Arizona SB1070 – Real Change That Gives America Hope

April 25, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

On Friday, Governor Brewer, from Arizona, signed SB1070.  Instantly, the critics went ballistic.

President Obama used the swearing in ceremony of new citizens to criticize Arizona legislators saying, “Our failure to act responsibly, at the Federal level, will only open the door to irresponsibility by others, and that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.”

Brian Williams, on NBC Nightly News, said on Friday, “A central question in the news tonight, ‘is it legal, is it right, for a police officer to come up to you and ask you to produce I.D. if you’re suspected of entering the country illegally?  This is playing out tonight in the State of Arizona.”

Jose Diaz Balart of TeleMundo in Phoenix reports, “Late this afternoon, Governor Jan Brewer signed the controversial Bill, the toughest State Law against illegal immigration in the country. With her signature, Arizona is in direct conflict with the White House…  The law makes illegal immigration a State crime and requires local police to check the status of anyone they believe is here illegally.”

Actually, if any of the critics had taken five minutes and read SB1070, instead of simply adopting liberal talking points, they would have found that, contrary to the ‘leftist’ talking points, Law Enforcement Officers may only inquire about an individual’s immigration status during “lawful contact”.  Additionally, any complaint of illegal immigration status, levied by one person against another and found to be frivolous, is punishable by monetary fines against the accuser.

Does potential questioning of an individual’s immigration status invite racial profiling?  It could, although the Bill contains specific language banning ‘racial profiling’.  Then again, most of those opposed to SB1070 support affirmative action which is based on racial profiling.  Why is it, that the practice is welcomed on one hand, and demonized on the other?

To solve for this, if Law Enforcement Officers adopts a ‘standard operating procedure’ of simply using the same line of questioning with every person, of whom they request identification, questioning legal immigration status becomes just another question.  No prejudice, no malice, no racial profiling.  Regardless, Governor Brewr is calling for additional training of Law Enforcement to ensure against racial profiling and to maintain respect of the peoples rights.

Of course, President Obama, who can never pass up on an opportunity for societal divisiveness, instructed the Justice Department to ‘closely monitor’ activities in Arizona for ‘Civil Rights Violations’.

Governor Brewer emphasized, “Racial Profiling is illegal.  It will not be tolerated in America, and it certainly will not be tolerated in Arizona.”

“This Bill,” Governor Brewer continued.  “The ‘Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act’, strengthens the laws of our State.  It protects all of us, every Arizona citizen, and everyone here, in our State lawfully, and it does so while ensuring that the Constitutional Rights of all, in Arizona remain solid, stable, and steadfast.”

Nonetheless, cries of the Bill being unconstitutional rang out from almost every protest.  Is this the same Constitution they were willing to throw under the carpet, as if hiding dust and debris from visitors, when backing the passage of the Healthcare Reform, or bailing out the financial, housing, and auto industries?

Why is it, every time legislation to protect our country and our citizens is passed, it is immediately deemed unconstitutional, yet laws and programs that clearly are not in accordance with the Constitution receive accolades?

So the question arises, is Arizona SB1070 constitutional?

We all know Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, states, “Congress shall have Power… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

However, Section 13 of SB1070 refers to the Bill’s ‘Short Title’ as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”.  There is no reference in the title, nor anywhere in the Bill, to “Rule of Naturalization”.  That makes SB1070 a “Public Safety Law”, not an “Immigration Law”.

Upon reading the Bill, the language of the Bill does not even allow the State’s Legislature, Law Enforcement, or any member of the State’s Judiciary the Authority to determine any individuals ‘immigration status’.  Rather, all questions, regarding immigration status, are immediately deferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  The last time I checked, ICE is a Federal Agency.

Arizona SB1070 does not even give the State the Authority to deport anyone.  Any person found to be in the country illegally, is to be transported to Federal Custody, and if said transportation includes removing an individual to a location outside the boundaries of the State, the State must first receive a Court Order to do so.

Clause 15, of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution says, “Congress shall have Power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

All enforcement activities in SB1070 defer to existing Federal laws.  One could argue that Law Enforcement is the ‘active duty branch’ of the ‘State Militia’, and that the constant flow of illegal immigrants could be considered a form of societal invasion.

Furthermore, Article VI, Clause 2, stipulates, “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 Law of the Land.”

Because SB1070 consistently defers to Federal Authorities, it should be deemed as being “in Pursuance” of the Constitution, where we have established Congress has a duty to create “Rules of Naturalization”.

Article VI, Clause 3, clarifies that, “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.”

That means that, by passing SB1070 into law, the Arizona Legislature is actually executing their duties under the Constitution.  I am willing to bet you are wishing we could say that about Congress.  Instead, Congress is too busy taking over the financial industry, the auto industry, the housing industry, the healthcare industry, increasing taxes, passing laws that do not pass constitutional muster, and spending our way into oblivion, to actually perform the duties obligated to them by the Constitution.

In fact, we should applaud the Arizona Legislature.  Now residents, and those of us who are asked for our I.D. while visiting their great State, can announce with great pride,

I AM AN AMERICAN!


President Obama Violates Constitution

April 5, 2010

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.


The 2010 Census – An Endorsement of Socialism

March 22, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

The 2010 Census is officially under way.  The ad campaign, costing millions of dollars, for television, cable, and radio ads, and thousands of billboards, paid for by your hard-earned tax money, tells us all to stand and be counted.

Help your community get a fair share.”  They proclaim, urging people to fill out the Census Data Form and return it to the Government.

Get their fair share of what?  I had my fair share until the Government confiscated it through taxation, now they want to pretend to give a portion of it back.

According to a letter from the U.S. Census Bureau, “Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health offices, and many other programs you and your neighbors need.”

In all fairness, the members of the House and Senate are just doing their job.  The Constitution instructs Congress to collect a direct, heavy, progressive tax from every person in the country.  Then, they are to withhold a sizeable amount of the Gross National Product for financing the cost of running the Government.  Finally, Congress is to disperse the proportionately small amount of remaining money back to the people, disguised as ‘Investing in America’.  Any such investing in the ‘public good’ shall be at the sole discretion of Congress, based on the projected return value of those investments, as realized in the results of polls and elections.

Based on the questions contained in the 2010 Census Questionnaire, two out of ten deals with ethnicity, Congress seems quite concerned about ensuring proper funding of ethnic groups.  Rest assured then, so long as you are of the proper, favored ethnicity, Congress is doing their job and looking out for your best financial interest, in relation to ‘Public Investing’.

Pardon my sarcasm.  Actually, unlike most members of the House and Senate, I’ve read the Constitution.  Article 1, Section 2, later modified by Section 2, of the 14th amendment, calls for representation to be “apportioned among the several States”.  The same paragraph, later superseded by the 16th amendment, calls for the “apportionment of direct Taxes” as well; and thereby calls for a Census to have been performed within three years of the first Meeting of Congress, and every ten years thereafter.

Therefore, according to the Constitution, the Census was intended to be used only for the purpose of apportioning representation in the House, and apportioning direct Taxation among the several States.  There is no mention of using the Census as a means to justify congressional spending.

Think about it.  For the purpose of “apportioned representation” based on the total populations of the several States, does not call for Congress to have any idea of the ethnicity of the populace; they do not need any demographic data as a means to cater to any particular groups.

This means that Congress does not need to know who owns the house I live in, what the genders of any residence are, the actual age of residents, or if a resident has a secondary residence.

Instead, Congress is using the Census to get the American People to endorse the Socialistic practice of ‘redistributing wealth’.  They took away Constitutional apportionment of direct taxation with the 16th amendment, and perverted the use of the Census.

Now, we have a scenario where the government taxes the groups determined by the Census, to be the “haves”, to provide benefits to groups determined as the “have not’s”.  This is known simply as Socialism.

For the record, there are only five questions the Census could ask under the authority of the Constitution.

  1. Verify your address.
  2. How many people live at your address?
  3. How many people, living at your address, are of legal voting age?
  4. How many people, living at your address, are American Indians?
  5. What is your status of residency in the United States?  (Circle one)   Natural Born Citizen   Naturalized Citizen   Legal Resident   Other

As to the cost of the Census, the entire questionnaire, as authorized under the Constitution, would fit on a post card, the cheapest form of U.S. Mail correspondence and would be easily administered by, and reported through, local governments.

It is at this point, I must ask the obvious question; if we, The People, are going to allow the elected members of Government to pervert the intentions of our Founders and the meaning of our Constitution, to what they want it to say, rather than what it actually says, why should we have a Constitution?

Are we truly a nation of Free and Independent People?  Or, are we, The People going to allow the endorsement of Socialism, and idly watch it take root and grow into an uncontrollable despotic dictatorship?


The Real State of the Union

January 29, 2010

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

January 21, 2010

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.


A Lesson in Patriotism

November 4, 2009

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.


Health Care Reform – A Means to Something More Sinister

October 16, 2009

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