Whether you call it an iceberg or a torpedo, ObamaCare just struck something or vice versa and it doesn’t look good. The ship is taking on water and you can hear the orchestra tuning up as they rearrange the deck chairs.
Massachusetts
In an article titled, “An Article of Faith,” Charles M. Blow of the New York Times explains about Obama and Health Care. I am glad he took the time to set down the statist’s case. It much easier to expose them when they step into the sunlight.
“The Apostles of Anger {that’s us} in their echo chamber of fallacies have branded him the enemy. This has now become an article of faith. Obama isn’t just the enemy of small government and national solvency. He’s the enemy of liberty.”
Enemy, noun, persons that are hostile to one another.
Sounds like Mr. Blow is onto something there. Let’s see poll after poll has the American people opposed to ObamaCare by around 55% to 60%. President Obama shows his hostility to the American people by saying he doesn’t care what they think, he, President Obama, knows what’s best for them and will ram this thing through by gimmicks such as reconciliation rather than the normal approval process. Yes, I guess that makes him an enemy, but it was accomplished through his own actions, not by talk radio or Fox News.
Liberty, noun, freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
Again, it looks like Mr. Blow nails it. We have the government under ObamaCare telling us we have to buy insurance or pay a tax or go to jail for non-payment of taxes. Sounds pretty arbitrary and despotic to me. So President Obama has decided to act in a way that makes us his enemy. I guess Mr. Blow is trying to say we are to be faulted for recognizing it?
“This underscores the current fight for the soul of this country. It’s not just a tug of war between left and right. It’s a struggle between the mind and the heart, between evidence and emotions, between reason and anger, between what we know and what we believe.”
Uh-oh, here it comes folks the statist is about to point out how stupid we are for not going along like sheep to slaughter. Notice the word order first it’s left then right. If you follow that order Mr. Blow is trying to say that the left stands for the mind, the evidence, reason and what we know, while the right stands for heart, emotions, anger, and beliefs. I am sure Mr. Blow will now use his superior intellect to explain this all to us knuckle dragging troglodytes.
“This conflict was captured in a tit-for-tat between Obama and Rush Limbaugh. In an interview with CBS this week, Obama complained about the “vitriol” coming from the likes of Limbaugh: ‘I think the vast majority of Americans know that we’re trying hard, that I want what’s best for the country.’
“Limbaugh shot back on Friday, “I and most Americans do not believe President Obama is trying to do what’s best for the country.”
That’s pretty weak. So despite 55% to 60% of the American people, for months on end, saying or should I say screaming NO! this is not what we want, Mr. Obama is saying as if to a small child, “There, there now, take your medicine, I know what’s best for you.” Where Mr. Limbaugh is humble enough not to claim god-like omniscience that he knows what people think, just that based on his observations of the polls, what he believes they think. It sounds like Mr. Blow is making a case for Mr. Obama being the most arrogant president in our history. Please continue.
“And there it was. Obama’s language focused on what people “know,” or should know. He seems to find comfort in the empirical nature of knowledge. It’s logical. Limbaugh’s language focused on what he thinks people “believe.” Beliefs are a more complicated blend of facts, or lies, and faith. And, they can exist beyond the realm of the rational.”
Really? Is Mr. Blow serious? Does he believe this or does he know this? Of what knowledge are you speaking Mr. Blow, in which President Obama takes warm comfort? Is it the empirical knowledge that estimates of what Medicare would cost when it was passed turned out to be understated by 700%? Is it the empirical knowledge that the model for ObamaCare up in Massachusetts has not stopped costs from increasing and health care is being rationed? Of course, when Mr. Blow speaks of the right and their beliefs he has to work “lies” into the formula of the “complicated blend of facts, lies and faith.”
“According to another Quinnipiac poll released last week, Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to say that they follow public affairs most of the time. But how? They listen to people like Limbaugh, and they’re more likely than others to watch Fox News.”
Let me call your Quinnipiac poll and raise you one. In its daily poll on the president Rasmussen finds that while 53% of likely voters disapprove of the job President Obama is doing, 55% of the media write favorable articles about him and that is on a downward trend! So if people want the truth, who should they turn to for their news, the New York Times perhaps? I think your article just answered that question.
“But invectives are not information. For example, a poll released on Wednesday by the Pew Research Center found that most Republicans say that they still don’t understand how the new health care reform will affect them and their family.”
Republicans still don’t understand??? Nobody understands it, Mr. Blow, because nobody read it before it passed Congress. At over 2,500 pages, if you did nothing else but read the bill in the seventy two hours it was posted in the internet, it is not likely you could have read it. No sleeping, no eating, no lavatory breaks, just three straight days of reading it and you would be hard pressed to get all the way through. Since you are such a fan of empirical evidence, when major companies announced billions in write-offs because of the bill and the legal requirement to so report, Congressman Henry Waxman appeared shocked and called for hearings. When Congressman Anthony Weiner said the IRS would not be checking on whether or not you had health insurance, he couldn’t explain why the law funds 16,000 more IRS agents. This circus is only starting my friend.
And so, my fellow imbeciles, Mr. Blow has spoken with a scathingly inept defense of all things Obama, making the case for a strong turnout at the Tea Parties on April 15 at the very same time. If you want to know the news watch Fox, if you believe you want to house train your dog, get the New York Times.
As President Obama said while campaigning to be President of the United States, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig!” How true. Yesterday President Obama reached for the lipstick to dab on four proposals suggested by the Republicans to the massive pig of a health care proposal clinging to life. The four proposals are:
- Use undercover medical professionals to conduct investigations to fight waste and fraud in Medicare, Medicaid and other Federal programs.
- “Demonstrations of Alternatives” to the current malpractice mess.
- Increasing doctor reimbursement for Medicare.
- Expanding Heath Savings Accounts (HSA).
The pig smiled. She thought she looked beautiful. Just don’t try to put a bikini on her because, as President Obama famously said, she’s still a pig. Let’s look at the President’s magnanimous attempt at bipartisanship in detail.
1) Undercover Medical Professionals to Uncover Fraud
It is estimated that somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion is lost or stolen each year from Medicare and Medicaid. This program has been in place for 40 years. If those numbers are consistent over that period, that’s $4 TRILLION. Gone. Stolen from you and me. How much better shape would we be in if we had that money back? That’s government efficiency for you.
The President of the United States is the chief law enforcement officer in the country. The amount of Medicaid and Medicare losses each year are four times the entire budget of the Department of Justice. How’s this for a proposal? Create a Medicare/Medicaid fraud unit within the FBI and fund it so that we can stop these losses. If you stop the fraud, it’s free money. What you save in fraud should more than pay for the FBI funding. Why take medical professionals and give them law enforcement duties. Are you going to ask police to operate on you? Mr. President it’s your job to enforce the laws and prevent this widespread fraud. You don’t need a new act of Congress. Just Do It!
2) Tort Reform –No; “Demonstrations of Alternatives” — Yes
Trial lawyers are one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party. Do you think such “Demonstrations of Alternatives” will amount to anything other than hush money? “Shut up , we’re looking into tort reform.” The counter argument is that Americans have a right to their day in court when they have been injured. True enough, and I am reluctant to arbitrarily limit their awards through a fixed dollar limit. I would take aim squarely at the lawyers.
John Edwards, one-time Senator and presidential candidate, was involved in about 63 cases as a personal injury attorney and amassed a fortune of about $70 million. In one particular case, he stood before the jury and took on the persona of a child in the womb crying out for oxygen to appeal to the emotions of the jury and win the case. Oddly enough he voted against a ban on partial birth abortion. Gee, in the once case it’s a child who can actually speak while still in the womb! But on the other hand it is just a mass of tissue at birth that can be disposed of with the trash. We have learned a lot about the moral character of John Edwards. He is the poster boy for the old joke, “How do you know a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.”
Here is a simple solution to tort reform. Fixed fees for attorneys and loser pays. The lawyers should set their hourly rate and bill according to hours worked, not how much they can squeeze out of the jury. The award should be for the benefit of the injured party, not the lawyer. The second part is to prevent frivolous lawsuits. The loser pays the legal fees of the winner. The argument here will be that the tables will be turned and no one will sue corporations for damages because of the risk of paying their legal fees. Right now lawyers are running a lottery fishing for lawsuits of any kind because they know that most corporations will settle for less than it would cost to defend the suit, even if they know they are right. All customers of that corporation pay more for their products (e.g., drugs, medical devices) and the lawyer gets rich. I am sure that if such a proposal as this gets passed a new market for “legal fee insurance” will open up where a plaintiff with a strong case can buy insurance to cover the cost of the other sides legal fees if they do lose.
3) Increasing Doctor Reimbursement for Medicare
So much for bending the cost curve down. The real way to curtail spending on health care is to eliminate 3rd party payers. (see It can be done).
4) Increase Health Savings Accounts
These plans exist today, however, they are not all available across state lines (see It can be done). I had such a plan in New York while employed by a company, but when I went out on my own I could not buy the same plan in New York State. We don’t need ObamaCare, we just need states to allow these plans to exist within their borders or allow individuals to buy across state lines.
The Pig Lives!
Three of the four Republican proposals that President Obama likes don’t cost anything. But he $1 trillion to $2 trillion health care catastrophe is still alive and until we slay that beast and start over we will go from a serious health care problem to a fiscal crisis and end up with both. If you don’t believe me, read how the model for ObamaCare is working in Massachusetts.
The Incumbent Protection Act, aka McCain-Feingold, took a big hit yesterday from the Supreme Court. It is particularly timely with so many incumbents nervously eying the exits. The McCain-Feingold bill prohibited corporations and unions from “electioneering communications” within in 30 days of a primary, or 60 days of a general election. Those time limits probably match pretty nicely with when most people start paying close attention to elections. So if this kind of communication is cut off, who is left with the power of name recognition? That’s right, the incumbent and that is probably why 90% of incumbents are re-elected.
Outrage on the Left
President Obama immediately came out swinging saying it was a victory for “big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, and other special interests.” He somehow overlooked the SEIU union whose president topped the list of visitors to the White House. Unions will have unfettered communications as well. Chuck Schumer promises hearings and the Naderite Public Citizen group is proposing a constitutional amendment banning free speech for “for-profit” corporations. I’ll give you a moment to ponder that; a constitutional amendment to eviscerate the First Amendment.
The Momentum is Building
On April 15 it will be the first anniversary of the Tea Parties that were held across the country. Let’s raise a cup of tea, that the Ship of Liberty that was foundering on the rocks may at last be turning it’s guns on the enemy and turning the tide of battle. Virginia, New Jersey, a close loss in NY23, Massachusetts, the First Amendment, the momentum is building. But let’s not forget the words of Churchill:
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. — Winston Churchill
Don’t let up until we have our country back.
Has President Obama lost the one skill he has relied upon so heavily? Has the magic oratory suddenly gone leaden as indicated by his campaign speech for Martha Coakley?
“Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts but the mood around the country — the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office,” Mr. Obama said. “People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.” — New York Times, “Obama Trying to Turn Around his Presidency.” – 1/21/2010
Really? “…what’s happened over the last eight years.” Is he kidding me? Does he not remember that Bush was reelected four years ago. Is this just one more elitist swipe at the “stupid” American people who are so dumb that they don’t even know things are bad for four years such that they reelect their president? When is he going to get off the campaign trail and start governing? When, with one-fourth of his term over, is he going to realize this is his gig now, and stop crying about Bush? The anti-Bush attacks against Scott Brown by Coakley in the closing days of the campaign fell flat. That doesn’t work anymore. This isn’t about the last eight years, but about the last twelve months. The American people are sick of the Democrats trying to spend us into oblivion.
It seems that he may be betting the ranch on the State of the Union address, which runs the risk of Obama fatigue. President Obama seems to confuse speeches with leadership. Coming into office with zero executive experience, he let the inmates (Pelosi and Reid) run the asylum. With the election of Scott Brown, Reid just lost his iron grip and Pelosi may not be far behind. So what does Obama do? Give another speech? He has given more speeches than any president in memory, but there is time for talk and time for action. But he seems to avoid holding another press conference as the fawning press may be finding its backbone and he doesn’t have an answer for his C-Span promises on the health care debate.
Boxed In
Reid is losing control of the Senate. He no longer has a filibuster proof majority and he will probably not get reelected. He is one very lame duck. Many of Pelosi’s party in the House see Brown’s stunning victory as a major wake up call. Any Democrat in the House who is not planning on retiring, will not be eager to sign on to any more far left government takeovers. So without Reid and Pelosi setting his agenda, and him still stuck in the anti-Bush mode, what can he do? As charming as he may be, he promised bipartisanship but really wasn’t serious about it, he hasn’t cultivated any relationships with conservatives. As Dennis Miller put it on O’Reilly last night, “I hope he’s an ideologue. If not, it means we have a dolt in the White House.”
President Obama has to realize that the job entails more than him just strutting and fretting his hour upon the stage, and get down to work and that means following Clinton’s lead and working with the Republicans. There are a lot of ways to improve Health Care without spending a trillion dollars (e.g., tort reform), stop bashing business when you need business to create jobs, drop cap and trade to fix global warming when oranges are freezing in Florida.
His inexperience continues to glow brightly. He better figure out what the job entails, quickly, and get busy with it. The referee just fired the gun signaling the end of the first quarter and Team Obama looks dazed and confused. Not a good sign, sports fans.
If you live in New York, you will regularly hear the admonition, “If you see something, say something.” The idea being that the more people who are on the lookout for solitary packages in a crowded railway station, people behaving erratically, and reporting it, the safer we will be. Makes sense. Just be careful not to malign any followers of Islam. What?
In addition to that public service message you also hear other stories in the news. A Muslim cab driver refuses to pick up a fare because they are carrying a recent purchase from a liquor store. The cab driver’s religion is against drinking. At a public university in Minnesota a coffee cart is prohibited from playing Christmas carols, but public funds are used to construct foot baths so that Muslims can properly prepare for prayer. At an airport, security personnel cannot ask someone in line to step out for a closer search because they already pulled out two other Muslim young men and they didn’t want to be accused of racial profiling.
The Facts, Ma’am, Just the Facts
Joe Friday, where are you when we need you? The fictional detective was obsessive in sticking to the facts. Fact: not all Muslims are terrorists. Fact: almost all terrorists you see in the news are Muslims. So if you are on the lookout for terrorists, who should you look at? eighty year old Italian grandmothers or Middle Eastern men between the ages of 20-40?
Fort Hood
People around Major Nidal Malik Hasan, saw something and said something and were basically told…SHUT UP! Apparently diversity is more precious than human life. Taking extreme care not to offend, trumps taking steps to prevent a massacre. There appears to have been abundant evidence that Hasan was ticking time bomb and some spoke out about it, but our sensitivities to giving offence have turned reason inside out.
We have a sub-group of a religion who actively advocate killing all non-members, that is, infidels, and we are scared to death of offending them. Our liberal friends go out of their way to demand we all accommodate them. We can criticize all religions but theirs; we can have dress codes, but must make allowances for their dress; if their religion allows a parent to kill a child for converting to Christianity, we must not interfere, but if a non-Muslim parent neglects to buckle a child into a car seat for a quarter mile journey to the grocery store, bring them up on charges of child neglect.
Jumping to Conclusions
Our Commander-in-Chief cautions us not to rush to judgment by calling this an act of terrorism. Wasn’t this the same Commander-in-Chief who spoke from the White House calling a certain police department in Cambridge, Massachusetts stupid without a clue about what happened.
Political correctness, multiculturalism, an emasculated fourth estate, President Obama’s worldwide apology tour, strong arming a small Central American country, Honduras, because they followed their constitution and instead calling it a coup, all point to an embarrassing campaign by the left to drag down our country.
Please don’t try to make us like the rest of the world. We are greater than that. If you prefer the way the rest of the world behaves, move there. Don’t try to make the shining city on the hill, a city run amok.
It’s simple really. If the world really believed that America is such a terrible place, why do we have an immigration problem? Why do our universities teem with foreign students? Why, whenever there is a flare-up in the world, do all eyes turn to the good old USA to see what we are going to do about it? Where’s Ronald Reagan when you need him?
If anyone thinks that Sarah Palin is beaten and is about to become a footnote in history, I would say to them, “don’t bet the rent on it.” In her address where she announced she was stepping down, she used a basketball analogy. After all, it was on the basketball court where she got the name “Sarah Barracuda.” She said what a good point guard does when facing a full court press is protect the ball, keep her head up with her eyes on the basket and she passes off at the right opportunity. What she didn’t say was what happens next. If anyone who watched Michael Jordan play knows, after passing off they don’t go sit on the bench. They maneuver into position to make the big play and if you take your eye off of them, they’ll kill you every time.
The Full Court Press
In the last year Sarah Palin has been hit with eighteen ethics complaints. Her record so far in these complaints is 15-0, with three still pending. The results of these complaints have been a lot of needless time and money spent by state employees investigating these complaints and clearing her name every time. The concern she expressed yesterday is that these are a distraction, a waste of state time and money robbing the people of Alaska of the limited government they deserve and it is also costing her family a fortune to defend. As you can see below, one of the ethics complaints is that she is raising money to pay her legal fees. So the full court press is throw every frivolous ethics complaint you can at her, complain if she tries to raise money to defend herself, bankrupt her if you can, and later you can complain that she spent too much time on these issues rather than on state business. Here is a summary of the complaints:
- Troopergate — this one is the well known case where a state employee was fired for not doing his job. It also involved her sister’s ex-husband. The firing was deemed lawful.
- Palin was accused of helping someone get a job in state government. I’m shocked, shocked that someone in politics actually helped someone get a job. Complaint dismissed by state personnel board.
- Palin was accused of taking a public position on a mining ballot initiative days before the vote. Wow, she actually took a position. How refreshing for a politician. Any issue about it taking place within days of a vote is our misguided “campaign finance reforms” that curtail our First Amendment rights in the name of better government. Complaint rejected by the Alaska Public Public Offices Commission.
- Palin filed “self disclosure” to get the Troopergate issue resolved once and for all.
- Complaint filed by employee union over the firing of Mike Wooton, the trooper in Troopergate. Complaint dismissed.
- Monagan, the individual fired in the Troopergate ethics complaint against Palin asked for a hearing to clear his name. The panel said there was no legal basis or jurisdiction for such a hearing.
- Complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission about the $150,000 the Republican Party spent for her wardrobe. FEC said the expenditure was not banned.
- Palin charged with abuse of power for charging the state when her children traveled with her. The personnel board found no wrongdoing. Palin agreed to pay $10,000 to the state to cover the costs.
- Palin was accused of conducting an interview in the Governor’s office about the Vice Presidential campaign. Complaint dismissed by the state personnel board. I guess she should have conducted the interview outside. Let’s see, November in Alaska outside, perfect!
- Palin accused of violating ethics law for campaigning for Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss. Dismissed by state personnel board.
- Complaint that Palin misused funds of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute to promote her political ambitions by using advertisements featuring her. Her crime was that she allowed the board to use her image and did so before she was picked by John McCain. Complaint dismissed after a personnel board investigation.
- Complaint alleging interference in job hiring by an individual whose identity could never be verified. The name used was that of a character in a British soap opera. Palin’s attorney said that no one in the state of Alaska could be found with that name and the filer refused to use a real name so the case was dropped.
- This and 14 allege that two employees on Palin’s staff worked on state time to help Palin before and after her Vice Presidential campaign. This complaint is still pending.
- Same as 13 covering the other employee. Pending.
- Complaint Palin improperly used state property, time and equipment for partisan political purposes, including posting on the Governor’s web site that she was running for Vice President. Dismissed as lacking merit by the state personnel board.
- Palin accused of a conflict of interest because she wore clothing with an “Arctic Cat” logo on it because Arctic Cat sponsored her husband’s team. Dismissed.
- Complaint alleged that Palin’s work with a PAC violated ethics laws by misusing her position and accepting outside employment. Dismissed as lacking merit by the state personnel board.
- Complaint alleging Palin is misusing the governor’s office for personal gain by accepting money from the Alaska Fund Trust. The fund was established by supporters to help Palin defray her $500,000 in legal bills run up by fighting all these ethics claims she keeps winning. Brilliant strategy. Hit her with baseless ethics claims and then fight her ability to pay her bills. This is still pending.
Add to this the personal attacks by the likes of David Letterman, the recent Vanity Fair article and her enemies standing at the ready to file ethics complaints every time she tries to defend herself, let’s her opponents set the agenda. If allowed unchecked for the next three years, no one could recover from that. On top of that is her personal focus to do what is best for her state. She does not want to waste state money and time on dealing with ethics complaints rather than governing, but these complaints have to be dealt with and they seem to be coming at a rate of about one every three weeks. She defeats everyone of them but it is a drain.
An Unconventional Move
The pundits are saying this is the end of her career. But let’s look at this.
- By stepping down, the ethics complaints will stop.
- The people of Alaska can have a government that is not wasting time on these issues.
- Her legal bills will stop climbing
- She can probably make $50,000 to $100,000 per speech on the speaking circuit and quickly pay off her legal bills
- She can hit the campaign trail for Congressional and Senate candidates in 2010. She is still very popular and a very successful fund raiser. This will pile up political IOUs for 2012
- She can speak out forcefully against the reckless policies of the Obama administration, raising her profile without complaint (ethics and otherwise) that she is neglecting her state duties.
- She can work on burnishing her foreign policy credentials. Remember she was only on the campaign trail for about 60+ days, trying to get in sync with John McCain’s positions while being mishandled by his staff. Now she can stake out her own positions, carefully and thoughtfully
Is this a risky move? Sure. But to continue the basketball analogy, how conventional was Michael Jordan’s style of play? He did things that no one ever saw coming.
The 2012 Campaign
Some pundits are saying that Mitt Romney probably can’t stop pinching himself with his new found good fortune. Is that premature? After all, he and Sarah Palin are basically in the same position. They are both former governors. Yes, it can be said that Romney finished his term in office while Palin is stepping down. However, Romney as governor of liberal Massachusetts has some things on his resume that he would probably like to live down. Palin accomplished a lot in a short time in office without the same albatrosses. She is doing what she thinks is right for herself and for Alaska, not following some tired political playbook. Her approval/disapproval rating among Republicans is 73/17 compared to Romney’s 57/18.
Brand New Ballgame
Not being in office allows her to set the agenda rather than having to react to other people’s agendas. She doesn’t have to hold back. Consider how Dick Cheney came out forcefully so speak against Obama’s policies when others in the Republican party were trying to find their voice. His poll numbers rose dramatically.
Sarah Palin can speak with conservative principles that win elections. When Republicans stick to their conservative roots they win. When they try to be moderate they lose. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds, but I can see Palin having just passed off the ball driving to the basket while her opponents watch the ball, and soar into the air for the ally oop and the score.
Movin' Out
One of the great blessings bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers was federalism. Our federal form of government evolved from the Articles of Confederation, where states had primacy and the national government acted only with the consent of the states. This proved to be too cumbersome.
In writing the Constitution, the Founders identified very specific roles and responsibilities for the national government and left everything else to the states or the people (see Tenth Amendment). In doing so it gave the people the power of liberty through mobility. If you didn’t like the way they did things in Massachusetts, you could move to Virginia. If the people of Pennsylvania didn’t want a mass migration of people to Georgia, they needed to be careful regarding the laws that they passed so as not to alienate a large block of their constituents.
The War on Federalism
The statist, who loves government and believes government should control every aspect of our lives, hates federalism, because it weakens its control. So they attack it through the courts.
Here is their standard battle plan. Let’s the case of Gay Marriage. Vermont’s legislature approves Gay Marriage. Whether you are in favor of that or oppose that it shouldn’t affect you if you don’t live in Vermont. If you are in favor and you live elsewhere, you can move to Vermont. If you live there and are opposed you can either fight to overturn it in Vermont, or move elsewhere. That’s the beauty of federalism. If continued to its logical conclusion, some states would approve it and those in favor would migrate there, and those who are opposed would concentrate in states that would ensure that it would not be adopted in their state. You could have a raging debate, but your liberty would be preserved through mobility.
However, the statists have a different view of things. After the law is passed in Vermont by the legislature (as is proper), or made up out of thin air by the court in Massachusetts (judicial activism and improper), some couples who are married in these states move to another state. By doing so, they should leave their state sanctioned rights behind. However, what they will typically do when their Vermont sanctioned rights are not honored in, say, Tennessee they will rush to federal court and says their Constitutional rights are being violated. A court stocked with judicial activists, will find some fig leaf of justification with words like emanations and penumbras, to make a new law of the land and with the stroke of a pen, the liberties of all Americans will be swept away based on the will of the people of Vermont. You no longer can protect your liberty through mobility. You cannot go anywhere to live in proximity to like minded people and live the life you believe in. Mobility is no longer a tool to protect your liberty it is a weapon against you. People can secure rights elsewhere and use mobility to come to your doorstep and use the courts to force their beliefs on you.
Fierce Fighting
I believe that is why the fighting over these issues become so fierce and acrimonious. If something is allowed anywhere, it will soon be allowed everywhere, because of an activist judiciary. Our rhetoric has become more strident, our politics is anything but bipartisan, all because everything is being elevated to the federal level. States are becoming less and less important. If you don’t believe it ask people, who was responsible for the fiasco after hurricane Katrina? If they say President Bush, ask them to name the mayor of New Orleans or the governor of Louisiana at the time. Bush and the federal government should have been the third line of defense, not the first. The first should have been the city, then the state and then the federal government.
Back to Federalism
Show me where in the constitution it says the government should own General Motors and Chrysler. Show me where it says that a tunnel, entirely in the city of Boston should be paid for by the taxpayers of Arizona. Show me where in the constitution it says education is the responsibility not of local government but the federal government. It doesn’t. And until well roll back this juggernaut, our liberties will be crushed little by little, day by day.
This is why it is also important to guard against activist judges getting on the bench or being elevated to higher levels of the court. It is just these activist judges who are taking away your liberty to move away from those who don’t believe what you do and moving toward those you do agree with. Take note of the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
Let’s Be Frank, the Estate Tax is Immoral
by Bill O'Connell on December 21, 2010
Barney Frank, in an interview with CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo, made the bold statement that, “heirs who now inherit, they haven’t done this on their own, they haven’t worked hard, that’s a pure gift to someone who was lucky enough to be related to someone or be friendly with someone who left them money.” So Mr. Frank concludes that they are not entitled to that money. So tell me what is the argument that government should get nearly half of it? How did they earn it?
Click here to read more