President Obama’s Biggest Failure and Success

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By David A. Black, Sr.

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

Merry Christmas, America!

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

Good question!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There you go!  We already have examples to follow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could this be the beginning of, Welcome Comrades?

Think about it.  You decide.

Squeaky Harry Reid is at it again!

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

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

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

So, what is he up to this time?

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

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

Why does this sound oddly familiar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are You Serious?

By David A. Black, Sr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Care Reform – A Means to Something More Sinister

Part 3 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.  No additional deficit spending.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 2 of 3:  National Health Care and the Constitution

National Health Care & the Constitution

Part 2 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – Crisis or Coercion

Part 1 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

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

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

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

The premise of the “crisis” false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no true intention to cut costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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”.