The 2010 Census – An Endorsement of Socialism

March 22, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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  The same paragraph, later superseded by the 16th amendment, calls for the “apportionment of direct Taxes” as well; and thereby calls for a Census to have been performed within three years of the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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

Squeaky Harry Reid is at it again!

December 9, 2009

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

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

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

So, what is he up to this time?

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

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

Why does this sound oddly familiar?

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

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

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

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

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

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


Health Care Reform – A Means to Something More Sinister

October 16, 2009

Part 3 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.  No additional deficit spending.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 2 of 3:  National Health Care and the Constitution


National Health Care & the Constitution

October 4, 2009

Part 2 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – Crisis or Coercion

September 29, 2009

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

August 18, 2009

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”.