Someone at work asked me yesterday whether the march on Washington DC will matter to the politicians. I told her that I honestly doubt it because most of the politicians in Washington are so arrogant and so corrupt that they really don’t pay attention to America any more. But the march did make a difference to people like you and me, regular, ordinary, folks who did not realize that there truly are so many Americans who agree with us. Knowing this will empower us as Americans to more effectively stand up against the evils being pushed upon us, including the constant attempts to take away our freedom in favor of bigger government and more power and money for the bureaucrats. It will empower us to find candidates whose values agree with ours or to run ourselves (though the $4,300 “filing fee” for someone to run for US Senate is a bit prohibitive for the common person to run, don’t you think?), so that we have people who actually represent us, our values and our beliefs in Washington.

This is why I have such a problem with both parties. The parties push their agendas on those who represent us. They no longer represent us. Our “representatives” represent themselves, their parties, and their own personal power. I never have and never will blindly support one party. However, I do believe that one or both major parties can transform itself to being one that listens to We the People. Unfortunately, there is no evidence at the present to believe it possible. All the evidence we have is to the contrary, that most everyone in Washington is corrupt.

Look no further than the Cass Sunstein confirmation vote from late last week. Sunstein believes animals should be able to sue you! Can you imagine the outrageous lawsuits and outrageous sums of money that would be collected by lawyers for this “service”? Sunstein wrote:

I will suggest that animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law.

Yet look who voted for his confirmation. Most of the Democrats show no conscience, following their party and the President (had a Republican been in the White House I would have expected the same outcome) and six Republicans vote for Sunstein’s confirmation. That is the same Republican Party that so many conservatives still defend as the voice of conservatism. I suppose you could say that, considering Snowe, Voinovich, Lugar, and Collins voting to confirm are not all that surprising. But what shocks me is that Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch also supported Sunstein. How can Utah continue to elect these buffoons? How were they bribed to place this vote? Or in Washington-speak, what earmark were they promised for Utah-especially Bennett who is up for reelection in 2010?

Anyone that in good conscience voted to confirm Cass Sunstein should be voted out, especially the supposedly conservative Republicans Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett who are clearly nothing but a couple of snakes who represent themselves and their continued reelections, not their constituents. Utah, if you want to be taken seriously, you cannot continue to elect such idiots.

We the People, including Utah, must show Washington that we will no longer stand for this behavior. 2010 must be a referendum for the people. Or all that we claim to stand for, all that we claim to fight for will be for naught.

Due to consistent questions on crowd size, I have updated this post with a still shot from a traffic camera and a time lapse video from the same camera at the bottom.

Saturday was an incredible day. I took my wife and three children, all under 10, to the 9.12.09 March on Washington. If you saw the guy in a white shirt with a patriotic tie pulling a red wagon with two of the cutest patriotically dressed girls you’ve ever seen walking next to a beautiful woman pushing a stroller with the most handsome 18 month old boy in America, you probably saw me. If you heard the guy reading the words of our founding fathers and selections from the Constitution just east of Freedom Plaza before the march began, you probably heard me. If you have blurry pictures of the crowd all around you taken by the guy standing on his children’s red wagon, you probably handed your camera to me. (Note all pictures enlarge when clicked.)

I met wonderful people from all over this nation including California (southern and northern!), New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Alabama, Ohio, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Colorado, Nevada, and some Tennessee Volunteers. As we worked our way toward the group of our fellow Georgians, I met folks from all over our fine state, from cities I’ve visited and small towns I’ve only heard of. Hopefully, many of you found your way here to my blog. Perhaps the only disappointment was not running into fellow Georgian Robert Stacy McCain.

The Georgians and those I met from the Jacksonville Tea Party were especially kind. In fact, for a gathering of somewhere between hundreds of thousands and 1.2 million people, I was shocked and entirely impressed that we experienced no rudeness, only kindness and politeness. There was a just a bunch of good people. No angry mobs. No racists. No terrorists. And there certainly were no extremists. That is, unless you consider those whose views align with our God-inspired founders to be “extreme”.

Rather, there was love all around. We were there to express love for our country, for our future, and for our children. We were in Washington to show our love for the Republic which our founders created for us through their wisdom and inspiration of God himself.

I intend to continue in peacefully fighting to keep our Republic, as Benjamin Franklin challenged us to do.

I am proud that Scott’s Slant on Politics was one of the first blogs to join the blogger alliance of the 09.12.09 March on Washington movement. Together, if we, as Americans, continue to fight for our freedom, even through the darkest of nights, which are likely yet to come, I am certain by my faith in our creator that we will win.

Note: You can see the rest of my photos on Flickr.

I will march on Washington DC on 9-12 because I believe what a wise man once said:

“The government has no rights; it has duties only. It is ordained to serve the people.”

The government is our servants, not the other way around. It has no rights, only those that we the people grant unto it and we the people can, may, and will revoke any right we give the government at any time without notice.

The government’s duties are to provide for a common defense, regulate inter-state (meaning inter nation-state) trade, and to GET OUT OF OUR WAY!

I am marching on Washington DC to remind government that it is beholden to we the people. We are not their servants, they are ours. They answer to us.

True freedom and liberty are a result of our opportunity to choose. Forced choice is oppression, no matter how correct the forced choice may seem to be. The absence of choice results directly in bondage. In fact, James described liberty as “the perfect law” (1:25).

Liberty is the perfect law because it implies personal responsibility. We are responsible for all of the choices we make, including the acceptance of the consequences of our choices, be them good or bad.

However, without the opportunity to choose and experience the consequences of choice, we will never understand the positive from the negative. If the government is always throwing a safety net to save us from our poor choices, then why be prudent? If the government will bailout enormous companies that make poor business decisions, then why shouldn’t they take risks you or I would never take with our finances?

Persons stuck in the cycle of welfare bailing them out and companies fastened in government ownership are fully bound by the chains of restraint, preventing them from improving themselves. They know they are getting by, but have no concept of their potential, as their choice to innovate and improve has been removed by their reliance on a handout that rewards their existing mediocrity.

On the other hand, there is a reason the economy of the United States of America has grown at a faster rate over the past century than any other nation. There is a reason for the constant flow of innovation, improvement, and sustainability in this land. The reason is this land is a land of liberty, where the inhabitants are free to choose their course. Americans have traditionally been free to fail, so they can learn and improve after every successful failure.

The federal government continuing to grow by leaps and bounds, serving no one but itself and its members. We must stand against the expansion of the federal government and return it to its two fold role: 1. Provide for the common defense. 2. Regulate inter-state (meaning nation-state) trade. That is it.

I will be taking a stand on 9/12/2009 by joining the march on Washington to protest big government that serves itself and takes away our liberty because I believe that I should do as the verse inscribed on the Liberty Bell instructs:

Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.

Will you support and uphold what remains of our liberty? Will you fight to have all of our liberties returned? Or will you continue to accept more of the same, as both the Republicans and Democrats attack our freedoms through the expansion of government?

I still cannot support the GOP. They have lost their way. I don’t know that I can support a party, considering that the purpose of a part is to acquire power. I will support people whose values match mine.

Let us review the last eight years of Republican rule:

• They took freedoms from us with the Patriot Act.
• They increased government substantially. George Bush never vetoed a spending bill, the worst being the prescription entitlement.
• They are the ones who opened the door for the current administration with TARP and overnight auto industry bailouts.

You really think they are any better? The morons of both parties are all power-hungry cousins, desiring the people to be beholden to the almighty government.

Voting for the party that “is not as bad as the other guys” is not good enough for me. If you want to call it throwing away my vote by not voting for these clowns, so be it. I would rather stand for something than stand against something.

If you think standing behind the Republicans because they are marginally better than the democrats is the right thing to do, then you should only expect marginal improvement in our country. The Republicans started spending us into oblivion. The Democrats intend to finish it.

We need fiscally responsible true representatives, regardless of the letter by their name. Sure, I’ll vote for a Republican, or a Democrat, or anything else if their values match mine and I am confident they will vote according to their values and not the party line. Party line voting has nearly eliminated the Legislature’s equal power as part of our system of checks and balances.

And thus we find ourselves in the situation we are in today.

I wish there were more Tom Coburns out there. You know, people without agendas, with common sense, and who understand and respect our God-inspired constitution.

HT The Other McCain via Bluegrass Pundit.

Today widespread stories on Van Jones’ resignation have circulated. CNN, FOX News, and many others have similar articles confirming that when asked on “Meet the Press” whether President Obama ordered Jones’ firing, Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod said: “Absolutely not. This was Van Jones’ own decision.”

President Obama’s closest adviser has told us that even though it is widely known that Van Jones is a communist, a position Jones refuses to recant, President Obama did not desire to fire him! This seemingly unimportant detail shows us that the President condones radicals and communists when he had every opportunity through this situation to condemn these systems of belief! In fact, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama “thanks him for his service to the country”. Seriously, the President believes that a man whose goal is revolution resulting in communism by using the levers of race and green has actually served our country?

Communism is a great evil and our President refuses to disassociate himself from it. I cannot think of anything more troubling. We should all hit the floor with our knees immediately and pray for our country. Do not wait. We need the power and protection of God to defend our Republic.

.

The words of self-avowed communist Van Jones, who is working as a “special adviser” to the President of the United States:

“The green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society . . . complete revolution was on the table for this country and I think this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages.”

See the video here.

This is nothing short of frightening. When President Obama said “We are only five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” he was most definitely being very clear in his choice of words.

What happened to the anti-war protests we were deluged with on a daily basis? What happened to Obama, the anti-war candidate?

Now, under President Obama’s leadership, it appears we are losing in Afghanistan, per the Washington Post:

The Taliban has become a much more potent adversary in Afghanistan by improving its own tactics and finding gaps in the U.S. military playbook, according to senior American military officials who acknowledged that the enemy’s resurgence this year has taken them by surprise.

U.S. rules of engagement restricting the use of air power and aggressive action against civilians have also opened new space for the insurgents, officials said. Western development projects, such as new roads, schools and police stations, have provided fresh targets for Taliban roadside bombs and suicide attacks. The inability of rising numbers of American troops to protect Afghan citizens has increased resentment of the Western presence and the corrupt Afghan government that cooperates with it, the officials said.

As President Obama faces crucial decisions on his war strategy and declining public support at home, administration and defense officials are studying the reasons why the Taliban appears, for the moment at least, to be winning.

It seems that the anti-war protesters were only anti-war when it was politically convenient. Now there is nothing. I suppose the same could be said for the Tea Party protesters if a bunch of the usual big government Republicans are voted in during the next election cycle and Tea Party protesters disappear.

I for one, do not intend to go away. I will only support those who view the federal government as a necessary evil whose role is to provide a common defense and regulate interstate (meaning inter-nation) trade.

Our founders had a clear understanding through their study history of what made for good and bad government. So it is of little wonder that many of their writings seem prophetic in our day, being that our day is one in which forces from innumerable directions of are attempting take away all that makes us free. This has happened very slowly, as American Socialist Party Presidential Candidate Norman Thomas predicted. It did not start during the Obama administration. It has gone on for years. However, with non-representant representation in Washington such as John Conyers in the spotlight, the truth of what James Madison wrote is now becoming clear for all to see.

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.

Our freedoms have been slowly and gradually chipped away through these laws that Congress has neither written nor read. Congress simply follows the marching orders of their party because they find power, strength, and funding within its circle.

Now the government exerts a certain amount of control over the financial sector. It has nationalized two of the big three automakers. Nearly half of all Americans during tax season are paid by the government more than they paid in taxes over the previous year. Most retired people receive money from the government monthly through Medicare and/or Social Security. Meanwhile, all of these historical “entitlements” have been enhanced over time, usually buried in a piece of “voluminous” legislation. Now on the horizon of the government’s reach is one-seventh of our economy in the form of healthcare, in the name of “fairness” to insure a small percentage of the entire population.

What is being built in America is the same system built in the United Kingdom. There the NHS has become the world’s third largest employer (UK total population: 61 million) behind only the Chinese Red Army (China total population: 1.34 billion) and the Indian Railroad (India total population: 1.17 billion). As in the UK, our government is building a voting block that will keep them in power, where their irrelevant “Republican” and “Democrat” squabbling will make many Americans feel like there is something important going on. When in reality these are nothing more than cousins having a family dispute. However, once the government controls over half the economy, it will be impossible to vote out those in power, as people will not vote for someone (or some party) they see as a threat to their livelihood, regardless of how moral or immoral they may be.

..

In 1961 Ronald Reagan spoken out against a battle to take away Americans’ freedoms. It was the same battle we fight this very day. He begins by quoting the six-time Socialist Party Presidential Norman Thomas:

“The American people [will] never vote for Socialism. But under the name of ‘Liberalism’ the American people will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program.”

Here are more of former President Reagan’s words on socialized medicine:

Last week Glenn Beck ran a special series of shows on the radio and FOX News asking honest questions. A summary of these shows is found here. Beck has also created a forum to comment on whether you agree with him or not here.

These are the questions:

Day 1

-  Can we survive this debt? If yes, how?

-  Why the rush on health care reform, cap-and-trade?

-  Who is writing these bills?

-  Will Washington read and understand the bills?

-  Why are you called “grassroots” if you are for, but “Astroturf” if you are against?

-  Our unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America?

-  We are in so much debt, why spend more borrowed money on cap-and-trade and health care programs before we stop the flow of red ink?

-  The stimulus package funneled billions of dollars to ACORN: How does giving billions of dollars to ACORN stimulate the economy?

-  If it was so important for Congress to pass the stimulus bill before they even had time to read it, why has only a fraction of the stimulus money been spent six months later?

-  Former President Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save them; how exactly does that work?

-  Why won’t member of Congress read the bills before they vote on them?

-  Why are citizens mocked and laughed at when they ask their congressman to read the bills before they vote on them?

-  Was the “cash for clunkers” program meant to save the Earth or the economy? Did it accomplish either?

-  How did Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist, become a special adviser to the president?

-  Did President Obama know of Van Jones’ radical political beliefs when he named him special adviser?

-  The Apollo Alliance claimed credit for writing the stimulus bill; why was this group allowed to write any portion of this bill?

-  If politicians aren’t writing the bills and aren’t reading the bills, do they have any idea what these 1,000-page plus bills actually impose on the American people?

-  If the “public option” health care plan is so good, why won’t politicians agree to have that as their plan?

-  If town hall meetings are intended for the politicians to learn what’s on our mind, why do they spend so much time talking instead of listening?

-  Politicians are refusing to attend town hall meetings complaining, without evidence, that they are scripted. Does that mean we shouldn’t come out and vote for you since every campaign stop, baby kiss and speech you give is scripted?

-  Why would you want to overwhelm the system?

-  Is using the economic crises to rush legislation through Congress what Rahm Emanuel meant when he talked about not letting a crisis go to waste?

-  What are the president’s “czars” paid? What is the budget for their staffs/offices?

Day 2

-  Who is “surrounding” the president in the White House?

-  Do any of the president’s advisers have criminal records?

-  Are the president’s advisers working to better the country or their own ideals?

-  Who are the anti-capitalists in Washington?

-  What role do they have in crafting bills?

-  What was “STORM”? What happened to the founders; where are they now?

-  What qualifications must one have to be a presidential adviser?

-  What is the difference between a community organizer and a community activist?

-  Do the “czars” have power?

-  Should a communist have the ear of the president of the United States?

-  What role did the Apollo Alliance play in crafting bills?

-  Does the president know the co-founder of the Weather Underground is a board member of the Apollo Alliance?

-  How many people in the administration are connected to the Movement for a Democratic Society?

-  What role does George Soros play… constitutionally?

Day 3

-  Why does the FCC have a diversity “czar”?

-  Who is Mark Lloyd and how does he plan to “balance” the airwaves?

-  Will he bring back the Fairness Doctrine or worse?

-  Cass Sunstein once said he wants to balance the Internet; is that next?

-  Will broadcasters who leave the airwaves be allowed to go to satellite or Internet without government regulation?

-  Is there any place (that has a mass audience) where the government wont regulate free speech?

-  Why does it seem every member of the Obama advisory team hates capitalism, unless those companies (like G.E.) are in bed with the administration?

If Lloyd has his way, stations who don’t comply to the governments definition of the “public interest” will have to pay a massive fine — that helps support public broadcasting:

-  What will be the definition of “public interest”?

-  Who defines “public interest”?

-  Why should it be balanced? Because it’s public airwaves? (Well, there are public roads that go by my house and I don’t count how many Republicans and Democrats are driving on them)

Day 4

-  Why do we need a civilian force?

-  Who is posing a threat to us?

-  Who will this “force” be made up of?

-  Who is the real enemy?

-  Does the president know of a coming event? If not, who builds an army against an unrecognized enemy?

-  Why won’t the media get off their butts and look into these radicals in the White House? And into this civilian army?

On 9-12-09 I will march on Washington DC with my wife and three small children because our freedom is worth fighting for!

Jefferson said in his day:

The advertisement is the most truthful part of a newspaper.

What would he say about today’s newspapers?

David Hedrick’s own words describing this video:

I, David William Hedrick, a member of the silent majority, decided that I was not going to be silent anymore. So, I let U.S. Congressman Brian Baird have it. I was one questioner out of 38, that was called at random from an audience that started at 3,000 earlier in the evening. Not expecting to be called on, I quickly scratched what I wanted to say on a borrowed piece of paper and with a pen that I borrowed from someone else in the audience minutes before I spoke. So much for the planned talking points of the right wing conspiracy.

This news report is from about one year ago from the Socialist Republic of Oregon.

After watching this from a “reporter” on a hard news program, not a commentary show such as Olbermann, can you ever take MSNBC seriously again?

This is sick. To blatantly cut the video to not show that the man carrying the gun is black and then to race bait? I truly do not know how these people live with themselves.

By the way, here is a picture of the “white” man holding the gun shown in the MSNBC video:

There is one basic reason that no one can agree about healthcare—the two “sides” are not arguing the same point.

This issue is much like the abortion debate. One position argues that life begins at conception and aborting a child is therefore killing. The other position argues that a woman has the right to choose to do whatever she wants with her body. The first argument is about the rights of the child, hence pro-life. The second argument is about the rights of the woman, hence pro-choice. However, neither side is arguing the same argument. Everyone supports life and choice. No one is pro-death or pro-force.

Our national healthcare debate has degenerated in the same way

For the most part, I believe the general public (large companies and organization are another issue altogether) on both sides of the issue are speaking the truth and are to some degree right and to some degree wrong when they accuse those of the opposite persuasion of spreading false information. Largely their views have been formed by reading and listening to information from the sources they trust, particularly their preferred media outlets, friends, and co-workers because almost every American has a job other than that of federal lawmaker, and therefore does not necessarily have time to read and understand a 1,000-plus page document written in lawyer-speak.

The healthcare bill (or bills, but it seems that HR 3200 is the primary version) probably does not literally say “there will be a panel deciding if person A receives treatment or dies”. There probably is no mention in the bill of care being “rationed” or of people with certain conditions being cut off from treatment entirely.

So those who say these things just are not in the bill are being truthful.

Those arguing against the healthcare bill are not arguing about what is literally written in its text. Their argument is more philosophical. It is the argument of what could happen in a government option system (call it a “public option”, “government sponsored co-op” or what you will; the semantics are irrelevant as it is all the same being government sponsored).

The first premise of people on this side of the issue is that a government-subsidized option would create unfair competition with the private insurance marketplace, driving private insurance nearly out of or entirely out of business. There are many vehicles with which the government can accomplish this that are completely within its power, but we will not get into them here.

So now those against the government option are thinking under the premise of the single-payer system (which President Obama himself has said he supports). There is plenty of evidence from Canada, the United Kingdom, and Europe as a whole that a single-payer system inevitably results in rationing with longer waiting periods for treatments, less scanning equipment available per patient, fewer ICU beds, and lower cancer survival rates.

Within this single-payer system, would there be literal death panels deciding the fate for each individual patient at some point? Probably not. Although, it is entirely reasonable that a board of doctors would work with a team of actuaries to build cost-benefit tables used in determining when administering a treatment is worthwhile and when it is not. Clearly, in Europe it is been decided on average that patients’ lives are less important than they are in the United States when compared to the higher cost of cancer treatments.

Differing cancers are the types of scenario where a “panel” of doctors would have previously created guidelines determining when it is treated and when it is “not worth it” to attempt to save a life. Essentially, this is a “panel” that defines the criteria governing the distribution of a treatment that could save a life or denying a treatment that will in all likelihood result in death. Thereby, we have come to a death panel. These doctors will never say “okay, time to pull the plug on grandma”. But they will create a guideline such as: “Any male over the age of X with cancer Y is too costly to treat,” even when there are effective treatments available. Hence, the panel of doctors who created this requirement effectively allows males fitting these criteria to die without potential life-saving treatment.

One position is arguing what is literally written in the bill. The other position is arguing what consequences would result from having a government-option. Within this climate of conflicting information and accusations, it is no wonder people are angry and confused.

The person who is third in line to be President has absolutely no integrity whatsoever. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is only interesting in political expediency.

I hope these are the people who will stand up and vote the speaker out.

You probably missed it—most of us did—last Friday Timothy Geithner was on Capitol Hill asking to increase the “$12.1 trillion debt limit by an unspecified amount”.

It is interesting at this time that Geithner is looking have the debt ceiling increased and even more curious that he did it on Friday, the day when news goes to die. Why does he want this request to remain obscure?

We know the additional debt is not for the “stimulus”. That is why Obama had to tug really really hard (read: payoff through extra funds diverted to their states) on the arms of those “fiscally responsible Republicans” from Maine and Arlen Specter, whose “party” affiliation depends on what will do more for him personally in the current election cycle, to convince them to vote for the “stimulus”. He had to convince them because he needed 60 votes to raise the national debt ceiling then.

So there must be something else going on that would cause Geithner and the White House to be concerned that the debt ceiling must be increased further. Unless there is yet another spending bill in the works that we are not aware of, this request seems to be in anticipation of socialized healthcare.

It is true that the bill isn’t supposed to go into effect for several years. However, there almost certainly will be a build up in bringing on all the new bureaucrats and administrators to operate such a plan. I’m certain that due to all of the planning that must be done, it would constitute an emergency that hundreds of administrators must start immediately!

But I thought the President said his healthcare plan would mostly be funded by “efficiencies” that his plan created? I don’t know about you, but I trust someone’s actions above their words.

Then again, this is all speculation. Maybe the money is to pay outrageous salaries to the droves of unconstitutional Obama cronies we know as “czars”. Though with such fine leaders, like avowed communist Van Jones, maybe the czars are working for free. You know, for the good of the people.

However, there is one other current policy that Obama needs to fund.

He needs to pay O’Brien.

Now that the federal government is openly forming the thought police, it won’t be cheap to sort through all those darn flagged not agreeing with The Party right-wing nutjob hating talking point regurgitating robots.

So please, for your own sake, flag this post. Because, for all you know the Ministry of Truth is monitoring your computer right now and I am clearly a thought criminal.

Sheila Jackson-Lee is almost as ridiculous as the “honorable” Congressman David Scott from my home state of Georgia. Sheila Jackson-Lee and David Scott are embarrassments to Texas, Georgia, and the United States of America.

I hope the constituents of Texas’ 18th district and Georgia’s 13th district have the courage to vote out fire such disrespectful non-representatives.

Last night I tweeted this (tweeted, that does sound really stupid). I think we all forget at times what we recited as a child in school. There is real meaning here.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one Nation under GOD, indivisible, with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all.

Our government system was defined by our founders as a republic, not a democracy. We were founded as a nation under God, using his natural laws as the basis for our laws. Our states are not like European nation-states. Ours are indivisible. Yet our system was created such that the states were to hold most of the power. James Madison wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. . . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Today, politicians from both sides of the aisle are making every attempt for the states to become beholden to the federal government. In many cases they have been successful, as we the people have allowed them to slowly chip away at our right to govern ourselves locally. Every state takes federal money with strings attached. Strings that we the people did not agree to, yet they are attached to our money. Further, it seems every multi-billion and multi-trillion dollar bill proposed or passed over the past year has been labeled an “emergency”, or what Madison would have called outside “the ordinary course of affairs”.

One simple example is the supposed “stimulus” package. We were told it was an emergency, that the economy would come crashing down if we didn’t pass it today. However, with less than 20% of it spent, economists are now saying we are either nearly out of the recession or out of the recession entirely.

All of the healthcare proposals are from the same vein. There is no emergency, just a pretended one, purported by politicians and promoted endlessly by the media.

Give us our freedom back. We the people are who should by free to define where our money should be spent, not the crooks in Washington. Real healthcare reform would entail less regulation to create downward competition on cost. Real honesty from politicians would demand repealing the rest of the “stimulus” bill.

“Justice,” the final point I highlighted in The Pledge of Allegiance, is blind. It is as God is because the principle comes from God. Justice is “no respecter of persons”. Social justice, also a creation of politicians for power, is an oxymoron because it places one part of society above another.

Let us remember the principles our country was founded on and fight vigorously to uphold those principles. It is no accident that our constitution, our country, and our people have stood for so long. It is my belief that though us, the people, our country through our freedom will stand until the end of time. But we must stand up and fight for our founding principles.

Sarah Palin responded last night to President Obama concerning the “Death Panels”. Here is her insightful response:

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore….It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.” [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives…. It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen … should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obama-addresses-sarah-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.
[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].
[7] Id.
[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].
[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.

The former Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson speaks in 1966 on the transformation of our nation.

I have a friend who is a third year medical student. His view on providing government-run “free” healthcare is that is makes sense if people follow a few lifestyle best practices that address the root cause of most medical problems.

The basic rules of his “dream plan”:
-You don’t smoke
-You don’t do drugs
-You don’t drink to excess
-You don’t participate in risky sex behaviors
-You have a BMI less than 30
-You exercise at least 30 minutes each day

The patient’s ability to keep these best practices would be monitored as part of a free care contract signed by the patient. Each benefactor would have to undergo annual screenings to see if they continued to qualify for free care. If they broke any of these rules then they would have to start paying for their plan for the following year. Anyone who does not meet the criteria will pay for their healthcare until they qualify at their next annual checkup by meeting all of the requirements.

The primary purpose of this plan is patient-driven preventative lifestyle change, since most medical problems seen each day in the doctor’s office are related in some shape or fashion to the plan’s stipulations. This is not discriminatory for people that don’t qualify immediately because anyone can qualify if they choose to make lifestyle changes. You don’t need money to quit doing things or to run around the block a few times every day.

Ideally those who qualify for the free care will be the ones who spend the least amount of public dollars on health care since they are healthy by virtue of avoiding all those things that cause chronic, debilitating disease. The plan would also encourage those who are not living a healthy lifestyle to change, since they will essentially be paid to do so.

If it had to happen, this seems to make sense. However, the greater issue in the healthcare debate is about choice. Once the government becomes involved, it will eventually crowd out all private industry and force its morality upon us.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the health-policy advisor at the Office of Management and Budget, member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, and brother of Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel, is an Obama healthcare advisor. He has written:

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years

Or in graphical form, this is the “Complete Lives System” that Dr. Emanuel advocates:

The amount of resources or medical expenditures that your life is worth is dependent wholly upon your age. At some point, you will simply be medicated until you die off. Why the AARP is promoting this plan, though strangely without “officially” supporting it (while the President apparently believes they do), is beyond me.

President Obama’s advisers think their opinions on human life are superior to ours. I am willing only to give credence for that opinion to God, who we know is, “no respecter of persons.” Please keep your hand off of my healthcare and my life decisions.

HT: Pearl Diver

Also, please check out Beetle Blogger’s “Carbon Footprint of a Child“.

I could be somewhere else. I don’t get any extra pay. I don’t have any requirement to be here.

Because, you know, that $174,000 per year he makes, plus one of best, if not the best, healthcare plans in existence that is his for life, and a retirement at around 80%, or $140,000, per year for life sure means he needs “extra pay” to speak with those he represents.

The video is here.

Recently, Representative Nathan Deal, who represents a district in my home state of Georgia (unfortunately so does David Scott), asked the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office for an “analysis of the budgetary effects of proposals to expand governmental support for preventive medical care and wellness services”.

Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director of the CBO, provided the requested analysis in a letter on Friday to Congressman Deal.

Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.

That result may seem counterintuitive. For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending—for that individual. But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. . . . Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness.

It really should come as no surprise that when something is seen as “free” that demand skyrockets. In this case, since preventative care would be “free”, far more people seek it when it is likely not necessary in all cases.

Though I have never believed that the government could “save” money doing much of anything, this is a significant blow to their position on healthcare. But will anyone in America pay attention? Or will they continue to lap up everything “The One” preaches to them?

Watch the video here on my blogger site.

If you haven’t seen the latest Democratic National Committee web ad, you need to watch it.

This ridiculous pack of lies calling people practicing their right to free speech “the mob” reminds me of what a wise man once said:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Speaking freely is apparently now ‘Un-American’, or so Nancy Pelosi believes, unless, of course, you agree with her.

The Washington Examiner’s Nate Beeler has captured this attitude well:

..

Just in case you missed it over the weekend, Obama’s thought police hit the streets in St. Louis. They were wearing blue shirts with the letters “SEIU”.

You can see it here on video. But before you watch, be forewarned that there is strong language. I would not normally post something with this language, but this is an extremely significant political event.

So a black man is assaulted at politically charged and divisive rally. Where are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the gang? Oh, right. Being black only counts if you’re a liberal.

As for those arrested, I expect the same treatment the black panthers received after intimidating voters with weapons at the door of a Philadelphia polling place earlier this year.

Politicians for quite a long time have been building their own small kingdoms. Members of Congress have a base salary more than 3.5 times the average American’s salary. They have kept their lordships by convincing us that today their party is better than the other one and all other parties are irrelevant, or that by voting for any other party you are “throwing your vote away”.

Now the principles of freedom put in place by our founding fathers are in greater question than ever before because those in Congress elected to represent us are no longer interested in representing us, they are only interested in protecting their lordships that are ultimately backed by their parties and their parties’ war chests. This money is designed as incentive to re-elect loyal party followers and to fight against those that do not side with the party, such as what happened to Joe Lieberman for supporting the war in Iraq.

Our representatives should actually represent us and our values, not a party and its values. The only purpose of a political party is to acquire power, accomplished through helping its minions become elected. I want an Independent that represents me and is not pressured to vote how a national party wants them to vote.

Concerning public service, Ben Franklin taught at the constitutional convention that:

There are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many mind the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men a post of honor, that shall at the same time be a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it.

If they will move heaven and earth to be elected, and they do, we are merely insignificant annoyances to them.

The time has come to see through the Republicans and Democrats for what they are-unprincipled groups seeking to please the largest possible segment to continually be re-elected and maintain their power, without a firm foundation or actual standards.

The time has come to stop voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Rather, we must stand for something; we must elect people whose values are compatible with ours. If there is no such person available, now is the time for us to run.

The time has come to stop throwing away our votes after someone because of the “R” or “D” next to their name.

If your representative voted for the TARP corporate welfare package, the “stimulus” pork package, the cap and trade energy tax, or the coming health care bill designed to eventually socialize one-seventh of our economy, they must go. It’s not one party or the other that have caused the problems. The foundation has been laid over the past century. George Bush and the Republicans built a room and Barack Obama and the Democrats are adding on a mansion.

What will the structure of America be for our children? It is up to us.

The AARP held what it called a “listening” meeting with its members two days ago in Dallas. However, the AARP representative chose to not pay any attention to what the members’ concerns actually were!

The AARP is absolutely insane in supporting government-run healthcare. It makes absolutely no sense. Somewhere around 50% of a person’s healthcare expenses occur in the last year of their life and most people die when they are old. This the the first thing that will be attacked. When heathcare is free, rationing will ensue. The easiest way to get the most value when rationing is to stop caring for the elderly.

I think our elders know something. We should actually listen to them.

HT: Malkin.

This video pretty well sums it up.

Then the White House lies and tries to deny what the President and other members of his party have said!

Is there no integrity left in America? Maybe there is, but there’s none at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

It only takes about four minutes for this vicious slaying, complete with the ghoulish sound of metal on metal, to be complete.

Next, Science Czar John Holdren will offer cash for babies he deems to be clunkers.

Kathleen Sebelius tried to avoid the question on why the legislation directly affecting our lives is not being read by our “representatives,” hoping the question would go away. Apparently she forgot about the non-”stimulus” debacle. However, Arlen Specter didn’t let it go there. He still had to jump in to claim that “we have to make judgments very fast”.

I think I missed the part of the constitution declaring lawmaking a race.

by Michael Ramirez, via Investor’s Business Daily

This morning I was doing some reading and came across this prediction of what it would be like to live in this day and age made many, many years ago.

[Society] shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.

I don’t think I could describe the state of the human race today any more accurately, and I live in it!

The best part is how Michelle used every last second of the segment leaving Matt flustered and angry that he can’t respond to her factual argument with some feel-good liberal meaningless rant.

.

Recently when visiting an inefficient government office, my wife saw this poster:

Fortunately, she didn’t let the looks she was getting, where people seemed to scream with all the color in their eyes “why is there a crazy person taking a picture of the poster on the wall?” stop her from capturing this image.

“Food Stamps Make America Stronger,” a poster brought to you by the United States Department of Agriculture. Of course they had to have a small, cute, little girl in the picture as if to say, “it’s for the children, and you don’t want to hurt children like me, do you?”

This poster makes me sick. No, it infuriates me. People don’t improve their lives when given handouts, they come back for another handout followed by another and another and another.

People’s lives improve when they learn to do for themselves, when they learn to be industrious, thrifty, and to live within their means.

Institutionalized handouts teach people to be lazy. They make America weaker, as people become less self-reliant. The only people who gain strength from government handouts are those in the government who justify their pathetic existence by supposedly helping the poor, when in reality they are exploiting those in poverty, teaching them to come back with looking for another handout so their “jobs” are not only secure but more “jobs” are created.

This USDA poster is not something suddenly created once the new administration took office. Rather, this country has been moving down the path toward Socialism for years. George W. Bush hit the accelerator with the prescription drug handout and opened the flood gates with the TARP handout. Barack Obama is staging a full social coup, attempting to make all of industry and the general public reliant on government. He claims we would become literally and figuratively more healthy.

I’m sorry Mr. President. Government does not make America stronger. Stop selling us these lies. More government only makes you and the ruling class of career politicians, political cronies, and government employees more powerful.

Americans make America stronger. Provide a common defense for us and otherwise GET OUT OF OUR LIVES!

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxEUATS8bx8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0×999999]

We continue to see no effect or a negative effect resulting from President Obama’s supposed “emergency” bill, the alleged “stimulus”.

Source: Innocent Bystanders.

This morning the Supreme Court has validated what most Americans such you and I believe, and what Sonia Sotomayor does not–that racism is wrong. It has reversed the lower court ruling on Ricci v. DeStefano, a case where White and Hispanic firefighters were denied promotions earned through passing the promotional test because no Black firefighters passed the test.

You may remember that Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters who were denied promotion as an appellate court judge. Now she is likely to sit on the Supreme Court to espouse her view of the world, where lady justice’s blindfold has been torn from her face and ripped to shreds. Lucky us.

I think Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw nailed it in Sunday’s New York Times. You should read the entire article. However, for your convenience, I’ve provided snippets after the jump.

In the debate over health care reform, one issue looms large: whether to have a public option. Should all Americans have the opportunity to sign up for government-run health insurance?

President Obama has made his own preferences clear. In a letter to Senators Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Max Baucus of Montana, the chairmen of two key Senate committees, he wrote: “I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.”

Even if one accepts the president’s broader goals of wider access to health care and cost containment, his economic logic regarding the public option is hard to follow. Consumer choice and honest competition are indeed the foundation of a successful market system, but they are usually achieved without a public provider. We don’t need government-run grocery stores or government-run gas stations to ensure that Americans can buy food and fuel at reasonable prices.

An important question about any public provider of health insurance is whether it would have access to taxpayer funds. If not, the public plan would have to stand on its own financially, as private plans do, covering all expenses with premiums from those who signed up for it.

But if such a plan were desirable and feasible, nothing would stop someone from setting it up right now. In essence, a public plan without taxpayer support would be yet another nonprofit company offering health insurance. . . .

In practice, however, if a public option is available, it will probably enjoy taxpayer subsidies. . . .

Explicit or implicit subsidies would prevent a public plan from providing honest competition for private suppliers of health insurance. Instead, the public plan would likely undercut private firms and get an undue share of the market.

President Obama might not be disappointed if that turned out to be the case. During the presidential campaign, he said, “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system.”

We all know where this is going. It’s time to rise up against Congress. Vote ‘em all out. Fire all 435 of them. All of them. Let’s hire/elect people who actually have some common sense, believe in what you believe in, and vote the way you would have them vote.