Capitalized Universal Healthcare

John R. Houk
© August 20, 2009

Recently I have posted on the American healthcare system (HERE and HERE). I am the rare Conservative that strongly believes Universal Healthcare in the 21st century should be an inalienable right. The technology and the knowledge is at such a level it is barbaric that those on a limited income or meet their bills every month with nothing left over for a medical insurance premium are denied at least basic coverage. It is also barbaric that people do not get life saving care due to a lack of insurance.

As I have stated before I am NO SUPPORTER of socialized Universal Healthcare. Some (probably most) insurance companies are not exactly a bastion of moral choices for their insured. How many have heard stories of the catastrophically sick being booted from their insurance plans? Or perhaps you have become eligible for a group insurance plan via employment, but you are notified you will not be insured because you just had cancer. The insurance companies know statistically the cancer may return.

These examples give a picture of how callous insurance companies can be.

Nonetheless, Free Markets still make insurance premiums competitive. Universal Healthcare with government oversight would force insurance to be available to all regardless of income (or lack thereof) or pre-conditions that insurance companies would typically deny or make coverage to expensive to afford.

Socialized Universal Healthcare would make the unfairness of insurance companies look like a picnic. This is where Obamacare needs to be scrutinized. The death panels exposed by Sarah Palin are just a drop in the bucket of the problems Obamacare presents with government managed socialized Universal Healthcare.

I have been reading Judgebob over at his Vox social blog in which he has rightly been castigating President Barack Hussein Obama’s socialized Healthcare. I found the latest installment of Judgebob’s eloquent castigation at his at his BloggersBase site entitled, “History in the Making.”

I encourage you to read his essay for it is brilliant as it demonstrates President BHO as a prevaricator. The only point I disagree with Judgebob on is his statement:

“I would prefer no reform at all over government controlled health care.”

I believe Obamacare would be better than zero reform. BHO is probably willing to make compromises to use a nuclear option to ram a form of Socialized Universal Healthcare thinking he can mold it closer to his Marxist altruism as time goes on.

I am thinking if the voters don’t wise up and begin electing Conservative Republicans beginning in 2010, America will experience the transformative “Change” he promised voters. If the voters wise up then a Conservative Congress can move Universal Healthcare away from government management and toward government oversight of private companies competitively working a Capitalistic Universal Healthcare.

JRH 8/20/09
**********************************
History in the Making

By JudgeRight
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:16 AM
BloggersBase Blog



"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program." . . . Barack Obama – 2003 . . .

"I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process" . . . Barack Obama – 2007 . . .

"There is good news from Washington today. The Congress is deadlocked and can't act." . . . American humorist Will Rogers (1879-1935) . . .

"The question of health care is not one of rights but of how best in practice to organize it. America is certainly not a perfect model in this regard. But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world. Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world.. Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so. The government-run health-care system -- which in the U.K. is believed to be the necessary institutional corollary to an inalienable right to health care -- has pauperized the entire population. This is not to say that in every last case the treatment is bad: A pauper may be well or badly treated, according to the inclination, temperament and abilities of those providing the treatment. But a pauper must accept what he is given. Universality is closely allied as an ideal, ideologically, to that of equality. But equality is not desirable in itself. To provide everyone with the same bad quality of care would satisfy the demand for equality. ... In any case, the universality of government health care in pursuance of the abstract right to it in Britain has not ensured equality. After 60 years of universal health care, free at the point of usage and funded by taxation, inequalities between the richest and poorest sections of the population have not been reduced. But Britain does have the dirtiest, most broken-down hospitals in Europe. There is no right to health care -- any more than there is a right to chicken Kiev every second Thursday of the month." . . . British physician Theodore Dalrymple . . .

"Every doctor knows, as I did when I practiced years ago, how much unnecessary medical cost is incurred with an eye not on medicine but on the law. Tort reform would yield tens of billions in savings. Yet you cannot find it in the Democratic bills. And Obama breathed not a word about it in the full hour of his health-care news conference. Why? No mystery. The Democrats are parasitically dependent on huge donations from trial lawyers." . . . columnist Charles Krauthammer . . .

"Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should ‘do something' about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom." . . . Stanford Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell . . .

"Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism.... A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers." . . . British author Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) . . .

"As our president bears no resemblance to a king so we shall see the Senate has no similitude to nobles." . . . Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, No. 2, 1787 . . .


Every bill passed through Congress and enacted into law is history in the making. Each one is a testament to the level of freedom vs. security we, as a culture are willing to endure for our own good. Security means restricted movement, behavior to prevent risk. Security means payment deductions from your wealth. Single payer security means everybody is automatically included. If you earn or create, you are required to submit a portion of your earnings or creations to the government (singlepayer) automatically. With government bureaucracy, your health care security will be run like the Department Motor Vehicles, the Post Office, or the Veterans Administration. The DMV doesn't compete for your business. The Post Office competes with Fed Ex and UPS, but still doesn't turn a profit and still has a monopoly on the letter delivery business. The VA is the sole distributor of Veterens' benefits. There is no competition in their field either. Government programs are run with backwards logic. The field budget manager knows that his funding depends on his needs. The result is he ensures he has a need for the budget. If he wants an increased budget, he must have excuses often resulting in manufactured problems. Examples include perfectly good 1 year old testbooks being tossed in the dumpster at state run schools, politicians cutting emergency services rather than defunding art programs which produce PissChrist and DungMary or even more controversial tax funding of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Centralizing power only provides greater opportunity for abuses such as these. Tossing all our health care eggs into one basket will grow government to the tune of 11 Trillion dollars in newly excused tax revenue. I do not want this backward traveling mule hitched to my cart. I would prefer no reform at all over government controlled health care. Don't get me wrong, I want tort reforms for a start, I want regulatory reforms. I want reform that will make the market competitive again. I want reform like what the president of Whole Foods offers his employees. Free choice of doctors and services, a Health Savings Account (tax free) and a set amount of health care dollars which if left unused at the end of the year becomes a bonus in my paycheck. That way, no insurance is involved unless I need catastrophic coverage. The company arranged their health care dollars into a reasonable 'customer cares about the cost so shops around for the best care at the best competitive prices' in house health care plan.

What I most don't want is a mega-bill unread, undebated, and rushed through the Washington process in a 'take this and take it now or get nothing' mega-bureaucrat deal. If you think any of the 5 different bills currently being pushed as 'a plan' the reform of health care, you need to take the time to sit down and read what they're pushing. Its typical Washingtonian power grabbing language does not address tort reform at all, nor does it answer any of the concerns about funding the coverage of millions who currently do not pay anything into the system for their 'uninsured' health care. If you're going to protest in either direction, you need to know what they're trying to sell you and at what cost. If you're going to vote, you need to be informed about the issues and who stands for or against what.
______________________________

Capitalized Universal Healthcare
John R. Houk
© August 20, 2009
____________________

History in the Making
Copyright © 2009 BloggersBase

Universal Healthcare BUT NOT Obamacare

John R. Houk
© August 16, 2009

I have pointed out I am one of those rare Conservatives that is in favor of Universal Healthcare. I must point out though I am not in favor of the Federal government being the direct manager of a National Universal Healthcare. My vision for Universal Healthcare leans more toward government regulation of mandatory health insurance provided by the free market private sector.

My dip into altruism is a plan of government oversight making sure insurance plans are affordable for the poor and not burdensome on small scale entrepreneurs. I can even see the government picking up some of the cost for those whose income precludes a budget of a monthly premium.

The point is Healthcare should be made readily available to all citizens and legal immigrants. It is a travesty that the wealthiest nation in the world does not offer easy access to the medical needs of people human beings. Picture the opposite of humanity. That picture is inhumanity.

Now that I have the Slanted Left salivating in glee and the Slanted Right planning my funeral, I need to provide a little clarification of my thinking.

Government managed socialized Universal Healthcare is a disastrous method to implement Universal Healthcare in America. I am noticing that President Obama’s Universal Healthcare cares less for the human being and more to the molding of a healthy society at the expense of those whose needs may not fit the government litmus test of providing life saving care for those who may die even with such care. Those diagnosed as terminal or a probability of terminal and the elderly Americans may be on the “let them die comfortably” list.

My fellow Americans allowing the government to manage this kind of power over a life should be considered horrific.

Much to my gratification one my favorite Republicans has weighed in on Obamacare. That person is Sarah Palin.

Israpundit has a quote from Sarah Palin’s August 7, 2009 entry on her Facebook page:

On August 7th, Sarah Palin wrote in her facebook page

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

That reference to death panels caused a storm of protest from Obama’s supporters and Palin haters. But it only took seven days for them to capitulate.

I don’t know if Sarah Palin coined the “death panel” phrase but the existence of such a concept in Universal Healthcare is inhumane and uncaring.

I am also delighted to read that some pundits writing in media that is not considered the so-called right wing fringe had this to say about Palin’s entrance into the Obamacare debate:

Palin Wins
If she's dim and Obama is brilliant, how did he lose the argument to her?

The first we heard about Sarah Palin's "death panels" comment was in a conversation last Friday with an acquaintance who was appalled by it. Our interlocutor is not a Democratic partisan but a high-minded centrist who deplores extremist rhetoric whatever the source. We don't even know if he has a position on ObamaCare. From his description, it sounded to us as though Palin really had gone too far.

A week later, it is clear that she has won the debate.

President Obama himself took the comments of the former governor of the 47th-largest state seriously enough to answer them directly in his so-called town-hall meeting Tuesday in Portsmouth, N.H. As we noted Wednesday, he was callous rather than reassuring, speaking glibly--to audience laughter--about "pulling the plug on grandma."

The Los Angeles Times reports that Palin has won a legislative victory as well:

A Senate panel has decided to scrap the part of its healthcare bill that in recent days has given rise to fears of government "death panels," with one lawmaker suggesting the proposal was just too confusing.

The Senate Finance Committee is taking the idea of advance care planning consultations with doctors off the table as it works to craft its version of healthcare legislation, a Democratic committee aide said Thursday.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the committee, said the panel dropped the idea because it could be "misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly." . . .

The Palin claim about "death panels" was so widely discredited that the White House has begun openly quoting it in an effort to show that opponents of the healthcare overhaul are misinformed.

You have to love that last bit. The fearless, independent journalists of the Los Angeles Times justify their assertion that the Palin claim was "widely discredited" with an appeal to authority--the authority of the White House, which is to say, the other side in the debate. One suspects the breathtaking inadequacy of this argument would have been obvious to Times reporters Christi Parsons and Andrew Zajac if George W. Bush were still president. And of course this appears in a story about how the Senate was persuaded to act in accord with Palin's position--which doesn't prove that position right but does show that it is widely (though, to be sure, not universally) credited.

One can hardly deny that Palin's reference to "death panels" was inflammatory. But another way of putting that is that it was vivid and attention-getting. Level-headed liberal commentators who favor more government in health care, including Slate's Mickey Kaus and the Washington Post's Charles Lane, have argued that the end-of-life provision in the bill is problematic--acknowledging in effect (and, in Kaus's case, in so many words) that Palin had a point.

If you believe the media, Sarah Palin is a mediocre intellect, if even that, while President Obama is brilliant. So how did she manage to best him in this debate? Part of the explanation is that disdain for Palin reflects intellectual snobbery more than actual intellect. Still, Obama's critics, in contrast with Palin's, do not deny the president's intellectual aptitude. Intelligence, however, does not make one immune from hubris.

For a wonderful example of such hubris, check out this post from David Kurtz of TalkingPointsMemo.com:

Is there anything quite as unsettling as when the nation's political class (and I use that term broadly to encompass the occasionally political, like the tea partiers) turns its fleeting but intense focus to a new (for them) and complex topic, like end-of-life issues?

It seems like years of painstaking work to nudge our death-denying culture toward a more frank and humane approach to our own mortality and dying could be erased by one misguided national discussion set off by none other than Sarah Palin.

Except that Palin didn't "set off" this discussion; President Obama did by trying to ram through legislation postalizing the medical system with no time for debate or reflection. How to care for dying patients is a serious, sensitive and complicated matter, one with which American families struggle every day. If you truly don't want the "political class" involved, your quarrel is with the man who is pushing for more federal involvement in this most personal of matters. It's entirely understandable that people would respond to such an effort by shouting, "Keep your laws off my grandma!" (James Taranto in Wall Street Journal)

There is an intellectual coup for Sarah Palin against the Obamassiah.

Ted Belman of Israpundit continues with another Palin Facebook entry:

Troubling Questions Remain About Obama’s Health Care Plan

I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.

The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back in 2003:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan…. A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3

A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty. [4] The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs.

Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill. Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life” consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care. Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn’t sound “purely voluntary.”

In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote:

“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’send would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.” [5]

I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” [6] The proclamation sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. There was no incentive to choose one option over another. There was certainly no financial incentive for physicians to push anything. In fact, the proclamation explicitly called on medical professionals and lawyers “to volunteer their time and efforts” to provide information to the public.

Comparing the “Healthcare Decisions Day” proclamation to Section 1233 of HR 3200 is ridiculous. The two are like apples and oranges. The attempt to link the two shows how desperate the proponents of nationalized health care are to shift the debate away from the disturbing details of their bill.

There is one aspect of this bill which I have not addressed yet, but it’s a very obvious one. It’s the simple fact that we can’t afford it. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He told the Senate Budget Committee last month:

“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” [7]

Dr. Elmendorf went on to note that this health care legislation would increase spending at an unsustainable rate.

Our nation is already $11.5 trillion in debt. Where will the money come from? Taxes, of course. And will a burdensome new tax help our economy recover? Of course not. The best way to encourage more health care coverage is to foster a strong economy where people can afford to purchase their own coverage if they choose to do so. The current administration’s economic policies have done nothing to help in this regard.

Health care is without a doubt a complex and contentious issue, but health care reform should be a market oriented solution. There are many ways we can reform the system and lower costs without nationalizing it.

The economist Arthur Laffer has taken the lead in pushing for a patient-center health care reform policy. He noted in a Wall Street Journal article earlier this month:

“A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.” [8]

Those are real reforms that we can live with and afford. Once again, I warn my fellow Americans that if we go down the path of nationalized health care, there will be no turning back. We must stop and think or we may find ourselves losing even more of our freedoms.

Sarah Palin uses the word “nationalized health care.” She should have used the word “socialized healthcare.” Like I said before there is a need for Universal Healthcare in America; however a socialized government managed Universal Healthcare will be like Big Brother dictating to the lives of Americans eroding personal Liberty in America.

A national standard does need to exist but that is to ensure Capitalism does not run amok down the other side of the scale toward inhumane medical charges to maximize the profit beyond the scope of the life of the individual. Profits and ownership is good and the American way, but human lives are priceless and should not be measured by the profit share. I am saying make money but not by exploitation.

I am also saying do not allow the government to dictate the management of your medical. The government should only certify citizens are protected and that the market is fair. This may also entail reform on how Doctors must maintain insurance for themselves to protect themselves from frivolous litigation.

Unfortunately Obamacare may have to be the starting point for Universal Healthcare to begin in America for I believe the Slanted Right does not have the cajones to initiate a profitable regulated Universal Healthcare because of the lobbyists that prefer the status quo. The status quo is not acceptable. People suffer in the current status quo medical system.

As I have said before better an initiated Obamacare now and the Conservatives chipping away the socialism in exchange for a regulated market as time goes on instead of maintaining the status quo. If some high profile politicians can get on board to offer an alternative to Obamacare then do it now. The alternative plan is the best way to counter the socialistic Obamacare system.

Check out this idea as an alternative at We The People Health. I am not saying this is the best alternative to Obamacare but it is viable option to explore or to build upon for other viable alternatives.

JRH 8/16/09

Not Trusting Barack Hussein Obama

John R. Houk
© August 15, 2009

Below is an essay that began as part of an ongoing dialogue between me and a Commenter that goes by Johnny-O on the Vox Social Network. Johnny-O initiated commenting on a photo of Orly Taitz. The photo was connected to a March 18, 2009 post. I think Johnny-O’s ire pertaining to the now discredited Kenya Birth Certificate. Ironically our dialogue evolved into something far different than Orly Taitz, Obama Legitimacy and the Birth Certificate post. If you wish to view the context of the evolving comments that led to this essay the link is HERE.

GW Bush's policy of a Two-State solution is not something I agreed with either. I felt that was also a sell out.

Bush's Israel/Palestine policy and Obama's Israel/Palestine policy are based on the foreign policy gurus that call themselves (or at least are called) "Realists". It stretches through the both the Republican and Democratic Party. The Realists believe that giving Israel absolute support no longer serves the National Interests of the USA. The Realists did not view Israel's democracy an asset as much as they viewed Israel's military an excellent counter-weight to Soviet influence among primarily American-hating Arab nations. As long as Israel was a superior military power, Soviet military donations and sales to Arab nations hostile to the West were in check.

The paradigm began to change when the Communist regime fell in the old USSR. More Arab nations began to seek American aid. Thus Israel's National Interests began to be seen in a different in comparison to America's National Interests stability in the Middle East. Hence both Democrat and Republican Realists began to view Israel as an emerging liability despite their Democracy. Fortunately there are still a huge amount of American voters that don't have the same view as the Realists; however the Left has actively been propagandizing the "need" for a Palestinian State to bring peace and stability to the Middle East. Jewish Americans (of which 75% - 80% [depending on the exit poll] voted Democrat in the last election) tend to be Leftists and are buying the Obama propaganda America will protect Israel from foreign attack.

The reality is the Realist Obama Administration is viewing a nuclear Iran as ok assuming the psycho-mullahs would not push buttons in a Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) Cold War restraint foreign policy ideology. I don't believe that about Iran. I believe Iran will continue to arm the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah to use a sovereign Palestine as a launching base to further the designs of Jew-hating Muslims (Sunni and Shia) in the Middle East. If the USA indicates it wishes to make nice with Middle Eastern Muslim nations, it will encourage the decision for another attack on Israel as in the days of 1948 - 1973 when invading Arab nations sought the obliteration of Israel's existence.

As an example: Saddam Hussein who was receiving a lot of military support from America because of Iran's belligerence at one time felt he was receiving hidden messages of an OK for Iraq to invade Kuwait and annex the tiny oil Sheikdom into Iraq. Hussein’s thinking was that Kuwaiti oil production could make up the revenue depleted from the 8 yr war with Iran (in which the USA covertly supported Iraq). Saudi hysteria of a psycho-Saddam making military inroads nearly right on the Saudi Peninsula asked for an appeal to America to stop Saddam's adventurism. Who produces more oil? Iraq or Saudi Arabia? Hence Kuwait was saved and a message was sent to the Mullah's of Iran that America can get close to Iran.

So will an American government abandon Israel? Right now I would say no; however the Realist chipping does increase the potential of Israeli abandonment by the USA. It really depends on the Realist v 'Israel is a friend' debate with in the State Dept and the Defense Dept. Right now the Realists seem to be winning.

As to being afraid "to try" giving Obama a chance; I am an American and I hope he has success with undoing an economy that the politics of Dems and GOPs both screwed up. It wasn't all Bush as Obama implies.

As a good Conservative my concern is that America's free market system will become socialized (as in national State management). It might actually be a good temporary quick fix but history shows that State management eventually leads to economic stagnation. If Obama is successful in direct government involvement in major businesses he has to recognize there is time to replace State management with Free Markets that have better Regulations to avoid the same mistakes of allowing bad loans to occur to the degree it could affect the whole economy.

Frankly I do not trust that about the current President. His entire history is an association of Marxists, Black Liberation Socialists and anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian individuals (SA HERE) that believe in an absolute socialized system is America should be in which racial quotas out weigh merit.

I can't trust that.

Below is the Johnny-O comment that inspired this essay.

JRH 8/15/09
************************
August 14, 2009

So, why then did no less a Great World Leader than George W Bush say he was all for a two-state solution for the Israel/Palestinian state question?

Thanx for catching my mispelling of Czechoslavakia, I think yoiu will agree that is a tough one!

And, how do you know what Obama wants to do, when he has never said what he plans to do with such matters? The Jewish councils and organizations in this country seem to think he's a fair man - and chatting up Arabs who are Muslims, even anti-Semetic ones, is NOT the same thing as selling out Israel.

The US is an ally to Israel for one reason and one reason only: They are the only democracy in a regional nest of kingdoms, religious theocracies, and military dictatorships who surround them as enemies. We will always be on Israel's side as long as they keep having free and fair elections (which is more than can be said about us in 2000, btw!), and nothing is gonna change that.

I wish you anti-Obamians would stop making up lies - 'cause that is what they are - for no good reason.

If you want to blame someone for Obama's election to the Presidency, blame W - he and his Neo-Cons and their Evangelical allies have not only all but destroyed the GOP, but made the American People (54% of us, anyway) so disaffected with them that we are willing to try anything or anyone - and make history in the process.

I told you before, genius - I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand - I am no 'Obamaphile' - and he is no 'Obamassiah' - if he lets us all down, his betrayal will be all the more despicable. Believe me, that will set you and me squarely on the same side. But I believe we should give him a chance, just like we did a true interloper, George W Bush.

Why are you afraid to try?

~Johnny

We The People Health

Is a competitive We The People Health care an excellent alternative to taxpayer mandated Socialist Universal Healthcare President Barack Hussein Obama is promoting? I believe it is an extremely viable option that serves Capitalism and free markets.

Watch the video and let me know what you think?



JRH 8/7/09
********************
From We The People Health Home Page

Top 5 Reasons To Join WTPHealth

1. Non-Government, Low-Cost, High-Quality Healthcare

2. WTPHealth Will Protect Your Privacy

3. No Coverage Denials for Pre-Existing Condition

4. No Loss of Coverage for Loss or Change of Job

5. You Own WTPHealth, So You Are In Control!

10 Steps To Launch The Future of Healthcare

1. Register 1 Million Americans by September 12, 2009

2. Elect National WTPHealth Board of Trustees

3. Appoint National Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee

4. Convene Benefit Design & Bid Proposal Commission

5. Submit Request For Proposal (RFP) to Healthcare Consultant and Third Party Agencies

6. Elect Consultant/TPA to Manage Healthcare Proposal Bid Process

7. Announce WTPHealth RFP and Begin Accepting Bids

8. WTPHealth P&T and Board of Trustees Selects Top Three Bids for Best & Final Bid Submissions

9. WTPHealth Awards Bid and Begins Implementation Process

10. WTPHealth Goes Live -- Target Date: June 1, 2010

Universal Healthcare

John R. Houk
© August 5, 2009

Judge Bob writes of the difference in the world view of Liberals and the world view of Conservative Capitalists.

Bob uses the analogy of a baseball game. The Liberal view of the goal of the baseball game would be starting at 0 to 0 and ending at whatever score as long as it is tied. The reward being an egalitarianism bringing equal value to every player regardless of a team mate’s effort.

The Conservative Capitalist view of the game would be starting at 0 to 0. The goal of the game is one team to win meaning there is a loser. The score ends with one team having a greater score than the other. The payoff for the winning team is every team mate is a winner. The payoff for each individual is a productive role for the team to excel. The best team mates started. The productive game hero perhaps receives the game ball. If it was MLB the rewards of winning would be in terms of money with the best players being paid according to their productive value to the team with an MVP perhaps making a big bonus.

Now Bob said it a little differently and probably more eloquently, but I suspect you get the point.

The Liberal world view will lead to a seemly pleasant utopia in the beginning; however egalitarianism will lead to a lack of production, the lack of moral clarity and mundane emptiness that will degenerate society.

The Conservative world view will lead to rewards for goals and a payoff for success. On the other hand if greed abrogates moral clarity, then a society of graft will overcome the society of reward. Nonetheless the goal of the reward instills and inspires creative or inventive ways to get to an end; thus the reward in sight brings progress if used for the greater good improves society.

As you might guess I believe there is evil as a potential in both the Liberal/Socialist and Conservative/Capitalist. The former can lead to State control of every aspect of an individual’s life leading to the worst possible outcome of State management of accepted thoughts and ideology. If Capitalistic restraints and safeguards are lacking then the oppression of masses of people by preventing the possibility of upward mobility via managed exploitation due to the greed of the elite reaping the benefit of their rewards on the backs of managed ‘barely get along’ individuals.

There is no doubt in my mind that restrained Capitalism is far superior to restrained (especially unrestrained) Liberalism/Socialism. Moral Capitalism will always lead to a better society because of innovation that benefits the greater good. Moral Capitalism affords the innovative individual the ability to step out of daily survival by reaping the rewards of ownership of ideas or production thus an upward mobility.

Ultimately I view Liberal/Socialism as a subscriber to secular humanistic concepts which in the realm ethics leads to moral relativity. This means morality is judged on a sliding scale of human secularism’s scale of acceptable morality. Moral relativity benefits the egalitarianism of perceived non-violent lifestyles disregarding a divine moral compass. Despite my negative feelings toward Liberal/Socialism there are some aspects of universalism that counter the negative aspects of greed in Capitalism. For example egalitarian Liberalism is responsible for ending child labor in America. Liberalism ended segregation in America. Liberalism forced companies to provide a safe work environment for labor. Liberalism provided an outlet for labor to not be exploited by their employers.

The flip side of these good societal acts by Liberalism is apparent also. Segregation was legally ended but the effort to upgrade the equal rights of Afro-Americans led many to become dependent on the State for financial living. In essence many on perpetual welfare have become welfare-slaves yet are unconscious of their slavery because food is on the table. The success of Afro-Americans remaining on welfare has developed into to a boon for all ethnic groups (including Caucasians) that live in poverty to become slaves to welfare. The welfare-slaves that are politically active via the vote of course tend to vote for the hand that feeds them regardless if significant other representations of the Left are contrary to moral concepts such as the practice of the Christian faith.

Again my mistrust of the Liberal/Left bleeds through these words; nonetheless if restrained Liberalism is used in like manner that restrained Capitalism diluted greed via the law then some forms of universal concepts may work for American society.

The Universal Healthcare concept is one of these. Free market enterprisers are quick to point out the horrors of European and Canadian universal health. The two horrors that come to mind is the long wait time to see a doctor and the denial of medicine for the cure for it is not part of the health plan. These negative aspects should draw concern from Americans who KNOW that some kind of health reform is badly needed in America.

To the horror of many of my fellow Conservatives I am in favor of Universal Healthcare; however I believe there are more competitive vehicles to achieve Universal Healthcare that make free market insurance companies happy while limiting the taxation on all spectrums of American economic class taxpayers. I have dreaded actually looking at the Obama Universal Healthcare plan because I am both for Universal Healthcare and against supplying that Healthcare solely on the backs of wealthy Americans’ taxes. A mandatory privatized Universal medical insurance plan would be a better idea for the individual, the insurance companies and the medical industry. After all the insurance companies have a financial boon in car insurance in which it is the law to have insurance to drive. Universal privatized medical insurance could work the same way and regulated according to the person’s income. Yes the poor will pay next to nothing but the rich won’t have to foot the entire bill. Instead of redistributing the wealth it will be a redistribution of responsibility according to ability to pay. The more one is able to afford better insurance. Of course the more choices one has in medical care would be available to better insurance yet at least the poor would have medical access rather than zero medical access. That is nearly the way it is now accept lives would no longer be ruined by spending one’s savings for care that is not affordable. More hospitals will collect more money from the less moneyed because of by law medical insurance.

I see the biggest problem to my Capitalist Universal Healthcare is the lack of cajones of Republican Conservatives to even breathe the words Universal Healthcare. So what is left?

Either America will remain in a deficient Healthcare mode or the Left will dictate the terms of Universal Health. Universal Healthcare on the Left’s terms will probably lead to the very horrors Conservatives publicize in anti-Universal Healthcare ads.

I am almost willing to gamble on the Obama Healthcare passing so that Conservatives can chip away on the extreme Leftist portions over the next few years. This will enable all Americans to have access to medical services and medicine.

JRH 8/5/09

Professor Gates held fundraiser for Obama

Wow! I just discovered the reason President Barack Hussein Obama reacted with such vehemence when Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested for not corroborating with an Officer verifying his identity after a burglary report in the neighborhood.

Can you imagine! Professor Gates became bent out of shape when an officer who happened to be White asked for identification to confirm Professor Gates was the resident and not a burglar. The reason for Gates’ ire: Professor Gates is an Afro-American and he was not about to racially profiled by a White Police Officer attempting to do his duty.

Dear God in Heaven dude! Just show your ID and call it a night.

Anyway, I believe President BHO became upset not only because of a personal friendship and Gates being a Contributor to past and present political campaigns; BHO is also an ideological fellow traveler with Marxist supporter of radical black ideas Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

JRH 7/27/09 (Hat Tip: ConservativeNewsMedia)

Do YOU Want Socialist and Secularist Transformation?

Without Googling the direct quote, can you name the person that spoke of Americans not dominated by Leftist ideology and altruism as Americans embracing their guns and religion?

That person spoke of those voters as if they are irrelevant to American society and American growth as a nation.

That person insinuated that guns and religion Americans need to be a part of a government motivated transformation in America.

That transformation includes transforming Biblical morality into Secular Humanist or relativist morality. Hate Crimes legislation that have been pushed the last seven years or so under a Republican President friendly to Christianity have been unsuccessful. Now Hate Crimes legislation under a voter elected Democratic Party Congress and President is on the verge of passing. If indeed the Hate Crimes legislation does pass and get signed this is the kind of transformation that will give Leftist activist Courts the power to criminalize Biblical Christian speech on such issues as homosexuality, abortion, Islamic culture and so forth are preached and/or written about.

This will place America on a difficult to change road of social transformation that places the backbone of American culture – Guns and religion – into the realm of criminality. This will place America into a transformation that vets as normal behavior (regardless of the Biblical ramifications) homosexuality, transsexuals, pornographers, child pornographers, pedophiles, bigamists (can you say multiple wives?) and many other vile behaviors which I choose not to do the mental exercise to find.

This person programming Americans about social transformation then will begin to program Americans about a socialist transformation.

This means the innovation that comes from capitalism will be transformed into a government controlled stagnation.

Now here is where I might differ a bit from Conservative purists. I believe in the 21st century that economics is so difficult for what might be called the working poor that strategies to secure a financial future or any kind of medical care is beyond the grasp of planning. The working poor often live from pay check to pay check capable of only planning for the next week rather after retirement. And I am aware this is not the case of all the working poor who may comprehend strategies to save for the future and merely need budget help to do so. I sense this awareness is the exception rather than the rule in the 21st century. In the 20th century it was probably the reverse in which a majority of the working poor were aware of savings and planning. However, Democratic Party and Republican Party both have utilized government dependence for the working poor so often I doubt there is anyone under the age of 70 that remembers strategy to pinch pennies to manage a modicum financial independence in retirement. I doubt there is any working poor that knows how to effectively gain medical benefits without some kind of outside aid of luck to work for a company that offers medical benefits to their low paid under skilled employees or to work the government for some kind of medical aid.

I hear the Conservative purists gasp and rail on what they would call Leftist thinking. Many might even proclaim that “I was a working poor and worked my way into the middle class.” Again I say the working poor still is in need of aid. If you were once the working poor and you have advanced to the middle class or better, then that is fantastic. You comprehended capitalistic strategies to move up the scale. I also do not believe that the upward mobile should bare the brunt of taxation for the working poor that do not have a clue. Yet should we punish the clueless working poor with abject retirement poverty or the lack of medical aid in the richest nation in the world?

In the 21st century a low income bracket should have a mandated tax (beyond Social Security) that simultaneously pays for a projected retirement and present time medical aid. Conservative purists can view that tax as investment. Perhaps the retirement fund can be moved to a more traditional capitalistic plan for the future as the working poor becomes the middle class. Also this retirement fund can be used as some kind of present time medical insurance (much as is available to Medicare patients today). If the working poor becomes upwardly mobile or acquires private insurance in traditional ways then this tax should be lowered according to an upward mobile income bracket.

This allows the working poor to not be trapped into poverty as an outright Welfare State would surely promote. This would also take away much of the socialistic burden of the middle class or better. Thus capitalism rolls on.

O yes, who is that person trying to transform America into a socialistic godless secular humanist nation? We all know that is President Barack Hussein Obama.

JRH 5/12/09

100 Days of Assault

The "Change" Obama has talked about is a broad road to socialism and increasing infanticide not only in America but globally.

JRH 5/3/09 (Hat Tip: Liberty Watch)

Obama's Ultimate Agenda

Here is a neocon view of President Obama’s ultimate agenda for America. If you are a conservative or a neocon the picture is not a pretty one.

JRH 4/5/09

American Sharecroppers: Tim Geithner’s Toxic Predatory Plan

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. writes about how Joe American Taxpayer is slowly selling his soul to a socialized U.S. Government.

This is very heady reading when you comprehend the bottom line.

JRH 3/31/09

Administration will pay welfare to terrorists

This should be no surprise now that President Barack Hussein Obama is moving America deeper into a socialistic welfare State in which Latin American illegal immigrants receive benefits that American citizens do not.

The Obama Administration is going to settle some of Gitmo’s anti-American Islamic terrorists in the U.S. of A. and allow them to be on the full package government dole.

JRH 3/29/09

Defying and Defeating Barack Hussein Obama’s Dhimmipolitik

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. is a compendium of information. His blog is United Against Islamic Supremacism.

Wow! I actually did not read this until I cross posted this at SlantRight.com. Mr. Johnson has found an awesome way to write about what is ailing America: Evolving socialism, devolving Capitalism, emerging Marxist dictatorship, Surrender to Islamic enemies, Stealth Jihad, Sharia Compliant Banking, Islamic Supremacism, Dhimmitude and more.

This is the first time I have read the word “Dhimmipolitic.” I can’t wait to absorb the information in this essay surrounding that word.

JRH 3/27/09

Don’t Allow Capitalistic Mismanagement Drive the USA to Socialism

Signal 94 blog writes excerpts from Wall Street Watch report entitled “Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America.”

I am cross posting the Signal 94 post because I like the interjections between excerpts.

I have been real big on not blaming President Bush as President Obama has been real big on blaming President Bush for the current financial difficulty.

This report shows there is a lot of blame to go around for Presidents, Congress, Government Regulators (or lack thereof) and Wall Street. The report focuses on Wall Street utilizing billions of dollars connected to lobbying to essentially buy the rules which Wall Street desired in its greed to make money. Unfortunately Wall Street greed messed with supply and demand creating an illusory supply (bad paper loans) to create an exploitable demand.

Is this a black eye for Capitalism? Is it a sunrise for Socialism?

The Left is attempting to blame Capitalism run amok to get the sun to shine bright on Socialism and Socialistic government managed control of individuals in America.

Market Libertarianism aside, Capitalism will still work better than Socialism; however watchful rules are needed not Government management of Capitalistic corporations. The Capitalism allows business to thrive. The rules protect the economy challenged from making bad decisions.

A Socialistic Government will micromanage For Profit businesses to become either out of business or owned by the Government so the economy does not fail yet the economy will not grow.

Here is Signal 94’s post.

JRH 3/5/09

Alexander: ObamaNation – The USSA

Mark Alexander’s Patriot Post is upset at the socialist transformation trend President Barack Hussein Obama is moving America. The point being the more government programs, the more government intrusion in the private and personal lives of Americans.

Leftists cried and whined about President Bush’s “Patriot Act” taking away privacy of Americans. I myself do not view the Patriot Act in that manner. The Patriot Act was designed to spy on Islamic terrorists inside and outside the nations and any traitorous American or resident foreigner contacting and/or aiding Islamic terrorists. The time of the Patriot Act has been proven successful. The last successful huge terrorist act on American soil was on September 11. 2001.

The dose of socialism BHO is embarking to insert in American society will make the perceived government intrusion of the Patriot Act look like a game of silly putty compared to the Big Brother intrusion of a socialist society (This link is to a Ron Paul opinion. Although I am not a big fan of Paul I tend to agree with his Big Brother article).

On SlantRight.com I am posting an excerpt of February 27 Patriot Post. Be sure to read the whole thing HERE.

JRH 3/1/09



******************
Updating from SlantRight.com archive site 7/10/15
+++
Friday Digest
Vol. 09 No. 08
27 February 2009
The Patriot Post

THE FOUNDATION

"Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood." --John Adams

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

ObamaNation -- The USSA

By Mark Alexander

Prior to the election of Barack Hussein Obama, some Republicans complained that identifying him as a socialist, which I have done since he announced his presidential aspirations, was "too extreme." Shortly after his election, the same lot insisted, "He's our president now. We should show him respect."

It is notable, however, that I have not heard a single such complaint since BHO's inauguration.

In fact, Newsweek magazine ran a cover story about Obama's so-called "Recovery Act" legislation proclaiming, "We are all Socialists now." Of course, because Newsweek is suffering from an acute case of revenue shortfall, a tabloid shock cover like the aforementioned is to be expected.

But there is no shortfall of truth in my claim that the "stimulus bill" has much less to do with economic recovery than it does with, in Obama's words, "the fundamental transformation of the United States of America."

Obama is accomplishing this socialist transformation at lightning pace under cover of "responding to the economic crisis" in order to "save or create 3.5 million jobs." (Note the clever construction "save or create," which is to say that even if there is no net increase in jobs, he'll still take credit for having saved 3.5 million jobs.)

Despite Obama's claims, this ruse wasn't a "crisis spending bill." Nor does it provide "economic growth," and it certainly has no legitimate "bipartisan support," with only three RINO senators from among 219 Republican legislators having been swayed by BHO's incessant fearmongering.

In fact, some Republican and Democrat governors have since calculated the costs associated with accepting the redistribution of "your money" by Obama, and they're saying, "no thanks," because the terms of acceptance would mean significant state tax increases on their citizens.

In my home state of Tennessee, Republican Sen. Bob Corker concurs with the Congressional Budget Office's summary that "the [Obama] legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product compared with CBO's baseline economic forecast." Sen. Corker has determined that it will not create any new jobs in Tennessee and is assisting Democrat Gov. Phil Bredesen with a determination of how to minimize the impact of the federal mandates.

Indeed, when all the mandates and interest expenses of BHO's programs are calculated, his legislation amounts to more than $3 trillion of "your money" being redistributed to his constituencies.

In an effort to restore the consumer and market confidence so essential to economic recovery, Obama addressed Congress, and by extension the nation, Tuesday night, saying, "While our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken, though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before."

But even Obama's messianic standing among his adoring adolescents has begun to wane, as it becomes increasingly apparent that he's far more fragrance than substance.

Of course, he spent less time cheerleading than he did promoting his next stab at the free market. To wit, a $3.6 trillion budget for the coming year that includes significant military cuts and significant tax increases on the innovators and entrepreneurs who dared turn a profit during the "era of profound irresponsibility," but which also expands government funding for his constituencies so much that it stands to increase the federal deficit to $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3 percent of GDP.

The U.S. has not been saddled with a deficit representing that much of our GDP since we were fighting a World War on two fronts in 1942.

Regarding the "transformation of America," Obama proclaimed that "the day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here. Now is the time to act boldly and wisely -- to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity."

The New York Times gleefully summed it up: "The budget that President Obama proposed is nothing less than an attempt to end a three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas of Ronald Reagan and his supporters."

"The ideas of Ronald Reagan?" Well, only in that President Reagan's ideas were dominated by the foundational principles of our nation -- individual liberty, constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, free enterprise, strong national defense and traditional American values.

BHO also continued his Herculean effort to redefine the reality that the current economic debacle is not the result of Democrat housing policies, insisting, "I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions."

Obama added, "CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer money to ... buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over." (For the record, Michelle has been renovating the White House, and Barack has been crisscrossing the country in his private 747 with his "dog and pony" show, all with taxpayer money.)

Regarding Obama's "war on success," The Wall Street Journal notes, "A tax policy that confiscated 100 percent of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 (before the recession started) would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable 'dime' of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion."

Needless to say, there will be far fewer folks with earnings over $500,000 this year.

In addition to tax increases on "the wealthy" (which all get passed along in the form of increases in the cost of products and services), Obama proposes to limit tax deductions. In other words, he doesn't want billions of dollars in tax-deductible donations to go toward charitable ministries and services, because his administration knows better how to allocate "your money" for social services.

For all his lofty grandstanding about private-sector greed (a.k.a. "free enterprise"), Obama hasn't proposed any salary rollbacks in the executive or legislative branches, much less big layoffs. Conversely, Obama's proposals will swell the ranks of the central government to unprecedented levels, all paid for with your tax dollars.

So much for the federal government tightening its belt amid massive salary cutbacks and layoffs in the private sector, or, should I say, out here in the real world.

Despite all this, the biggest expansion of government programs and spending in history, Obama had the audacity to say, "There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay. ... We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences."

One might fairly conclude that Obama is attempting to spend our constitutional republic -- and its assurance of individual liberty predicated on individual responsibility -- right out of existence. Indeed, it's no coincidence that Obama's recovery plan is similar in principle to Red China's emergency $586 billion "stimulus package," emphasizing massive government growth and infrastructure projects.

In doing some research this week, I came across the bios of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ronald Wilson Reagan on Obama's White House Web site. 

Under Roosevelt, one finds accolades for all the government spending he enacted in an effort to end the Great Depression (the Obama model) but not one word about the lack of effectiveness of any of those programs. Of course, not even the most zealous Leftists among Obama's historical revisionists in the White House would dare make such a claim, because they're unable to find a reputable economist who stands behind FDR's New Deal policies.

On the other hand, when I visited the Reagan bio, much to my amazement and amusement, I found this information: "Dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. He embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and Government expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense forces led to a large deficit." (Translation: Congressional Democrats refused to cut spending for "social programs.") "A renewal of national self-confidence by 1984 helped Reagan and Bush win a second term with an unprecedented number of electoral votes. In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes."

The Reagan bio concludes, "At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression. Overall, the Reagan years saw a restoration of prosperity, and the goal of peace through strength seemed to be within grasp."

So, what is one to conclude about the policies of Obama versus Reagan? Well, Obama's own White House Web site says it all.

(Oh, and I took a peek at Obama's bio and almost suffered a myocardial infarction after reading this opening line: "His story is the American story -- values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong family...." What? Barack who?)

Despite Newsweek's cover proclamation, we are NOT all socialists now. In fact, there are more than 60 million gun-owning Patriots across this nation, many of whom have taken sacred oaths "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Of those, more than a few stand ready to honor that oath.

After all, in the words of John Adams, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

Radical and thus uncomfortable as this fact may be, there is, nonetheless, a groundswell of discontent across the nation -- millions of Patriots who reject Obama's agenda for transforming the USA into the USSA. In the first Revolutionary War, George Washington mustered fewer than one percent of his countrymen against the mighty army of King George at the onset of hostilities. A far larger percentage of Americans stand ready to defend liberty today.

A year ago, I could not have forecast that the tenor of discontent would have reached such fervor that one now ponders, "Is insurrection the only answer?" I hope not, but it is the 800-pound gorilla at the table, and a growing number of Americans are taking note -- and I am not referring to only those who have lost jobs or incomes. At this writing, every Patriot I know, employed or not, subscribes to the sentiments of Thomas Paine, who penned these inimitable words in 1776: "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."

Indeed.

P.S. For those who have been most grievously affected by the liberal agendas that seeded the housing and financial market crisis, those of you who have lost your job, had your income cut and your savings and retirement funds gutted, help is just a click away. Visit the Federal Election Commission's campaign finance disclosure page, and under the map, select the search criterion menu "Donor's Name" and change that criterion to "Zip Code." Enter your zip code and click "Go." (This search may take up to a minute, so be patient.) Once the search is complete, select the column to search by "Candidate Name," and scroll down to see all the donors in your neighborhood who supported Obama. Since they enabled Obama to redistribute your wealth, surely they would be willing to share some of their own to cover your expenses until Obama's recovery plan has restored your job, your income, your savings and your retirement fund. (Heck, you might even find, as I did, that one of your neighbors far exceeded the legal giving limits to Obama's campaign.)

THERE IS A LOT MORE PATRIOT POST – GO HERE
________________________________________
The Patriot is protected speech pursuant to the "unalienable rights" of all men, and in accordance with the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. 

Copyright © 2009 The Patriot Post.

No Dissent Allowed

O my God! I just read something from blogger JudgeBob pertaining to Leftist designs to make the Supreme Court an instrument transforming America into a Democratic Party socialist utopia effectively rendering the U.S. Constitution into the evolutionary document Leftists dream of and that the Constitutional Founding Fathers sought to avoid; i.e. Checks and Balances in the Federal U.S. government.

JRH 2/22/09

The Demise of democracy? of the nation state?

Here is a WOW piece of writing especially if you are endued with the patience of reading a lengthy essay in a sort of an e. e. cummings format (i.e. the entire is in written in small text rather than grammatical capitalization).

The author begins with a historical perspective working toward the goal of explaining Marxism (and its various Left offshoots) have eroded typical Western and American values. Also the author included Islamic Jihadism as a danger to Western Society for all the Slanted Left Marxist derivatives enable radical Islam by both acting as a social apologist and setting the West up for the intrusion of Islamic values (e.g. Sharia Law) to move into the values vacuum created by the Left.

The Demise of democracy? of the nation state? – Is truly an awesome read. Educate yourself for the sake of your families’ future.

JRH 2/15/09