  Wasn’t he from Chicago too?  It must have something to do with the water.) If the President’s proposal were the “right thing”, he would not need “bully tactics”.

In conclusion, I agree that the current health care system calls for serious consideration.  Therefore, the Federal Government should promote legislation that assists the several States in rectifying health care in their independent States, just as the President agrees to do regarding “Tort Reform”.  Because he is a former Constitutional Professor, I would think this should have been President Obama’s first inclination.

Mr. President, you said, “These are the facts.  Nobody disputes them.”  You warned, “If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out.”

Sorry, Mr. President, I am calling you out!

I reject your “undisputable facts”, and the logic demonstrated in manipulating statistics to coerce the nation into reconfiguring our nation’s health care system by falsely declaring a “Crisis”.  Like a “snake oil peddler”, you have misrepresented the facts to sell America on your flawed, socialistic plan.

With all due respect, every President must earn the respect and trust of the nation.  Mr. President, you are far from accomplishing this task.  Now is a good time to start.

Part 2 of 3 part series:  National Health Care & the Constitution

You’re Only Saying That Because I’m Black

So, there we have it.  Those on the left, have clearly endeavored to completely vilify and criminalize conservatives.

Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano accuses conservatives of being “Right-Wing Terrorists”.

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi accuses “disruptors”, of whom she was a fan just a couple short years ago, as being “un-American, calling them NAZI’s”.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid agrees that conservatives are “un-American”, and insulted dissenters, regardless of whether they are his constituents, by referring to them as “astro-turf”.

Now, thanks to former President, Jimmy Carter, those who oppose President Obama are not only “disruptive, un-American, swastika bearing, right-wing terrorists”, but adds “racists” to the list of characteristics.

In a recent interview, Mr. Carter, in an apparent attempt to create social polarization, espoused the belief that the only reason people are speaking out against President Obama’s ideology, is that the President is black.  Mr. Carter proclaims to know this because he lives in the south, and understands racism.

I guess it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Carter has determined that people living in the north, or out west, have no clue what racism is.  No, Mr. Carter thinks the rest of the nation is ignorant of one of the most defile practices of inhumanity.  Only a Georgia-born Peanut Farmer can truly appreciate the subtle nuances of social racial discrepancies.

Apparently, Mr. Carter believes that a white person’s difference of opinion, with that of a black person, equates to nothing more than the pure ignorance of racism; we cannot actually have a different viewpoint for any valid reason, only superficial hatred.

Does this mean that white people may not participate in debates with black people because the difference of pigmentation inhibits their ability to logically articulate their opinions?

Why is it, Liberals point out the color of someone’s skin, as a reason for a social point of view, then accuse conservatives of being racists because their opinions differ?

Personally, I think the “race-card” has become too easy to deal, when an “old, white man” can publicly declare a societal group racists, simply due to their difference of opinion.  Do not misunderstand my comment; I understand that racism still exists.  However, unlike Mr. Carter, I also comprehend that “white” people are not the only ones capable of the practice.

True American’s, of any color, understand that the first amendment ensures us the right to free speech, even if that means expressing an ideology contrary to that of the President, no matter what color the President may be.  The first amendment also includes the rights to peaceably assemble and petition the Government to redress grievances.

It seems to me, conservatives are simply exercising their first amendment rights, yet Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolitano, Harry Reid, and others act as though they have reason for conviction.  Their actions remind me of a cheating husband, accusing his wife of infidelity, in an effort to defer attention from his own shortcomings; it is easily seen through.

In regards to all of the above mentioned, I only have two things to say, in response to the irresponsible diatribe typically spewed to the nation, in their attempts to gain some form of public notoriety.

America is not buying the verbal defecation you are discharging from between your lips!

So, grow up!  Or, get out!

America Remembers 911– Despite Obama

My youngest daughter Kim, at age 16, wrote this exactly one year ago as her own personal tribute to the victims of the 911 attack on America.  I feel it is most appropriate to use her writing to commemorate our country’s losses.  I think you will agree.

America Remembers

Young, old, rich, and poor,

There were people who lost many,

As Americans, we lost more.

- – - – -

Our peace was lost, along with trust.

In one fatal swoop, dreams were reduced to dust.

On that fateful day, our hope was worn,

With crashing planes, lives were torn.

With anger, blood, sweat, and tears,

We searched for days with heartfelt fears.

- – - – -

Parents, children, and friends were lost

And as a nation we bore the cost.

Amid the rubble, heroes were gained.

America’s soil, with blood was stained.

- – - – -

Fires ablaze, air thick, with ash and smoke,

The tragic scene would soon provoke.

We raised our flag, with pride once more,

Sent America’s best to even the score.

- – - – -

Paying the price, with liberty at stake,

In victory, another ally we would make

To all those effected on 9-11

May all our losses find peace in heaven.

America Remembers

It really does not matter how many times I read this, I still get a lump in my throat, and then I feel the anger coursing through me with every beat of my “Red Blooded American” pulse.

While listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity’s friend, Mark Levin, he reported a story from the American Spectator, about President Obama and his Minions attempting to desecrate the memories of 911.  By signing into law the designation of September 11 as National Service Day, instead of reserving that day as a “Day of Infamy”, the President is attempting to marginalize the importance of remembering the horrific terrorist attacks against us.

I am personally appalled at the Presidents action.  Think about it, in an effort to maintain “Political Correctness” we no longer refer to events such as 911 as terrorist activities, but rather “man-made disasters”; we now call the “Global War on Terror” an “Overseas Contingency Operation”.

These are simply efforts to soften the reality of the fact that our nation was attacked.  What is it about America being attacked that the likes of President Obamahood, Screecher Pelosi, Senate Majority Squeeker Reid, and the rest of their cronies do not understand?  If a sixteen-year-old girl, who was eight at the time of the attack, understands the relevance, shouldn’t those elected to the highest offices of the land?

America was attacked!  Innocent people died!  Along with the families of the deceased, the entire nation was victimized!  Yet, Obama and friends want us to smooth it over and forget!

It has been over two centuries since the British attacked us, over a century since the Alamo, over half of a century since Pearl Harbor and D-Day, yet we still remember.  Why?  Because American blood was spilled at the hands of a foreign enemy.

For that very reason, we will continue to remember what those cowards did on 911, in the name of Jihad, and therefore remember our heroes that were victimized that day, for decades and centuries to come.

America does not forget our heroes!  Never have, and never will!

Could Mr. Mackey be Right Regarding Health Care Reform?

In case you haven’t heard, people are boycotting Whole Foods Markets because they want to stifle Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey who wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal.

This is just great!  I thought inwardly.  First, the Liberals, while denying any opportunity for honest debate with their conservative counterparts and absolutely ignoring their constituencies, complain that no alternative ideas for health care are being offered from those on the right.

Then, when someone steps up from the “Private Sector”, who by the way is a member of a constituency that is being ignored, and offers a written opinion of several ideas.  The liberals respond to his offering, by becoming angry and shouting, “BOYCOTT!”

Maybe the founder of the boycott, playwright Mark Rosenthal, would like our country to more resemble his depiction of it in the end of his movie, “Planet of the Apes”.  Alternatively, maybe he just believes animals can run the Health Care System.

I suppose liberals like Screecher Pelosi, Majority Leader Squeaky Harry Reid, and President Obama-hood and his Merry Minions consider Mr. Mackey to be un-American, a Nazi, or some type of Conservative Political Terrorist.

Well, I looked up Mr. Mackey’s article, thinking that he must have really gone off the deep end of reality for people to be so enraged.  You can imagine my disgust when I found that he began his piece with a quote of Margaret Thatcher, who said,

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Mr. Mackey put himself in the line of fire when he wrote,

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create    hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system.

Mr. Mackey went on to express a desire of “less government control and more individual empowerment”.  To accomplish this he offered eight different points, he feels needs to be addressed, regarding Health Care Reform.  They are;

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSA’s).  The combination of high-deductible health insurance plans and HSA’s is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems.

-          Now that sounds like an alternative to Nationalized Health Care.

• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same benefits.

-          Doesn’t this fall under “fair and equal taxation?  I thought the liberals were all for “fair and equal”.

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

-          If I am not mistaken, this repeal should be mandated due to the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution.  I know, there is no room for the Constitution in liberal Health Care Reform.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must offer.

-          Wow!  What a concept!  Allowing individual choice, and the power of the “free market” to determine what people can purchase, instead of maintaining the ideology that a few politicians and some special interest groups know what is best for the masses.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

-          Now, this one could be a real problem.  Medical Tort Reform could lead to the need of another bailout, this time for the Trial Lawyers.

• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.

-          This idea assumes that people are interested in understanding how much their Health Care Benefits are worth.  Most people think the costs are all covered by their co-pay and their monthly premiums.  Who wants to take the time to add up all the actual costs?

• Enact Medicare reform.

-          According to Obama-hood, Medicare will be fine under Nationalized Health Care.  After all, Medicare is the current program that all the new proposed coverage will fold into, in order to maintain costs.  On the other hand, maybe the liberals figure it will be easier to hide the cost discrepancies of Nationalized Health Care in a system that is already convoluted and beyond fiscal comprehension.

• Revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help those who are not covered under Medicare.

-          Mr. Mackey, please; you are not suggesting a true form of charity, where one person willingly gives to another, or a cause, because the individual chooses to.  Remember, you are speaking of a liberal, political ideology.  In the liberal mindset, the only true charity is that by which the people are compelled to contribute through taxation.  A fully deductible donation?  If the politicians do that, we may not need the government to be involved at all.  What good liberal would ever stand for that?

Mr. Mackey definitely crossed the line when he went on to write that,

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Individuals cannot expect to receive entitled benefits if they are to be held personally responsible for themselves.  This attitude of personal responsibility deters from the ideology of each American asking, what can my country can do for me. (Thank you, President J, F. Kennedy)  Therefore, personal responsibility has no merit in the debate of National Health Care.  Can you imagine?

To top it all off, today I watched a segment of Forbes on Fox that addresses a public calling for “CEO’s to shut up when it comes to politics”.  This segment singled out Mr. Mackey because of his recent Op-Ed piece.

I would ask these same individuals or groups; does Mr. Mackey, or any other CEO, have less of a right to freedom of speech, under the first amendment, than any other American, due to their position?  If so, why was there no public outcry from the left when Mr. Gettelfinger, president of the Auto workers union, involved himself in the Auto-Industry Bail-outs and the government takeover of General Motors.

Oh, I know, that was a liberal thing.

Health Care Reform – Congressional Malpractice

I read an excellent series of articles published by M. Smith, beginning with, “Profits… What are they and what do they do?” I highly recommend this article as it provoked me to think about the current “Health Care Crisis” in a very different light.

I too, at least in part, attributed too much blame for the current “Health Care Crisis” to the insurance companies.  After reading Mr. Smith’s article, I began to question, what exactly should we expect from our medical insurance.   Should the insurance companies be held responsible for our medical treatment?  Is it right and moral that insurers turn our health concerns into a commodity by which they can turn profits?  Should we limit the profits they can make?

Let’s face it, insurance providers are involved in a screwy game.  By purchasing insurance, we are literally betting against ourselves by wagering that we are going to get injured or sick.  In the process, we force the insurance company to take the opposite position, betting that we will not get injured or sick.  Anyone with just a little common sense can see who is going to lose that wager.  The question is not if I am going to need medical treatment, everyone is injured or gets sick, rather the questions are when, and how serious.

As much as President Obama and the Congressional Democrats would like to vilify the insurance companies, in an effort to promote Nationalized Health Care, the fact is, these private sector companies provide a very important service.

Paying for medical treatment can be overwhelming.  We often joke that if the trip to the hospital does not kill you, the bill will.  Therefore, we purchase insurance to hedge our losses.  Think about how self-defeating the idea of insurance is; we purchase insurance for peace of mind, and then hope we never need it.

Honestly, it reminds me of “Emergency Preparedness”.  This country spends a lot of time, energy, and money on planning and training for emergencies, all the while hoping we never need to implement these plans.  However, in the event of an emergency, think of how devastating an incident (i.e. natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, wild fires, and floods, or events of the manmade variety such as terrorism, riots, or even mass gatherings for concerts) would be without the advanced planning and training.

How much profit is acceptable?  Other than maintaining the ability to operate within the regulations foisted upon insurance companies by the Government, the answer depends entirely on whether you own any of insurance stocks.  After all, like several retailers, manufacturers, and utilities, most insurance companies are publicly traded on the stock market, and therefore have a responsibility to shareholders to remain profitable.

Oh, I know!  We do not hear those in favor of “Health Care Reform” discussing this aspect of the issue.  Those who are attempting to control your health care decisions from some smoke filled, hidden, back office of a Washingtonian basement do not mention the legislative obstacles that Congress has inflicted on the insurance companies.  Have you ever thought about the financial and legal criteria that must be met before an insurance company can sign their first client?

Other than meeting the litany of requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as a prerequisite for Wall Street, the legislation requires insurance companies to maintain significant financial holdings as proof of ability to pay for your coverage.  The issue becomes even more complex when licensing is taken into consideration, and licensing becomes even more convoluted as each State commissions their own sets of regulations for the insurance providers.

Ironically, on one hand, we demand the services of the insurance companies, and that they earn profits to satisfy the shareholders that provide the capital to fund the services. On the other hand, we accuse them of wrongfully profiteering from the health care needs of the people.

As Obama and his Congressional Cronies continue their vilification of the insurance industry and their investors, bear in mind the role of the insurance companies, and the service they provide; simply stated, Health Insurers provide a means of managing health care expenses.

Insurance providers manage health care expenses by;

1. Contracting coverage to groups or individuals, who pay premiums to protect against unexpected health care costs.
2. Contracting with health care providers, and facilities, to render medical services.
3. Estimating the annual costs of health care services to determine premiums.
4. Ensure funds are available to pay for contracted services.

Notice, I did not include “providing treatment” in the list.  Providing medical treatment is not the responsibility of the insurance companies; but rather, providing assistance in managing the expenses of the medical treatment.

As a side note, I have not heard of an insurance company denying treatment to a patient, only denying coverage of treatment not included in the contracted services.  Although they will have to pay for it, patients can still receive the treatment not covered under the insurance contract.

America is a “Free Market, Capitalist” country, and insurance companies are earning profits while remaining within the scope of the “Laws of the Land” and the rules and regulations of their industry.

Lest we forget, when considering Government Health Care Reform, we already suffer from the effects of previous dabbling from Congress.  Remember, Congress federally mandated that no person be denied medical treatment, regardless of the person’s ability to pay.  This forces hospitals render unreimbursable services, negatively impacting the efficiency of our Health Care System and significantly driving up the cost of expenses.

America cannot afford more unconstitutional acts of irresponsibility from more “Congressional Malpractice”.  We can ill afford to destroy the benefits of the majority, who enjoy the health care they pay for, by catering to a very small minority and transforming marketable benefits into entitlements.