Archive for the ‘News’ Category
Ray Stevens on ObamaCare - “We the People”
Saturday, January 9th, 2010Health Care Open Meetings? No…
Thursday, January 7th, 2010
Lifting Ban Good for Public Health?
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010In 1988 the federal government banned federal money from being used to purchase new needles for drug addicts. Recently, the Obama administration lifted this ban. The New York Times did an editorial claiming that the decision to ban federal funding for purchasing clean needles was responsible for the death of many who used dirty needles and contracted deadly diseases such as AIDS. They then praised Obama for lifting the ban.
If the question were whether or not the lift was good for public health, then the answer it seems would be that lifting the ban will help slow the spread of some diseases. That, however, should not be the question. The Constitution Party has a story about David Crockett that they use with some of their literature. I believe the name of it is “Not Yours to Give.” The question should be, does government have the right to force its citizens to pay for other Americans to have things? To rephrase this question, does government have the right to redistribute wealth?
Government owns nothing. Government receives its taxes, property, and consent from the governed. Therefore, anything given to anyone by the government actually is forced giving from the citizens. I, myself, have a problem with my money being given to drug users to keep them from getting deadly diseases. Do I hope that they get diseases? Absolutely not. I wish that all disease were eradicated, but I have a problem with paying for it. I also have a problem with the government subsidizing anything, much less something illegal. What else are we going to subsidize? How about we give materials for making meth labs safer. Let’s make a law saying that you can cook meth in the open so as to not harm others? Where does it stop?
Lifting the ban will help people from contracting disease as easily, but it is and should be unconstitutional. It is not yours to give.
Friends Don’t Let Friends Drink and Speak on the Senate Floor
Monday, December 28th, 2009Obama, Health Care, and the State of the Union
Thursday, December 24th, 2009A few weeks ago I took an exam. Part of the exam was a couple of analytical questions. One of the questions stated that truth is not a virtue for political leaders. I then had to agree or disagree with the statement. The fact that this was even a question is a sad reflection on our society and political system. If lying and half truths are a virtue, we are indeed standing on our heads.
Americans have come to expect very little out of our political leaders. Mark Twain had several quotes about Congress and our political system. He stated said that “… I never can think of Judas Iscariot without losing my temper. To my mind Judas Iscariot was nothing but a low, mean, premature, Congressman.” More famously he stated, “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”
Steve Chapman, columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, wrote an editorial entitled “The Other Prostitution Scandal” in which he wrote that “[p]olticians take people’s money with a promise to fulfill desires that supposedly can’t be attained any other way. Prostitutes do the same, though by reputation, they are more reliable in delivering.”
Ronald Reagan also stated, “It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.”
Those who become involved in politics start out tainted because the American public is inclined to distrust our government because of the power government wields, but also because those running government are rarely virtuous. George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force; Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
Americans used to love their government. Loosing the binds of the tyranny of Britain, the American patriots were able to construct a government that erred on the side of caution. The Articles of Confederation was an experiment which was meant to allow power to remain with the states and a federal government weak enough to allow it citizens freedom from oppression.
After it became obvious to many of the leaders of the young republic, the framers met to construct a new document which would make improvements on the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was a document that not everyone could get behind. The Anti-Federalists, with the likes of Patrick ‘Give me Liberty, or Give me Death’ Henry, Samuel ‘Father of the American Revolution and the Boston Tea Party’ Adams, George ‘Father of the Bill of Rights’ Mason, and Richard Henry ‘Father of the Motion to Separate from Great Britain’ Lee, were against the Constitution because they felt it did not protect the rights of people.
It is evident that there is a genuine distrust of government that has existed from the founding of our nation. It existed due to the tyranny of Great Britain on the American Colonies, and it continues to exist today because of the deceitfulness of our elected officials at present.
The president of the Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia is the greatest iconic figure of American history. That figure went on to an unanimous win in the first presidential election in our nation’s history. George Washington is our equivalent to Zeus and is chiseled into our Mt. Olympus at Mt. Rushmore. The myth surrounding the man is bigger than his life itself. Probably incorrectly, the most famous legend of Washington is of him as a lad. It is said that one day he cut down his father’s cherry tree. When asked about the incident, he is said to have replied, “I cannot tell a lie,” and he admitted to it. History tells us that this story is likely untrue, but this perception still sticks. The greatest American ever is seen as a truthful saint.
The next American that even rivals Washington, himself the other bookend of Mt. Rushmore, is equated with truth also. Honest Abe, as he is sometimes referred, is consistenly listed in the top 3 of greatest American Presidents lists. Lincoln is treated as being a representative of truth as his name denotes.
It is not coincidence that the two men considered by most to be the two greatest Americans of all-time are known for honesty, whether through fact or just perception. Honesty is a virtue that Americans long for in government. Lying and half truths are not. It is indisputable, however, that lies are tools of contemporary politicians. Healthcare is one such area where the Left has consistently wielded deceit as a weapon and tool.
Early on as the debate over health care raged, top Democrats stated that abortion was not a part of the health care overhaul plan. Leaders of the Democratic Party stated that the Hyde Amendment of 1976 would not allow abortion to be a part of the health care plan. Apparently that was a flat out lie. Rep. Stupak (D - MI) offered up an amendment to the House health care bill which would place restrictions on abortion coverage in the health care bill. The Stupak Amendment was not included in the Senate plan. As a matter of fact, abortion is covered in the Senate plan.
President Barack Obama stated “the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegaly.” On its surface, this appears to be truthful in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, but there is a loop hole. The bills as they are now written expand and fund the expansion of Medicaid. Medicaid does fund some health care for illegal immigrants. In effect, the health care bill does fund illegal immigrants. Rep. Joe Wilson was correct in his ascertation that Pres. Obama is a liar on the health care for immigrants issue. In fact, Americans also cover the cost for illegal immigrants’ health coverage whenever we pay for any medical care. Medical care that cannot and is not paid for by a consumer is spread out in costs to other consumers.
President Barack Obama has claimed he would not sign a bill for health care reform that is not deficit-neutral. He has touted that the Congressional Budget Office reports that the bill will actually cut the deficit. Matt Welch of Reason.com in “Obama’s Latest Health Care Lie” points out that the CBO must take what is said at face value, and the fact that Congress promises to make unspecified future cuts, the CBO must take those cuts into account, whether or not they are ever instituted. He also points out Obama’s numbers are inflated from what the CBO is actually projecting. Peter Suderman, another writer for Reason is referenced as reminding readers that cutting a deficit does not necessarily mean spending less. Opponents of the health care plan have also pointed out that the bill double counts savings in order to achieve deficit-neutrality. Label this a lie or half-truth from Obama as well.
The term “death panel” may be an exaggeration, but the fact is the idea of the so-called death panels exists. The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a panel responsible for deciding how to cut and control costs. This type of rationing in effect does make life or death decisions for a patient. It may be decided that a patient with a certain disease may not receive the treatment that the patient and doctor decide on, and so the patient and doctor may need to seek a cheaper, less desireable option of care that does not work as well. Any time that medical decisions are handed to bureaucrats, medical decisions are made more slowly and denied based on economics. To say that the “death panels” are non-existent is more disengenuous than saying there are “death panels.”
Two other misrepresentations that were parroted early on by President Obama is that you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor and you can keep your health plan if you like your health plan. No doubt, these promises were made as a way of halting early talk that government health reform would take away your right to see your own doctor and keep your own plan. This is another instance of a situation where things have a good chance of happening indirectly.
Say you have a company. You are paying a good portion of your employees’ insurance. For representative reasons, let’s say you are paying $400 a month for each employee. Now a new bill has passed and become law that says that you (as an employer) will be fined $200 a month for not providing insurance to employees. Furthermore, there is an option that your employees can take if you do not provide them with insurance. Obviously, you can save money and your employees do not have to go without insurance. It is a win-win situation for you. Unfortunately, the employee does lose out on their insurance plan that they liked as they are moved to the government plan. Oh, and by the way, the government insurance isn’t accepted by the doctors your employees visit. Think that is not coming?
The public option is not included in the current health care plan, but it is next on the horizon. If it is not included in the reconciled bill, it will come soon after this health reform bill is passed. Several Congressmen are claiming that any bill that does not address the public option is unacceptable. They also state the public option will soon be revisited. Many supporters of the public option further hope that the public option will soon lead to a single-payer plan. Though Pres. Obama seems to distance himself from the idea of a single-payer system as he did in speaking to the American Medical Association recently, he has said to both SEIU and AFL-CIO in two different settings that he is a proponent of a single-payer plan and that he did not think he could “eliminate employer coverage immediately.” The Chicago Sun-Times quotes Pres. Obama as saying he was not pushing a single-payer system because our system is employer based, but he thinks “moving toward a single-payer system could very well make sense. That’s the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world.” Keeping your insurance and doctor is not as certain as Obama makes it sound with health reform.
After getting 60 votes for the Senate health bill, Harry Reid said that there was a lot of partisanship going around the health care debate, but he did not view it as 60 Democrats voting against 40 Republicans. He saw it as 60 leaders who stood up against insurance companies and stood up for hard-working Americans. He also stated that this is a declaration that health care is a right, not a privilege.
A recent CNN poll showed that 56 percent of Americans were against the health care reform. That leaves only 44 percent of Americans who are either for the reforms or are undecided about the reforms. In effect, Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate is telling America that they know what is good for America and at least 56 percent of America is too stupid to understand.
Those poll numbers are likely to slip further as Americans are upset at backroom dealing that came out of the compromise. Sen. Ben Nelson (D - NE) was able to insure that Nebraskans would be exempt from paying for the increased Medicaid costs. Louisiana also got kick-backs as did Connecticut. In all, thirteen Democratic Senators received a pay-off for their yes vote on the health bill. Not only are these pay-offs, but these are instances of Democratic senators opting their state out of parts of the health care bill. Contrary to what Sen. Schumer (D - NY) says, not every state received a pay-off in the vote. Sadly, Democratic leaders are even downplaying the buying of votes by saying it is minor and a part of politics. What would happen if you did that to a judge or a Supreme Court Justice?
Furthermore, Reid’s assertion that health care is a right, not a privilege is not what this is about. This bill is not about receiving health care. In fact, Rep. Kucinich stated that the whole bill has become about insurance, not health care. Also, the idea that health care and insurance is a right is not consistent with how we have view rights consistently. People have a right to life and liberty, yes. No one can kill us or take away our liberty. The final part of our rights is our right to pursue happiness. John Locke listed property. We have a right to pursue what we want. Yes, we have a right to pursue property, health care, and such, but we are not guaranteed to have these if we do not pursue them. Americans have a right to seek health care and insurance, but we must work to obtain them. They are not something government is supposed to give us.
While running for office, Obama talked about how the Constitution was filled with “negative liberties.” He said the Constitution said what government could not do to us, not what it had to do for us. In case he did not know, that was how it was meant to be. Britain controlled many aspects of colonial life. Colonists wanted liberty and freedom. When government starts doing things for you, they also start taking liberty from you. Thomas Jefferson stated, “Government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take everything away.” Americans should have known then that he was going to increase the size of government by “gifting” things to Americans.
Now, what does all of this have to do with Obama’s State of the Union Address? Barack Obama had to get this approved. He has to get things moving on health care early in January. If things fall apart in the House, Obama is in trouble. Obama is banking on health care reform to be a success that he can talk about at his State of the Union Address. He doesn’t want to dwell on sagging poll numbers. He doesn’t want to fret about inflation and the devaluation of the dollar. He doesn’t want to spend a speech discussing how terrible the jobless percentages are. He doesn’t want to have to admit that nothing has been accomplished despite a Democratic House and a Democratic super-majority in the Senate. Obama doesn’t want to spend his time wielding lies and half-truths as his only weapon.
The truth is the health care bill currently under consideration is a failure based on what Democrats wanted. It is not the last step. Sure, most of it is unconstitutional. Forcing Americans to purchase health insurance? No way that can stand in the Supreme Court. It is also likely that the House will be unable to rech a compromise. To stop this mess, Americans must keep pressure on their representatives. It can still be defeated.
Mao, the Great Philosopher
Saturday, October 24th, 2009Yes Madame Speaker, the Constitution is Serious
Saturday, October 24th, 2009“Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Michele Bachmann on Health Care
Sunday, August 30th, 2009This Ain’t America No More!
Saturday, August 29th, 2009Testing
Wednesday, August 26th, 2009The Fourth Amendment (Focus on the Issues)
Tuesday, August 25th, 2009
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The 4th Amendment means that government agenst cannot make a search and/or seizure without probable cause. A government agent cannot just show up for a search and seizure without first obtaining a valid search warrant from the judiciary. Furthermore, the search must stick to the scope of the search warrant.
Katz v. the United States (1967) ruled that a person has a reasonable expectation to privacy.
The government has disregarded this amendment in several ways such as the usage of “red light cameras.” If a person has a reasonable expectation to privacy, the usage of government cameras without probable cause would violate this.
Another example is the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was done, in no doubt, with good intentions. We were attacked by international terrorists and the fear of more attacks allowed us to ‘reasonably’ give up a little liberty for a little security. This was a major blow to that expectation of privacy and our security in our property and person. We did not heed to the advice of our great American statesman, Benjamin Franklin. It was Franklin who said, “Those who give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both.” That was the beginning of this round of losing our rights as we have over the past few years. Now is the time to rise up and say enough is enough. Legislators, government executives, and judicial officers, please listen. Enough is enough.
The Patriot Act has damaged this Amendment in several ways. The Patriot Act allows for searches and seizures without probable cause or what are the traditional search warrants. Furthemore, a person’s property is not valued as notification of a search does not happen either. There have even been government admissions to abuse of powers of the Patriot Act. We want to be safe, but do we want to be slaves instead? Many of us conservatives were silent about abuse of our rights under Bush because we trusted him. Now that a leftist is in charge, we fear what might happen. Hopefully we will never allow this to happen again, regardless of who is in charge.
Health Care Town Hall in Johnson City
Monday, August 24th, 2009I was there. I may blog about it tomorrow. You can see me holding signs at the 45 second mark, though they were talking about people who disagreed with Dr. Roe on the issue… Oh well.
PETA May Picket Philadelphia Eagles Games
Saturday, August 22nd, 2009Lisa Lange, the Senior VP for PETA, was on the Larry King Live television program discussing Michael Vick and his sigining with the Philadelphia Eagles of the NFL. She discussed how Michael Vick had lied to PETA about his involvement and she even stated that PETA would consider picketing the Philadelphia Eagles. She further stated that she did not believe that Michael Vick deserved to sign a mutlimillion dollar contract with an NFL team.
Now for my commentary. What is Michael Vick supposed to do? Michael Vick went through the criminal justice system. He was sentenced to a prison term. He served 18 months in a prison, and then he finished his 23 month sentence by being on house arrest. Vick received no pay during all of this. He was forced to go into bankruptcy to help pay off his financial obligations.The man has paid his debt to society. Dogfighting is brutal, but come on. We are talking about the death of animals, not humans. If it had been a human he had mudered, he would hopefully still be in prison.
When someone commits a crime, once their debt is paid to society he or she should be allowed to seek an honest living. Vick has done this. He is a football player. He was involved in dogfighting. It isn’t as if he was a veterinarian. It may make sense that he would not be allowed to go back to that.
I am not a Philly fan by any stretch of the imagination. My Bucs have faced them several times in important games. I cannot stand the Eagles. I have a new respect for them though. They are doing what they feel could make them better. The NFC, especially the NFC East, is strong. The Cowboys and Giants will be difficult to beat. The Redskins could be tough, too. The division should be a real dog fight.
Ted Kennedy Plays the Political Game
Saturday, August 22nd, 2009Back in 2004 when it appeared that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) had a chance at winning the White House, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was able to convince the Massachusetts legislature to change the Massachusetts state law that gave the governor power to replace a resigned Senator with his own appointment.
In 2004, that governor was none other than Mitt Romney (R-MA).
Had Sen. Kerry been elected, he would have been forced to resign and Romney would have been able to replace Kerry with a Republican if he so chose.
Sen. Kennedy acted craftily to change the law so that a popular election would have been held nearly one-third of a year after a Senator’s departure.
This was purely a political ploy to allow a Democatic nominee to mount a strong effort in an election. Combined with voter data, a Democrat would have been greatly favored.
Now, once again, Massachusetts is facing the loss of a U.S. Senator. This time, it is Sen. Kennedy, himself, to death.
State law does not allow a governor appointee to assume the seat. There has to be an election.
The healthcare bill is being muscled by Ted Kennedy and the left. Kennedy understands that the vote could be close and come down to a vote or two.
Here is where it gets ironic. Kennedy now wants the law changed back to how it was before he played politics before.
Kennedy claims that it is important that Massachusetts have a second senator to watch out for their needs. Why was it not important in 2004?
Conservatives Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States
Tuesday, August 18th, 2009So says a Gallup poll.
Nancy Pelosi: “I’m a Fan of Disruptors”
Friday, August 14th, 2009Thomas Paine: Silent No More
Friday, August 14th, 2009Where’s My Bona Fides?
Thursday, August 13th, 2009Several news stories have come out in the past couple of weeks concerning Speaker Kent Williams and his desire to be accepted back into the Republican Party. Speaker Williams had his Republican credentials removed following the vote for the Speaker and other positions in the most recent Tennessee elections. Just to quickly rehash things, then Tennessee GOP Chair, Robin Smith, sent out a letter stating that if any Republicans broke rank and voted for a Democrat for Speaker or any other officer positions, he or she could have their Republican credentials removed. This was a result of several Republicans, including Williams, breaking ranks to support Jimmy Naifeh as Speaker of the House in 2007. Williams signed a paper stating he would vote for Republicans for each of these positions.
Republicans became the majority party for the 2009 and 2010 legislative sessions, and Majority Leader Jason Mumpower was poised to become the Speaker of the House of the State of Tennessee. All that had to happen was the 50 Republicans vote Mumpower. The 49 Democrats could all rally behind one person, but as long as the Republicans stood together, they would win. Then, unexpectedly, Democratic Minority Leader nominated Kent Williams as Speaker. All 49 Democrats voted Williams. All 49 Republicans (save Williams) voted Mumpower. The final vote came down to Kent Williams. He voted for himself, giving himself the Speaker’s gavel.
Following the vote, Williams stated that he had stayed true to his pledge to vote for a Republican. That point could not be argued. He did vote for a Republican in that race. The real problem was in the Speaker Pro Tempore. He voted for Lois DeBerry, a Democrat. That went against the pledge.
GOP Chair Robin Smith decided with the GOP Executive Committee to remove Kent Williams ‘bona fide’ Republican status.
Now, word is that Williams wants back into the Republican Party. As it now stands, Williams will have to go into reelection as an independent. That poses a couple of problems. For one, it is difficult to win as a Republican. Also, as I understand it and someone can correct me if I am wrong, but if you run under a party banner, since you run in the primary, you are able to collect the maximum donations for the primary and general. Otherwise, if you are not running in the primary, which an independent would not, you can only collect the maximum for the general.
GOP Chair Smith is gone, having been replaced by Chris Devaney (Smith is running for US Congress). Devaney has talked about reconciliation. Williams has expressed interest in coming back into the fold, but he states he feels there is nothing to apologize for.
I was quick to jump on Williams’s case when all of this occurred, but he did prove to be better than expected as Speaker. Now, I know the ends does not justify the means, but Conservative legislation did get floor votes. The problem is that a party must make sure that they exercise some control over how their members conduct themselves on votes. A member voluntarily runs under a party banner, and he or she should expect the party to take action if he or she goes against the party on certain votes and issues. If the politician does what is right, the punishment should be worn as a sign of honor. In this case, I doubt that Williams or anyone sees it in that light. He wants to be back in the party, but should he be allowed?
Williams will win reelection as an independent. No one is likely to be able to overtake him. However, I do not feel that he should be just allowed back in. He chose to go against the party’s wishes. A punishment was handed down. Being allowed back in now negates anything the party did to him. However, I do think that the party should be waiting on the other side. Let the voters in Carter County vote on Kent Williams the person, not the party banner. If he survives, the party should immediately sit down with him and look closely at reconciliation. That way, there was a punishment for the actions, the voters of Carter County have their say, and we can move forward as a state and a party.
Now is a good time for Republicans. It is good in Tennessee. It is good nationally. The political climate has once again changed. I am not saying it is 1994 again, but it could be even better. We shall see. We need to move forward. Williams has been on the conservative side of many issues. The budget is an area of concern, but it is what it is. If he is not going to be given the chance to regain his bona fides anytime within the next couple of years, we need to move on from this with that has the resolution. It was not an honorable way of getting the Speakership in many of our minds, but it would be bad for Tennessee and conservatives if we squandered our opportunities at hand. Imagine if we had a split of Republicans between two nominees (Williams and Mumpower or another party nominee). Then the Democrats would once again exercise control. 2010 is a big year with redistricting looming. We cannot afford to allow the past to be repeated with Democrats having a hand in redistricting. This is what has caused our red state to have a Democratic majority in the House.
Am I upset that a more Conservative person did not run the House? Yes. Would I have liked more Conservative bills to pass? Yes. Would I have liked Williams to cast more votes in committees to break tie votes in favor of the Republican bill? Yes. Would I have liked to have a trimmed budget? You betcha! But 2010 is looming. We have to increase our majority. That will decide future elections. If districts are redrawn for Dems, we are hurting. If districts are redrawn for Repubs, we win big. If districts are redrawn fairly, we still win big. We need to get through the 2010 election. If Williams is there, reconciliation must take place so we can focus on the future and not allow Dems to decide our future as Tennesseans.
***UPDATE*** I have been asked about the speakership. I am not saying he should have the speakership, just for clarification.