President Obama Violates Constitution

By David A. Black, Sr.

Although I disagree with President Obama’s policies, and his political agenda, until now, he has not violated the Constitution.  (The Stimulus and the Healthcare bills are definitely arguable) However, that has now changed.

During a scheduled recess of Congress, President Obama used the opportunity to make 15 recess appointments to administrative positions that would normally require Senate confirmation.

In a written statement, the President declared, “The United States Senate has the responsibility to approve or disapprove of my nominees. But if, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis,”

The President is quoted by FOX News as saying, “At a time of economic emergency, two top appointees to the Department of Treasury have been held up for nearly six months,” he said. “I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government.”

President Obama went on to note that former President George W. Bush made 15 recess appointments by this point in his presidency, then claimed that the former President was not facing the same level of obstruction.

Does the President have the authority to make “recess appointments?

In Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the Constitution, we find that,

“…and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for…”

Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, goes on to state,

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

So let’s take the Constitution for what it actually says for once, instead of what some want it to say for their own political purpose, or as a method of promoting their personal agenda.

According to the Constitution, as quoted, “the President shall have the Power to fill up Vacancies THAT MAY HAPPEN DURING a Recess of the Senate,”

The Founders did not intend this sentence to serve as a method for the President to get around the authority of the Senate to provide “Advice and Consent” of Presidential Appointments.

The sentence was put in place for the President to make temporary appointment to key administrative positions when they become vacant during a recess of Congress.

The vacancies filled by Obama’s ‘recess appointments’, have existed since the President took Office.  They did not happen during the “Recess of Congress”.

The fact that the President does not like “partisan politics” holding up the advancement of his agenda, or that some may be doing so to “score political points”, has no bearing on the subject.  The President needs to get over it.

The fact is, there is NO provision in the Constitution for the President to override the authority or the responsibilities of the Senate.  That would have opened the door for a dictatorship, and that was one thing the Founders were attempting to avoid.

The idea of pointing out the errors of his predecessor does not make the action legal under the Constitution.  These appointments, made by President Obama, are a direct and blatant abuse of the Power of his Office, and a willful violation of the Constitution.

Is this an impeachable offense?

According to the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8,

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Accordingly, the President must take the ‘Oath of Office’ to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his ability.  President Obama has publicly reminded the nation, on several occasions, that he taught Constitutional Law at the University level in Illinois.  Therefore, it is safe to assume that the President should be fully aware of the intent of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3.

Article II, Section 4, states,

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article VI, Clause 2, states,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Therefore, Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, as part of the Constitution, is Federal Law. Any action that willfully and purposefully violates the Constitution, by using the provision to usurp the Authority of the Senate, is a Federal Offense.

It is time for the Government to understand that the ‘Powers of Government’ do not lie solely in the three branches of Government.  The Constitution provides for the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches.

However, under the ninth and tenth amendments, the Constitution also provides for the Several States and the People to be active participants in shaping our Government and legislation

Therefore, it is part of our civic responsibility to monitor the actions of the individuals elected to Office, and take action when necessary.

Amendment IX – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

It is time for the President to be introduced to the Power of the People.

The Constitution points out, in Article I, Section 1, Clause 5,

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article VI, Clause 3, states,

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

I am sending a letter, defining the points of this article, to my Representative in the House.  I am demanding, under the Authority of the Constitution, that my Representative formally begin the process of forcing the President to rescind his “Recess Appointments”.  If the President refuses to act accordingly, I am demanding that my Representative begin the process of impeachment for the willful and deliberate usurpation of the Authority of the Senate under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

Please join me and do the same.

To receive a copy of the letter I wrote to my Representative, make a request in the comments box.  I will reply to all that I can.  Thank you.

President Obama’s Biggest Failure and Success

Approximately one year ago, Rush Limbaugh countered Barack Obama’s continuing mantra of “Hope and Change” with a Hope of his own, that President Obama’s Socialistic agenda fails.

Although Mr. Limbaugh articulated his message clearly, the “left” could not break the habit of misconstruing his words, and soon there was an all out media blitz.  With the simplest of ease, any grade-schooler could have put together a seemingly endless montage of media ‘talking-heads’ stating; “Rush Limbaugh says he hopes the President fails.”  Very few in the media defended Mr. Limbaugh’s statement.

Even the First Lady, Michelle Obama, jumped on the ‘Rush-bashing’ bandwagon, obviously suffering from willful ignorance, when she aped the media in wrongfully citing Rush’s statement, and then claimed; “If the President fails, then America fails.”  Then asked, “Is that what you want for this country?”

President Obama has complained, on numerous occasions, about “inheriting” a financial meltdown.  However, not once has President Obama admitted that, as a member of the Senate, he helped create the very meltdown he fully credits to the former President.  According to the rants of President Obama, and members of his administration, President Bush was an absolute failure.

Watch it!  Mr. President, you are on the verge of contradicting your wife.  Mrs. Obama informed us that, beyond a doubt, if the President fails, so too, does the country.  Should America assume that you, Mr. President, or your wife, believes that our proud nation is a failure?

Oh, that’s right.  President Obama already explained that we were in a tailspin, spiraling out of control, when he took the helm.  But for his brave and determined actions, America was destined for absolute ruin.

So, what bold, great actions can we attribute to President Obama that has turned our nation from the path of destruction to a soaring success?  Let’s examine what the President has accomplished in his first year in the Oval Office.

We have watched the President travel all over the world, and listened to him badmouth America at almost every stop.

We have listened to President Obama’s adolescent like claims, that former President G.W. Bush is single-handedly to blame for all of the problems our nation faces today.

We have watched him gratefully accept gifts that denounce America, while he tries to earn ‘Brownie Points’ from our communist foes.

We have experienced national embarrassment when he bowed to foreign leaders, not once, but on at least two separate occasions.

Although partially successful, by inflicting damage and creating an atmosphere of control in some financial institutions, President Obama failed in his attempt at a hostile Government takeover of Wall Street.  After the Presidents support of the “Financial Bailout”, with a ‘sky is falling’ mentality, the President, who claimed he did not want to run the banks, turned around, and in his next breath appointed new bank executives, began dictating salaries, and refused banks that offered to pay back the money, borrowed by the Government to initially “lend” to the banks.  Even now, many banks are trying desperately to rid themselves of government intervention.

The President has succeeded however, in partnering with the Labor Unions, most significantly in the act of taking control of a large portion of the American auto industry, namely General Motors and Chrysler.  His latest commitment to this partnership is in naming Union Boss, Andrew Stern to his newly formed Debt Commission.

Then there is the failed ‘Stimulus Bill’.  The President was sure that the stimulus bill had to be passed immediately.  Without a stimulus, America was going to fail.  Unemployment was going to rise to over ten percent, we needed to supply more money into the public because the financial institutions were on the verge of ‘post-bailout bankruptcy’, threatening devastation to the taxpayers.  Businesses were shutting down, bailed out banks were not lending money, the housing industry was sinking like a lead balloon, people were losing their homes, livelihoods, and the promise of a future.

President Obama and the Congressional Democrats forced their will on America, and passed their $1 trillion ‘Stimulus Bill’.  After unaccountably spending some 20% of the money, nothing has changed except the size of our nation’s unsecured debt.

Reported unemployment still jumped to over ten percent, financial institutions continue to fail, people continue to lose their homes and livelihoods as companies close their doors at a rapid pace, and our financial future looks very bleak.  As to overwhelming expenses to the taxpayers, we do not even know how much it will cost for what the Government has spent until now, let alone where they have spent it.  So much for the promise of transparency and accountability.

Ironically, when it comes to spending America’s money on socialistic government programs, such as bailouts, stimulus, and efforts to socialize healthcare, President Obama is fearlessly bold and willingly decisive.  He rushes headlong into promoting the most socialistic of programs with an urgency only matched by con artists, or Circus Callers yelling, “Hurry!  Hurry!”

However, in matters affecting our national security, and supporting the troops, deployed at his command, the President’s resolve wavers.  Instead of remaining brave and determined, as is his Constitutional responsibility, he demonstrates a lack of intestinal fortitude, taking months to make a decision such as that regarding the deployment of reinforcements in Afghanistan.

The President consistently proves to be unwilling to commit to actions against our nations invaders and enemies, yet has boldly circumvented the Constitution.  Instead of nominating people to necessary offices, and allowing the Senate to fulfill their Constitutional duty of providing “Advice and Consent” through the confirmation process, the President, in performing his few successes, unflinchingly named Czars.

So, the President has, in his first year in the Oval Office, taken control of a large portion of one of the last remnants of American industrialization in the auto industry, and partnered heavily with the unions.  He has attempted to takeover the financial industry, committed to unprecedented spending, committing our future generations to an unsustainable burden of debt, and continues his attempts to take control of our healthcare industry, or financially speaking, up to 15% of our nation’s economy. No communist mentality here.  But, I digress.

All of this said, President Obama’s biggest failure is that he has no comprehension of what America is, or what makes the People of our nation great. 

President Obama fails miserably in understanding that America is envied and loved, the world over, for her iconic representation of Liberty, individual Freedom, and the promotion of Independence. 

The President fails to understand that our common conviction to these core values is what makes America great; that individuals believe so strongly, they are willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice to protect these values, not just for our own Freedom, but for that of our families, friends, and neighbors; and yes, for our country.

The President fails to understand that Freedom allows for different political ideologies, but that these core components of our belief may not be jeopardized, for they are the foundation of our country, and every American.

Amazingly, the President’s biggest success is derived from his biggest failure.  President Obama, with a little assistance from his leftist base, has roused the “Sleeping Dragon”, galvanizing America into action.  The President, along with the Congressional Democrats, have given voice to the “Silent Majority”, causing conservatives to rally around our liberty and freedom; and we are fighting mad.

American’s are standing up, united in telling the Government,

Stop!  We are fed up with politics as usual!  American Government is out of control and we are not taking it anymore!  We will not stand by and idly watch incompetent politicians destroy our nation, or our children’s future.

Government has overstepped it’s permissions and authority and we the People are demanding it’s members to cease and desist all such activities.  If Government refuses to listen, we the People will exercise our Constitutional Authority and take back control of our nation!

The Real State of the Union

By David A. Black, Sr.

President Obama gave his first State of the Union Address yesterday evening. For the most part, I must say, the speech was far from impressive; just more of the same dribble we have come to expect.

We listened to him attempt to recognize the hardships faced by the middle-class, cite to some letters, or experiences which were personally related to him, as he demonstrates his compassion for the little guy, and then claim he is working diligently to solve the problems of the nation.  I may be too critical, but I thought he ran as a candidate for change.  I thought he promised to shake things up in Washington.  For some reason I seem to recall that he was not going to get caught up in “politics as usual”.

Then why was the content of his speech so predictable?  All we heard was the same old, same old.  The list goes something like this;

• I understand the problems of America.
• I inherited a mess that is worse than we expected.
• I have outlined a plan to solve your problems and the Republicans are fighting us every step of the way.
• America is tired of “partisan politics”; more is expected from us.
• Feed the “class envy monster” to keep the societal divisions strong.
• The American Spirit is strong but the government is not responsive to the needs of the country.
• It will be expensive, but I am here to fix the nation and blame everyone else for not heeding my advice.

Sound familiar?  We hear the same speech every time President Obama stands up to the teleprompter.  He even went into the standard “rope-a-dope” tactic of trying to identify with his opposition, citing the following points.

• A need to cut taxes.
• Comprehending that small business is the backbone of America and is vital in solving the unemployment.
• Need to allow off-shore drilling.
• Need to develop nuclear power.
• Pursue alternate forms of energy but that they need to be profitable instead of just another form of taxation.
• Institute policies to keep large companies here instead of taxing them into moving to other countries.
• Seeking more marketing opportunities. (this almost sounds like embracing a free market)
• Increase the excellence of education instead of rewarding the failures of the NEA.

Of course, President Obama rattling off these points, as reading from a depth chart, only served to highlight that all of these issues, sought by Conservatives for years, is what is right for the country.

However, it was only a feign.  Immediately the President slipped back into his comfort zone, taking on a “never say die” mentality in regards to Health Care Reform, we have a deficit because Bush failed to pay for two wars, and I know I added more than $1 trillion to the deficit, but it was the right thing to do.

This was a nice way to lead into pretending to identify with “average America” that is forced to tighten their belts, by announcing that “like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t”.  Therefore, the President is proposing a Congressional Spending Freeze for next year.  Not now, like you cash-strapped families must do.   The President promised to do this next year, after America has forgotten what he said. And besides, cuts to save an estimated $25 billion, which we all know is terribly optimistic, and in no way begins to compare to the $1 trillion he has already added to the deficit.  Do you have any idea what that actually costs the taxpayers after calculating the interest we will pay on the additional spending?

Alright, I cannot go on any further.  I listened to the President attempt to revive his socialistic ideology, refusing to recognize that America is rejecting it.  So, I will take the opportunity here to explain a few points the President and Congress need to figure out, according to me.  Then he can get back to us about truly moving the country forward.

• This President has increased the deficit by over $1 trillion, and until he assumes absolute transparency, and details how he intends to make his plans work, he is simply trying to spend America into a form of socialism.  If you truly want to help America recover, cut taxes, stop irresponsible, unconstitutional spending, and get out of the way.  Other than that, it is not your job.

• The President still wants Socialized Health Care and views the recent rejection of it as a “political kink”, just a minor setback.  The fact is, most Americans agree that we need Health Care Reform.  We want affordability, accessibility, transportability, and a true referendum on Tort Reform.  What we do not want is government involvement.  Legislate these four issues, and leave it alone.  Quit trying to use our Health Care as another way to usurp our liberty and assert control.  We are NOT having any part of it.

• He claims he is persistently trying to keep our country secure from terrorism, while in practice he is behind giving terrorists the protection of Miranda Rights after failed attacks on our citizens.

• The President claims to support our military, yet he dragged his feet in authorizing additional troops to reinforce those deployed in Afghanistan.

The President does not support our military.  He sees the military as a “social experiment”.  You want proof?  The President said he wants Congress to repeal the law banning openly gay military service.  Anyone who understands the military knows the military is a fighting force, in place to protect our country.  There is no place for open homosexuality within the ranks, just as there is no place for heterosexuality in the military.  The military is NOT a social experiment, it is a protective service provided for the defense of the country.

Now he wants First Lady Michelle Obama along with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to military families.  The fact that they are to “forge” this commitment identifies it is a new concept to the President.

Most of America has always been committed to our military.  What we want from the Commander in Chief is a clear and definite purpose for the mission he sends our military to accomplish, what constitutes victory, how he intends to be victorious with the least cost of American Lives possible, maintaining an allegiance to those being sent to face a declared enemy, instead of appearing to protect the enemy.

• The President is quick to announce his willingness to work with other countries through the United Nations.  This makes sense due to his obvious support of subjecting America, and our citizens, to a form of “Global Authority”, regarding environmental policy, thus diminishing our sovereignty as a nation.  What will it take to convince this President that the policies being bantered about, at the UN, are proposals to punish America for our exceptionalism?

What this President, and the Liberals in Congress fail to understand, is that America is truly a sovereign nation of great People.  What makes us great is that we all believe in a common belief, Individual Freedom, established by the Declaration of Independence, and protected by the Constitution of the United States.

America is suffering today, because too few politicians read the Constitution for what it actually says, and instead read it for what they want it to say, or pervert it into something other than that which it was intended.  Modern politicians believe they are elected to legislate “one size fits all solutions” to every issue known to man, while the Constitution was implemented to limit Government to very specific functions.

If the President, and Congress alike, truly want America to succeed, might I suggest they read our founding documents, understand them for what they say, and do it.  Pretty simple, actually.

Health Care Reform Act of 2010; Dead On Arrival

David A. Black, Sr.

Leading the way to truly reforming Congress, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts elected Republican Senatorial Candidate, Scott Brown to fill a Senate Seat held by a member of the Kennedy Family for 50 plus years.  I guess Massachusetts agreed with Mr. Browns assessment that he was not running for “Kennedy’s Seat”, but rather the “People’s Seat”.

As a matter of fact, Senator Brown beat the ‘media, odds-on favorite’, Democratic Candidate, Martha Coakley by a decisive 5% margin, giving a climactic ending to a race featuring an incalculable long-shot.  This, even after President Obama came to town, stumping for Coakley and ‘dissing’ Brown because he drives an old pick-up truck.  Sure makes you wonder who is out of touch with the People.

The election of a Conservative Republican, in a State largely held by Democrats, has significant meaning.  For instance, we can draw from the election result is that Massachusetts gave the nation Hope for real Change in American Politics.

It is really too bad that Representative Barney Frank, of Massachusetts, does not understand the message the voters of his State sent to Congress.  Rep. Frank thinks the necessary Change is to require 67 votes to block a filibuster, instead of 60.  He did not have a problem with the standard 60 votes while he and his fellow Democratic Congressmen were forcing their Government take-over of the American Health Care System down our collective throats.  I wonder if he has been reading the writing on the wall?

No, the real message is that the People are fed up, and want an end to “politics as usual”.  Most of the Massachusetts voters backed Candidate Obama because he promised to do just that.  Instead, the nation has watched President Obama, and his Democratic Majority, use strong-arm tactics in politically hijacking America.

Now the People are doing what comes natural to American Patriots, they are retaliating.  Like Flight 93, like Richard Reeds’ attempt at a ‘shoe bomb’, or the recent attempt to bomb the flight into Detroit from Amsterdam on Christmas, hijack a plane, win or lose, Americans will fight back; hijack our government, the reaction of the American People is the same.  It really does not matter what State we live in, Americans are not good at being willing victims.

Another distinct reality of Sen. Brown being elected is that the Health Care Reform Act, as envisioned by President Obama and constructed by his Democrat henchmen, is ‘Dead On Arrival’.  The loudest, most significant campaign promise made by Candidate Brown was that as Senator, he would be the forty-first vote to stop Health Care Reform and the Cap and Trade bill.

Prominent Democrats are already trying to establish new positions on these two bills.  After a year of the Democrats claiming they have a mandate from the People and constantly reminding us who won the election, now they are attempting a last stitch effort to save their latest socialistic take-over bid of the American economy.  That is, the Health Care System was soon to be added into the pot where the financial, auto, and housing industries are stewing.

If Mr. Brown holds true to his word, the fact that he has become the most recent addition to the United States Senate is good for America.  I only wish we could apply such impact to the man elected into the Oval Office.  Instead, the contrary is true, President Obama has proven to be only a detriment.

In fact, President Obama still doesn’t get it!  In his response to Sen. Brown’s election, he wore a look of disgusted concern indicating that Democrats must be more focused on the voter concerns.  Of course, I guess the idea of Obama attempting to distance himself from the debacle at center stage and throw his fellow Democrats under the bus, comes as no big surprise.

America, as in the Revolution, with the Tea Party, Massachusetts has taken the lead in returning our nations sovereignty.

DO NOT STOP NOW!

Unlike President Obama, who dragged his feet in reinforcing our military in Afghanistan, we can all stand firm in November and reinforce the message delivered by our brethren in Massachusetts.  Together, we can fight back and stop the current hijacking of America.

Just to clarify, I am not backing Republicans entirely.  Rather, I am supportive of the referendum set forth by the voters in Massachusetts by endorsing Conservatism.

In closing, I will borrow a famous quote from Neil Armstrong; the traditionally Democratic State of Massachusetts, electing Republican Scott Brown to the United States Senate, is one small step for Republicans, one giant leap for Conservatism.

Health Care Reform – Merry Christmas? Or, Welcome Comrades?

By David A. Black, Sr.

So, Senate Majority Leader,  Harry Reid succeeded in forcing his Health Care reform through the Senate on Christmas Eve.

Merry Christmas, America!

Almost immediately after the Bill passed, an entirely party-line vote of 60 – 39, I believe it was Senator Barrasso, of Wyoming who asked, why, if the Bill so good, did it require exemptions, or special deals, for Senators from at least 13 States.

Good question!

What kind of special deals were carved out of Sen. Reid’s Health Care Reform Act?

Nebraska received guaranteed funding to cover all additional costs for expansion of Medicare to low income individuals, thanks to Sen. Ben Nelson.

Louisiana received a $300 million payoff for Medicare benefits to Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed “Socialist”, from Vermont, gets a huge chunk of change for his “pet project”, the Community Health Centers Program.

Sen. Chris Dodd received funding for a new hospital in Connecticut in an attempt to help his re-election bid.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Maine, Nevada, California, New York, and Illinois are all to receive funding for Medicare for low income individuals, some of the funds are delegated to go to illegal immigrants who now qualify for the TANF program (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) who were already in the country prior to the Welfare Act of 1996.

Apparently, Sen. Reid’s Health Care Reform Act was a first step toward Comprehensive Immigration Reform as well.  After all, if we are already paying for “illegal immigrants” under the Health Care Bill, we should find our way clear to legalizing these poor individuals, and make them official, productive members of society.

Wait, just a cotton-pickin minute!  If they have been here since before 1996, and are still on “temporary assistance”, how can anybody profess they are productive members of our society?  This dramatically contradicts the claim that not providing illegal immigrants with a pathway to citizenship is unfair because they already pay taxes, yet receive no benefit.  I guess the “shadows” are not as bad as we were led to believe.

OK, I digress.  The question is, where is this thing headed now?

It works like this.  The Senate Bill goes back to the House of Representatives, causing Speaker Pelosi to meet with Sen. Reid, behind closed doors of course, and find ways to manipulate the rest of their party to reconcile the two Bills, now passed by the separate houses of congress.

Chances are, the Democrats will force a Health Care Bill through by the end of January and present it to President Obama by the first week of February.  Then the Democrats can tout that a “Historical President” has mentored a “Historical Bill” through Congress.  What they will not tell us is that they are in fact making history.  Their Health Care Bill will make America, as we know it, history, in a relatively short time.

If bankrupting the country, in an attempt to usher in a socialistic agenda, is their goal, the Health Care Reform Bill is the ticket to their success.  Think about it!  California, New York, and Michigan, three of the most liberal States, are the leaders of the pack of States, already rushing toward bankruptcy, or at the very least, financial insolvency.

There you go!  We already have examples to follow.

I know, you probably think this is another “The Sky is Falling” episode from Chicken Little.  However, I would encourage you to consider the ten pillars of Communism, as stipulated by Karl Marx, in his book, A Communist Manifesto.

1.  The abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. America was built, in part, on pride of ownership of property.  Have we not witnessed the grabbing, hoarding, and assuming control of land (eminent domain), and uses thereof, by the government in recent history?

2.  A heavy progressive graduated income tax. This is a process of punishing success, or exceptionalism.  When is the last time you got a pay raise and actually received more net income?  Doesn’t happen under the modern U.S. Tax System.

3.  Abolition of rights of inheritance. Can you say “Death Tax”?  As it stands, the Government heavily taxes that which you inherit from the hard earned success of your parents, or grand-parents.  I have heard it said, “It costs more to die, than to be born”.  That is a significant statement for anybody that is a parent.  For those of you who are not parents, ask yours.

4.  Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. All right.  I have no concrete evidence of this.  However, I wonder if the Secretary of Homeland Security announcing that Conservatives and ex-military personnel are potential terrorists would qualify as a precursor to a strategy of this magnitude.  Just a thought.  If you think about it, we did “encamp” those of Japanese descent, during World War II, under President Roosevelt.  He was a “Progressive Democrat” too.

5.  Centralization of credit in the banks of the State, by means of a National Bank, with State Capital, and an exclusive monopoly. OK.  This is a “no brainer”.  Think about the “Financial Bail-Outs”, and the fact that several of the banks that received TARP Funds were told NO when they attempted to pay back the money.

6.  Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. This is taking place as you read this article.  Liberal Democrats are chomping at the bit to enact the “Fairness Doctrine” to control what is said over the airwaves.  They are currently attempting to put control of the internet in the hands of the President and his Czars.  Of course, they are only considering our “cyber-safety”.  Needless to say, I know very well, the over burdensome regulations of transportation, which tightens its stranglehold on the throat of interstate commerce every year.  But that too, is done in the name of Safety.  Funny, how Public Safety in the eyes of legislators relegates to Government Revenues.

7.  Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. The easy indicator here is a glance at the recent takeovers of the auto industry, and the unprecedented affiliation of the Government with the Labor Unions.  However, to fully understand this aspect of a potential Communist takeover, you must look beyond the surface of Government subsidization and Co-Ops in the farming industry, and think about the control exhibited in the Government’s ability to not only dictate who grows what, but how much, when, and to whom the crops must be sold.

8.  Equal obligation of all to work.  Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Again, I must refer to the Government / Labor Union affiliation.  How many favors are due to the Labor Unions in return for various forms of assistance to campaigning candidates?  The pay backs from campaign promises to the unions continue to mount at a cost, yet to be determined, to the American Tax Payers. And as to an “Industrial Army”, did not Candidate Obama mention a “Civillian Army”?

9.  Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. Maybe you have noticed, or maybe it’s just my ill perception, that most of the emphasis of Government Programs deal with urbanizing America by moving people into the city and away from less accessible locales.

10.  Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. As a candidate for president, then Sen. Obama, pushed for Public Service Volunteers and involvement in Community Service.  I think those statements dovetailed nicely with the “soon-to-be” First Lady promoting the ideology of abandoning the “Corporate World”.  Apparently, there is some form of “Volunteer Act” being floated around Washington, D.C., to accommodate President Obama’s “Civillian Army“, that would require every graduate of the Public School System to various forms of Community Service.  How long before a program of this nature gives Congress the right to dictate who receives what form of education in order to fulfill the “Public Need”?  How long then, until the needs of the Labor Unions are disguised as “Public Needs”?

Just a series of thoughts.  But, I am willing to bet, you get the picture.  The passing of a Health Care Reform Act, that is opposed by more than 60 percent of Americans, and the indication that it is merely a disguised first step to something more sinister, is at the very least, a red flag, maybe even a Communist Red Flag.

I think it is time that even the most uninvolved American should sit up and pay attention to what our Government is up to, and start looking at the Majority of influence on our Government, and gain a clear understanding of where our current path will lead us.

Could this be the beginning of, Welcome Comrades?

Think about it.  You decide.

Squeaky Harry Reid is at it again!

They old adage says, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

In Senator Reid’s case, more media attention, for which he has shown a willingness to do anything, including the proposal, and intentional attempt, to force-feed socialist style, nationalized health care down the throat of a free nation.

For Senator Reid, the fact that the majority of Americans want nothing to do with what he has to offer has no merit.  The only thing that matters to this self-absorbed, wanna-be dictator is that some form of “health care reform” get passed before he gets ousted from the Senate.  A legacy, if you will.

So, what is he up to this time?

Senator Reid called a press conference to announce that he has a health care bill, but cannot divulge the details until after the CBO is finished analyzing it.

“We have something good.”  Squeaky said, of the bill he is concealing from the public, and anyone who differs from his opinion.  “But, I cannot give any details at this time.”

Why does this sound oddly familiar?

It spurs memories of the times my dear, sweet mother told me, “Here you go.  Eat up, Honey.  It’s good for you.”  As she served that piece of unseasoned shoe leather, she called “liver”, and tried to convince me it was a prime cut of meat.

Compared to nationalizing our health care, and allowing some self-promoting idiot, like Squeaky Harry, the authority to make all my medical decisions, I’d rather have the “shoe leather” and pretend it’s meat.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand there are a lot of people that like liver, then again, not 100% of Americans are against nationalizing health care either.  But, just because some would rather have liver, instead of steak, is not my problem.

The fact here, is that Senator Reid must be taught that he is not representing the United States of Obama, and that we, the People, have an absolute right to know that he is attempting to convince us that the mud covered rocks he is serving, is actually left-over stew.

What happened to “transparency in government”?  Or, was that only while he was still relishing the short-lived popularity of his Lord and Master, Big Barry?

After all, the motivating factor is the promise he made to get a bill on the President’s desk before New Years.   Looks to me like Squeaky his vying for a position in the Obama Administration after he gets ousted from the Senate, regardless of the cost to America.

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

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

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.