Health Care Reform – A Means to Something More Sinister

Part 3 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.  No additional deficit spending.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 2 of 3:  National Health Care and the Constitution

National Health Care & the Constitution

Part 2 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Care Reform – Congressional Malpractice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insurance providers manage health care expenses by;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama and Democrats Desire to Silence Opposition

Obama apparently wants his opposition to shut up and get out of his way.  At a Democratic rally for Virginia gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds on Thursday, August 06, 2009, President Obama let his true feelings, regarding his opposition, out of the bag.

President Obama told the approximate 1800 people in attendance, “I expect to be held responsible for… these issues… because, I’m the President.  But… But… But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess… I don’t want the folks who created the mess doing a lot of talkin’.  I want them to just get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.  I don’t mind cleanin’ up after ‘em but don’t do a lot of talkin’” [transcribed verbatim]

The President reiterated that he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit, claiming that without his policies, going forward, we would have had an even higher deficit.  Of course, he made an exception for his stimulus bill, proclaiming that we had to have the stimulus to jumpstart the economy.

Obama went on to analogize that, you cannot charge up the credit card, going on shopping sprees that did not grow the economy, then hand over the bill and say, why haven’t you paid it off yet.

“I got that bill from you!”  Obama exclaimed.

Someone really should point out to the President, that he did not actually inherit the deficit, he actually assisted in creating it.  He was a U.S. Senator, and as such, he did vote for the Bush stimulus bill, the banking bailout, and the wasteful auto bailout.  You cannot inherit a “mess” if you are, at least in part, responsible for creating it.  So, where did that bill come from?

Although the President was speaking primarily about the economy at the time, considering his actions and attitude over the last seven months, since he took office, it is easy to see that he finally voiced the overriding opinion of most of the Democratic Party leadership, in regards to any who oppose them.

We are realizing the truth of that as the members of Congress have returned home to their constituencies and are being met with staunch resistance to the idea of nationalizing Health Care.  The Democrats must have thought they had everyone fooled by the constant use of the word ‘reform’.

We are witnessing staunch rejection of the Nationalized Health Care proposal, citizens are coming out of the woodworks to oppose it.  The President and his supporting staff of congressional thieves are reacting by trying to discredit any who stand in opposition, even attempting scare tactics to quiet us.

When Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi witnessed raucous protests against President Bush, some of which referred to the President as another Adolf Hitler, and other such intelligent remarks, Speaker Pelosi was eager to proclaim that she was ”a fan of disruptors.  Although she has made a conscious effort to back away from her comments, Speaker Pelosi went so far as to claim that protesters of the proposed Nationalized Health Care are Un-American, intimating they are swastika-wearing Nazis.  Several Democrats have echoed the disparagement espoused by Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano when she termed the opposition as right-wing terrorists.

However, I noticed, while watching the coverage of the current public dissent, the protesting conservatives seemed relatively civil, nothing like the rowdy affairs in which I have watched Liberal Democrats involved.  I witnessed no pushing, no shoving.  In fact, I do not believe I even seen anyone rushing a stage of platform.

Not until, of course, the Liberal left counter-protesters began showing up after Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid called the protests “phony”, and told supporters to “punch back twice as hard”.  Senator Reid might as well have handed the left wing extremists a license to attack.

How ironic, when Liberal Democrats participate in public protests, burning flags, blocking streets, disrupting businesses, and creating havoc, they are asserting their first amendment rights.  When Conservative Republicans dissent against, what we believe to be irresponsible legislation, in a reportedly loud, but peaceful demonstrations, they are attacked by the same people that protect the Liberals.  As much as the Democrats deny it, there is a double standard applied here.

When the Republicans held the majority, Democrats kicked and screamed for compromise.  Where is the compromise now that Democrats hold the majority?  The word has seemingly dropped from their vocabulary.

Take notice America, the Liberal Democratic mind-set is on full display.  When not the majority, Democrats claimed without merit, they were being steam-rolled, ignored, relegated to the sidelines, and repetitiously demanded compromise.  Now that they have the power of the majority, Democrats are doing exactly what they falsely claimed their opposition did.

The proof is in the actions of Speaker of the House Pelosi, who in a move to stifle the Republicans, in January imposed new house rules that require any legislation to cut taxes, must include offsetting  measures to maintain tax revenues, dollar for dollar.

The Democrats have accused Republicans of obstructionism.  Obstructionism?  OK!  Fine!  You’re right!  We are obstructionists!  We are patriotically, intentionally obstructing the liberal left from blatant attempts to negate more of our personal liberty and freedom by excessive empowerment of the Federal Government.  We are expressing whole-hearted dissent against being led further down the path to Socialism.

However, might I remind you, the Republicans are the minority, Democrats can pass any legislation they want, yet still the battle cry goes out that we need to compromise.  The Democrats really do not want compromise, they want Republicans to roll over and accept the legislation with open arms, and vote like Democrats.

What Democrats really want is a scapegoat to take the heat for President Obama’s extremist agenda.  They want someone at whom they can point their fingers.  They need someone to blame for their failed ideology and policies.  Yes, they understand, full and well, the consequences and repercussions of passing Obama’s agenda.

Under President Obama, the Federal Government has imposed it’s power on the financial/banking industry, they continue to manipulate the housing market, and they have forced a partnership with the auto industry.  Now they are attempting a full court press by trying to force us into nationalized health care, and pushing to regulate the operations of private corporations’, and the ability of corporations to set executive salary structures.

Why should we give them the final say in repairing the “messes” that they created to begin with? I allude to the skyrocketing deficit, the inability to balance the budget, out of control spending, the impending failures of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, and a consistent desire to grab more, and more power for the Government at the cost of individual liberty and freedom.

Too many of the same people that drove us to where we are, with blind personal ambition, are now attempting to position themselves as our saviors. They are setting themselves up to continue the usurpation of our rights. Seems kind of like Lucifer giving us directions at a fork in the road to the after-life.

Democrats are holding true to form in asserting that only Republicans are to be held accountable for their actions.  Democrats want to be judged by their intentions, even if their actions are that of a socialistic nature.  Where is it again, that good intentions pave a path to?

Meanwhile, Scary Barry, his Congressional Cronies, and the Miscreant Media sycophants continue to defy reality and try to convince us that the public dissention and protests are being drummed up by special interests.  Obama is even trying to redirect the public outpouring of dissent toward the big, bad, evil insurance companies.

Go figure.  I imagine telling the opposition to shut up falls under the category of, “Hope and Change”.

“Yes, We Can!” Is this truly the “Hope and Change” you bargained for?

I must ask all those who supported Barack Obama during his candidacy for President, and went on to vote for him, electing him into the highest position in the entire free world.  Is this really what you bought into?

It has been six months since you elected, potentially, the most dangerous President of the United States in the last sixty plus years.  Yes, I said it; potentially the most dangerous.  We have experienced four and a half months of his regime… oops, scratch that… administration, and the question looms greater and darker every day.  Does this man truly represent the changes you believe this country needs?

Leading up to the election, six months ago, the slim majority of the voters were taken in by the mantra, “Hope and Change for America!  Yes, we can!”  This was the campaign slogan, then Senator Obama preached from his traveling pulpit.

Then came the first signs of the Audacity of Hope and Change when we, as a nation started receiving daily news briefings from the Office of the President Elect.  President-Elect Obama used this platform to criticize the outgoing administration.

Call me “old Fashioned”, but the last time I read the Constitution, it calls for a Congress, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and we have one executive elected to the office of President.  No matter how many times I look at it, the Constitution has not changed; there is no office of the President Elect.

Senator Obama became President, and one of the first things he did was to announce that he was determined in his intention of closing the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by early next year.

This was an early indicator of short sightedness.  By announcing his intention, he placated his liberal base only to find that there was no place to put the detainees.  No other nation wants them; in some cases, this includes their native lands.  Not wanting to go back on his campaign promise to close Gitmo, the Obama Regime, I mean Administration, announced the intention to bring detainees to the United States to stand trial in a court of law.

Oops, there is a glitch in that plan.

Opponents argue that bringing the detainees here gives them access to constitutional protections.  This is an unprecedented action for the government, as extending rights to enemy combatants increases their ability to civilian defense practices and tactics, almost ensuring their release.  In case you are not familiar with military operations, the military does not specialize in collecting evidence in the middle of a war zone.

Therefore, bringing the detainees here to try them in U.S. Courts subjects them to evidentiary rules and constitutional law that would give some seedy ACLU attorney ammunition to obtain the release of the detainees.

There is also the creation of unacceptable risk to our national security, as defense tactics would be to demand information from the battlefield that could jeopardize our troops, and their tactics.  What if the one jeopardized was your son or daughter?

There is also the little issue of the Real ID Act of 2008, a law supported by then Senator Obama that bars entry into the country of any individuals involved in terrorist activities.

After his inauguration, President Obama pushed for the passage of his Stimulus Bill. He claimed that passing the bill was the only hope for our economy.

Wow!  That was a shot.  In less than one hundred days in office, he spent more than all the preceding presidents combined.

He must think you’re stupid!

When it comes to stupidity, truth is, the stimulus bill passed the House and Senate, and was signed into law, without ever being read.  I wonder if the legislators, or the President for that matter, would sign a contract without reading it.  If so, I have a limited number of ocean front condos for sale in Kansas.

Anyway, he must think your stupid.  You are supposed to believe that more excessive, wasteful spending by Congress, on short-term projects, is going to help solve the fiscal crisis facing the nation, and solve our long-term economical woes.  Let’s face it, the majority of the Stimulus Bill is Presidential and Congressional payoffs for votes, and we the taxpayers are left holding the bag.

Now, thanks to the President, General Motors (GM) has changed their name to Government Motors.  This sounds very funny until you begin to understand that government involvement as partial owner of the auto company puts them in bed with the Labor Union.

Oh, what’s that?  You had not realized the UAW is also a proud, new, partial owner of the failing GM.  That is an issue that requires further explanation, which I will attempt later.

Did I mention that President Obama is now declaring that Iran has a right to nuclear power, “so long as they can prove it is intended for peaceful purposes.”  Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe a large contingency of the insurgents in Iraq, killing our troops, originate from Iran.

Somebody pinch me.  This has got to be a bad dream.  I cannot believe the Commander in Chief is making nice with the folks that are actively trying to kill America’s finest.

I am trying hard to recall anything good that he has accomplished, but his ability to read speeches from a teleprompter do not count.  Think about it, we still have not received any details of his tax plan that was going to help middle class Americans that earn less than $250,000.00 per year.

So, for those of you that voted for Barack Obama, is this what you bargained for?  Did you really buy into the rhetoric of an individual that intends to sell our country down the river into socialism and irrelevancy?  Can you honestly agree with his apologetic speeches to the rest of the world, denouncing America’s exceptionalism?

Do you believe, as President Obama does, that the Constitution is a pesky nuisance, a compilation of negative rights?  Do you believe the Founders failed in implementing the Constitution, by not outlining the things the government should do for the people?  Or, do you hold true to the ideology, as I do, that the Constitution intentionally applies limits to the power and authority of government?

Is this truly, what you bargained for?