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

December 28, 2009

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.

Advertisements

Squeaky Harry Reid is at it again!

December 9, 2009

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.


Brandenburg Gate; and Our Heroes at Check Point Charlie

November 14, 2009

By David A. Black, Sr.

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

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

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

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

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

“I was there.”  Paul informed me.

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

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

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

And this is what he had to say…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A Lesson in Patriotism

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.


Are You Serious?

October 27, 2009

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

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


National Health Care & the Constitution

October 4, 2009

Part 2 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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