CHRISTMAS WITH A SPIN

I just thought I would put a little contemporary spin on some old Christmas carols in the light of last night’s health care vote. I figure our Democrat friends will need a little holiday cheer to warm them while they commit political suicide.
Enjoy, and please feel free to pass the link to these along to everyone you know. Who knows, maybe we can get Congress to sing a different tune next year . . . after all . . . it will soon be election time again!
David Arthur

OH CONGRESSMAN
(Sung to the tune of Oh Tannenbaum)

Oh Congressman, Oh Congressman, I don’t think you are listening.
Oh Congressman, Oh Congressman, Your recent votes are blistering.
About health care, we’ve told you “no”, but you decided we can go . . .
Oh Congressman, Oh Congressman, in twenty-ten you’re history!

SENATORS
(Sung to the tune of Jingle Bells)

Senators, senators, lined up in a row,
Taking money for their votes, acting just like hoe-oh’s
Senators, senators, lies on every breath,
Telling us it’s for our good, they’re spending us to death.

SILENT NIGHT
(Congressional Version)

Silent Night, what a sight,
The Senate works to solve their plight,
Reid’s round minions are voting his way,
While conservatives can’t get a say,
Sixty votes and it’s over,
The young and the aged are screwed!

THE TWELVE DAYS IN CONGRESS
(Sung to the tune of The Twelve Days of Christmas)

On the last day in session the Congress gave to me,
Five tax increases,
Four clunker autos,
Three dead banks,
Two waning wars,
And a bill that our children can’t pay!

PLEASE REST YOU SCARY GENTLEMEN
(Sung to God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen)

Please rest you scary gentlemen you’re causing me dismay,
For you are spending trillions to steal my means away,
The President says share the wealth, and congress does his bid,
Oh hiding behind the last admin, so you say,
Oh hiding behind the Bush admin.

OH HOLY COW
(Sung to Oh Holy Night)

Oh holy cow, my money you are spending,
It’s not your right to ignore our request.
We said vote “no”, but pride is never ending,
And now you’ve gone and sold us down the stream,
Once health care’s won, your days in power are numbered,
In twenty-ten, we’ll vote you on your way,
So fall on your knees, and pray that you survive it,
Or go-oh,
With the polls,
Turn around,
Before you’re gone,
Or please resign,
Oh please, please resign!

OH LITTLE TOWN OF WASHINGTON
(Sung to Oh Little Town of Bethlehem)

Oh little town of Washington how long we’ve see thee lie,
With what you’ve done most recently, there’s little question why,
By ruining our health care, you prove just who you are,
With bribes and payoffs by the score,
Next year we’ll say goodbye!

OFF TO THE SENATE
(Sung to Up On the Rooftop)

Off to the Senate, quick, quick, quick,
Congress thinks they are Saint Nick,
Giving to those who they need for power,
They steal from the rich with every hour.
Hoe, Hoe, Hoe, we all know
Hoe, Hoe, Hoe, They all gotta go-oh,
Off to the hilltop oh so slick,
The way they vote it makes you sick!

I’M DREAMING OF A SLIGHT CHRISTMAS
(Sung to White Christmas)

I’m dreaming of a slight Christmas,
Not like the ones I used to know.
Where I once had money, and things were sunny,
But after April I don’t know.
I’m dreaming of a slight Christmas,
With every quarterly I send.
With my reps not listening or care,
Looks like my whole Christmas will be bare.

HERE COMES THE PRESIDENT
(Sung to Here Comes Santa Claus)

Here comes Santa Claus, looks like the President, coming from Washington,
He’s got money from my wallet, will this ever end?
There’s no reason for this thievery, except to make him king.
It’s all for power and his glory, while we’re all suffering!

I WONDER AS I WANDER
(The carol to Fannie and Freddie)

I wonder as I wander through what’s left of my home,
It’s deep in foreclosure and I’m all alone,
The President promised no mortgage for me,
But my bank and my lender they all disagree!
Was it not that the rich folk were all there to pay,
As the rest of us squander in usual ways,
But most rich are leaving and the rest become poor,
No wonder the economy has sunk through the floor!

JOY TO THE OBAMA WORLD
(Sung to Joy to the World)

Joy to the world, Obama has come,
And said, “It’s all ok,”
The banks are bleeding,
And GDP receding,
But the wonders of his name,
In a teleprompted fame,
Do nothing, oh nothing,
To bring us gain.


“Merry Christmas to all, and to all a . . . ‘Good Heavens!’”

IN CELEBRATION OF THE FALL HARVEST

It’s funny how stories change over the years. Take Thanksgiving, for example. The present story tells of a terrible winter where the Pilgrims barely came through with their lives. In fact, were it not for the hospitality of the local native American tribes – who gave the new settlers the knowledge of native flora and fauna – that early colony would have starved out and died in the wilderness of the New World. And so, to thank Squanto and his tribe, the Pilgrims gave a great feast we now call “Thanksgiving”.

What a lovely story to pass on to the generations . . . or should I say what a lovely PC story to shove down their throats!

In the PC version, there’s no mention of God, nor that the Pilgrims came to America to escape sever persecution because they were not willing to bend to the state religion of their European homeland. There’s no mention of the reason why the Pilgrims found it so hard to survive, or why and how the Indians came to their aid.

The true story of the Pilgrims begins in 1609, in Holland. As a religious separatist movement, they found that their homeland, England, no longer tolerated their beliefs. And so, they immigrated to the Dutch city of Lieden.
But even in the broadminded Dutch culture, persecution continued to follow them, and as Holland came closer to war with Spain, it became apparent that the Pilgrims would have to move once again. This time, it would be to a new world, a place where they could practice their beliefs without molestation.

The European continent was a place for neither religious nor political free thinking. In 17^th Century society, if you didn't go along with the King and his administration, you were likely to find yourself on the wrong end of an inquisition. While the church and state vied equally for ultimate power, it was often a blending of the two that ravaged the masses. Between Anglicanism and Catholicism, you had little choice as to what you were to believe, and even then, geography dictated your flavor of choice.

And so, in 1620, they set out for a new land, where they could believe as they chose, and practice as they wished.

They took what stores they could to weather the first year in America, though their holdings were meager at best. It was a hard journey, and an even rougher landing on the new continent. Luck had lost them long before they began, and by the time they arrived on the shores of Plymouth, they were all but shipwrecked and heading into winter. Their original intent was to immigrate to the colony of Virginia, which extended at that time to the Hudson River. But both the weather and lack of supplies conspired to leave them in the port of Cape Cod.

Because their original charter was to settle in Virginia, they had to reorganize as a New England colony. And thus, they entered into an agreement – the Mayflower Compact – that set forth the original political framework for their society. They would follow the biblical practice of the early Christians recorded in the book of Acts. However, it also set forth some very important concepts that we now hold sacred within our own political climate; that of religious freedom, separation of church and state, and equal justice under the law.

It was the winter of 1620 that nearly eradicated the Pilgrims. By the spring of 1621, nearly half of their party perished from the cold barren New England climate. But they managed to survive, gaining a foothold in America. When the Mayflower returned to England, it did so without a single Pilgrim. This spirited group had the opportunity to return to their homeland, yet they chose to remain in the New World. Over the following decade, others joined with them and immigrated to America.

The Abrnaki Indian Samoset was the first to welcome the new settlers in the spring of 1621, and not Squanto, whose native name was Tisquantum. Squanto, of the Wampanoag tribe, had been taken to Spain as a captive in 1614, but found his way back to the shores of New England by the time the Pilgrims landed in Cape Cod. The Wampanoags were the people who had lived in that area. Sadly, when he returned to his home, Patuxet, it had been completely wiped out by disease. Though the first meetings between European explorers and trappers, and American aboriginals were relatively peaceful, that contact carried biologic invaders the Indians were not able to withstand.

Inadvertently, the downfall of the original Native American population began in illness and not by war.

Regardless, the Indian’s first welcome was offered in mutual respect, and was also one of political significance to the Wampanoag. Massasoit, a Wampanoag chief, needed the support of the colonists to keep stability between his tribe and that of the Narragansett, another powerful nation in the region. Disease had tipped the balance of power in favor of the Narragansett, and the Wampanoag were certainly willing to welcome anyone who was helpful to their security.
The Pilgrims also needed support and protection. As a very small community, they easily could have been vanquished and eradicated by the native peoples living in that part of the world. While Europeans had a clear technological advantage, that benefit extended only so far as the European continent. In the wilderness, the new colonists were extremely vulnerable.

And so, the first contact between the new European settlers and the aboriginal peoples of America were elementally political and resulted in a treaty of mutual support between them.

The first celebration was a three day feast in honor of the fall harvest. It wasn’t a religious holiday, and was an observance that was brought to America, not originating here. It was a few years later in 1623 that the first religious day of thanksgiving was celebrated in response to a much needed torrential rainfall. Over time, the two fused into one observance, which in 1863 was commemorated through a national holiday.

The purpose of that first Thanksgiving was to thank the Creator for the annual harvest, and to honor the treaty of mutual support between the Indians and the colonists. While not a religious event, they were a religious people. And while the Indians did bring necessary knowledge to the settlers, the colonists too brought political stability to the Indians. And thus, the celebration has taken on many meanings aside from its original intent, that being an acknowledgement of providence on the part of God for a good and full harvest.

So what can we take from this time of celebration, aside from the fact that while the Pilgrims were legal immigrants, as chartered by England, their immigration eventually spelled the demise of the native peoples? As Europeans continued to colonize the continent, the Indians eventually found they had been conquered. Had they realized what was in store for their nations, they would likely have not been so symbiotic on that day in 1621.

As time passed, friction grew between the Pilgrims and the Indians. There were skirmishes and wars that broke out from time to time, and eventually the native peoples were subdued. As in most conflicts, this was not nearly as black and white an issue as it seems. There were native people who wanted to coalesce with the settlers, and some even went to war on their side. Thus, not all Europeans were intent on displacing the local tribes, nor were all of the indigenous people adverse to accepting European ways and traditions.

It was a culture clash, something that today we view as a negative.

Regardless, this early meeting of the two societies was one of mutual peace and support. The Pilgrims gave as much to Massasoit’s cause, as he gave toward their survival. It was in a spirit of mutuality that both gained in the process. And as for the religious connotation, we cannot forget that the Pilgrim’s whole intention was to establish a state whereby they could practice religious freedom.

It was in recognition of Europe’s tight grasp on the church that they set out on a path of separation between church and state. They had been victimized by the results of established religion, and so, they were very careful to keep the two aspects of society distinct. They did not, however, fear the civic observance of faith. In fact, they celebrated it openly. They simply drew the line between the secular and sacred at the point where one would dictate policy to the other. The two were blended, equal, but not conjoined.

This is the guiding principle the founding fathers used to pen our own Constitution.

And as for the early attempt at socialism, they tried the experiment we’re now toying with, and they found that it brought them to destruction rather than benefit. Within only a few years, they realized that some were working hard for the good of the community, and others were willing to sit back and share in the communal good. It wasn't long before the colonists became good capitalists, and their wares were the envy not only of the Old World, but are still valued as collectible today.

As for the Native Americans, people throughout the ages conquered one another, and will do so in the future as well. Were it not for that European invasion, you wouldn't likely be reading this, as Microsoft wouldn’t likely exist. Even the Indians conquered one another, as have the English, Spanish, Huns, Romans, Mongols, Greeks, Israelites, Babylonians, Egyptians, and others throughout time.
The world has never lacked for dictators, emperors, and potentates.

But for one brief moment in history, two worlds came together to share in celebration. In peaceful mutuality, they gave thanks to their respective gods for a bountiful harvest to carry them through the winter. That’s the point of Thanksgiving. In our war torn world today, maybe, just for one day, we can put aside our overburdening concern with melanin content and observe a day of mutual support. Who knows, maybe we’ll end up starting a new tradition?

(Special appreciation is given to the Pilgrim Hall Museum, whereby most of the information for this blog was gleaned.)

SLIP SLIDING AWAY

Saturday the first of the funerals began for the fallen Killeen thirteen. They were laid to rest because of a brutal attack on the part of an Islamic jihadist who – though born a U.S. citizen, raised in the borders of our country, and commissioned by the U.S. Army – felt a greater allegiance to Islam than to the oath he freely took as a military officer.

According to the words of our President and his willing accomplices in the media, Major Hasan is not an Islamic terrorist, but a lone gunman who acted on his own behalf.

Also, this last week, our military leaders brought four plans outlining victory in Afghanistan to our President. The basic concept was to increase the troop strength in a surge much like what was done in Iraq. He summarily dismissed all four plans, citing that Karl Eikenberry, our ambassador to the country, was uncomfortable with raising force strength in the light of the instability of Afghanistan’s political climate.

The President feels that their country needs greater political strength before committing more combat troops to complete the task we started.

Then, it was announced on Friday that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, along with four of his co-conspirators, will be tried in the civil court system and not under a military tribunal. This will take place in New York, and as for the rest of the Al Qaeda combatants we’ve gathered over the years at “Gitmo”, they are likely going to be moved to a maximum security prison in Illinois. It is further assumed that they too will be tried in the civil courts, all being granted the same rights as any red-blooded American citizen.

The problem is, these individuals were collected during battle, are not citizens, were never detained on U.S. soil, nor were they apprehended due to a breach of American criminal law.

In all of this, the truth is, there is one common theme. According to the White House, the whole of the 911 attack was a criminal offense and not an act of war. Our President seems oddly uneasy with the concept that we are truly in a direct confrontation with Islamic extremists, not even allowing the term “terrorists” to be applied to them.

This is why it is essential to President Obama to push this into the courts. By doing so, the whole of 911 becomes a criminal matter, changing the prosecution over to the Justice Department and out of the hands of Defense. Like most liberals, he is very uncomfortable with the operations of the military, and thus, proves this further by his waffling on the subject of Afghanistan. By committing troops, he then must admit that we are still engaged in a military conflict, and not the pursuit of criminal justice.

Where does this leave the military? If the President is successful, then the only alternative will be to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, which would then appease the left, though it will outrage our allies in the region. When we withdraw, which is where I assume he’s going with all of this, it will pull the only support these fledgling democracies have to keep them afloat. From there, the pattern looks peculiarly similar to the path of implosion seen in Saigon during the mid 1970’s.

Wars should never be run out of the White House, which is the one aspect of Bush’s presidency that he truly got right. Of course, Both GW and his father were veterans, fighter pilots, and men who understood the dynamics of warfare. President Obama has never served in the armed forces, and also carries that certain disdain for them found in common with nearly all leftists.

Worse yet, he is not alone. This disease of mistaking the Jihadists call to war for stand-alone criminal activity seems to infect nearly all of the Democrat party. Listening to Fox News, to a person, every Democrat lawmaker sided with the Administration. Both Reid and Pelosi are on record in line with the Justice Department’s actions, and the whole lot of them together is bent on twisting the public’s perception of the conflict to meet their own political ends.

If there is no “war”, then Bush’s administration was not only acting unjustly, but was doing so illegally, as the methods they employed were those reserved for military conflict, and would be deemed unlawful in a police action. Therefore, the left would be justified in pursuing investigations and eventual show trials for anyone they deemed a political adversary out the previous administration.

And so, the witch hunt continues. Their intention is to vilify the prior presidency, and to lay at Bush’s feet any failures that arise from leaving the battle before its conclusion. In fact, as has been seen in our economic situation, this is a very common ploy they are using. Nearly everything that has gone wrong over the past year is deemed to be inherited. This plays even further into the scapegoat affect whereby none of the recent catastrophes can be pinned to Obama, regardless of whether they either happened or worsened due to his leadership, policies, or lack thereof.

Part of the reason Obama is so hesitant to move on Afghanistan with the same surge as Bush did in Iraq is that it very likely would be successful, and that gives the distinct possibility of victory, something with witch Obama has already stated his uneasiness. In the liberal world, “winning” is simply a concept they cannot abide. Our schools are beginning to teach our children how to play games without keeping score, so as not to offend anyone or hurt their feelings. To be honest, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are keeping score!

Moreover, it also is increasingly obvious that these foreign conflicts are a distraction from Obama’s intended goal of grasping further power by federalizing our health care system. He has already imposed the will of government on the banks, two major auto manufacturers, the education system through student loans, and by shoving his hand into the pockets of even modest wage earners by proposing extremely excessive taxation.

And yet, he is caught on video bowing to the Japanese Emperor, all after giving his grand world apology tour this last summer; even bowing to a Saudi king.

But in all of this, there may well be a backlash. Reverend Wright may have uttered an unwitting prophecy. America’s – or should we say, Obama’s – chickens are coming home to roost. North Korea clashed with South Korean naval forces on Friday, Iran stated that they have no intentions of bending to the U.N.’s nuclear restrictions, and Palestine recently decided to make its bid for nation status.

Obviously Obama’s standing within the international community is not what he believes it to be. Much of the inroads Bush built by refusing unilateral talks, insisting instead on all negotiations being multilateral, is fading as the world’s rogue leaders snub Obama. Bush also was readily willing to back U.S. assertions with military force, if necessary. Obama is openly apologizing for our nation’s strength, and is actively undermining our recent military operations. This would be little more than laughing stock, were it not for the fact that a major nuclear arms agreement with Russia will expire this December.

How will a man who disdains the military, has no experience on the foreign stage, refuses to see Jihad as war, and is all but willing to roll over and show his belly to every world leader he meets, going to be able to hold the line on U.S. sovereignty and security in arms limitation?

Remember, he’s the one who vowed to disarm America’s nuclear arsenal . . . first!

Maybe he should take notes from Israel’s Prime Minister before heading to Moscow. "There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians," Netanyahu said. "Any unilateral action would only unravel the framework of agreements between us and can only lead to one-sided steps on the part of Israel."

At least the world hasn't run out of leaders yet. Only America has, for the moment. Then again, the elections in 2010 are just around the corner and less than a year away. Hopefully Americans will see how our country is slipping away from us and will bring some real “hope and change” by sweeping Obama’s support from Congress.

Maybe then we can get back to fighting and winning our conflicts, relieving the people from their tax burden, instilling pride in our young, and elevate the U.S. to her former position as “leader” of the free world. I must admit, it’s an awful big, “we’ll see”. In years past, Americans have had short memories and an all too forgiving heart. Let’s hope we’re not seeing the last days of a once great empire, because though the President is uncomfortable with victory, the terrorists are not. And they are the ones who declared war on us.

Haven’t we seen this situation before, where some European countries were queasy about conflict and didn't want to confront a rogue nation, choosing appeasement in place of strength? Of course, that was a long time ago in the 1930’s and 40’s, and surely couldn't happen again . . . could it?

VETERAN'S DAY

I just can’t resist responding to an e-mail sent to me shortly after the most recent observation of Veteran’s Day.

I’m sitting here, still in uniform, after a normal duty day as a full-time member of the reserve forces. My boss, a F-16 fighter pilot, should be returning from the Gulf in the next week or so, while the young Master Sergeant who works for me isn't due home until sometime in February. I will likely do a tour next year.

I’m an older vet, having spent a little over 30 years of my adult life both on active duty and in the reserves. I've seen times when it wasn't cool to wear this uniform, and sometimes people would spit on or assault us in one way or another. I've seen more recent days when folks would cross the street just to come over to shake my hand and to thank me for my service. Both extremes have left me oddly uncomfortable, yet lately humbled.

So why do I do what I do? I suppose it’s a job, much like other jobs. But there’s an odd satisfaction in being the guardian of a cause. When they say that, “Freedom isn't free,” the words are quite personal to me. I know that were it not for my oath, joined with that of my brothers and sisters who serve with me, we most certainly would not have this benefit of freedom. For the price of our independence is paid in blood, inasmuch as it is also in time, sweat, pain, and the endless moments that alternate between extreme anxiety and unfettered boredom.

But this experience has been so much more than a job, and I am not unaffected. There once was a time when the Pledge of Allegiance and National Anthem were little more to me than the lead in to the morning’s scholastic announcements. Three decades later, those same words often bring a lump to my throat, as I truly believe that each are nothing less than a sacred vow, reminding us, military and civilian, of the benefits our benefactors fought to secure.

I’ll doff this garb before too long, taking my place amongst the ranks of the retired. I’ll sit with my friends and tell glorious stories of Cold War antics, trade Gulf War anecdotes, and lie with the best of them about, “There I was.” But more than that, I shall continue to give reverence to the founding fathers, and will stand, with pride, in the knowledge that I too lived in honor of my pledge. And all without any requirement for anyone’s appreciation. We do this because it’s right; to appease our own sense of honor; to carry out that sacred trust laid upon us by you. And while your gratitude means more to us than gold – and believe me, it is never unnoticed nor unappreciated – my reasons for serving are a matter of conviction, more personal than I can ever explain.

For those who oppose or disregard us, though they are few, even in their disrespect, they prove the value of our cause. For it is with our lives, we grant them the privilege. That right of opposition is written in the epitaphs carved in granite, or marble, or bronze. For opposition is the prize of freedom, and in its exercise, the true value of our sacrifice shines. We feel no shame, for we stand watch for all, regardless of your viewpoint.

So, if you feel the desire to thank a vet, let me simply state, “You are most welcome.” And there is one gift you can give that proves our lives are not lived in vain. With every election, you choose those who dictate our fates. I only ask that you choose well. For a thank you from the lips, means far less than giving us the leadership to guide us through these perilous times and to ensure the security of our cause. True appreciation is to support us by exercising the power of choice toward those leaders who, in pledge, in deeds, and in heart-felt sincerity, take their position as a hallowed trust. Our lives quite literally depend upon it.

By doing so, you will protect and keep us well. Though we shall offer ourselves without question in trade for the freedoms of this promised land, it is a gift not given lightly. Honor us by your ballots. Give us the leaders who will ensure the purity of our cause, respecting this nation as it was intended, and upon the principles of which its foundation was forged. By doing this, you will defend all of our liberty, so we may continue – one nation – forever onward as the, “The land of the free, and the home of the brave”.

OFF-YEAR, ON-POINT!

I ran into one of my good friends yesterday who asked me about the blog. “When’s the next update?” Well, I apologize for being missing, and my explanation is found at my website. I never realized how complicated one can get, and have spent the last three weeks working up my corner of the web.

There is so much to say regarding the power grab being foisted on the American people, along with all of the liberties that we’re in danger of giving over to the oligarchy, that I could write for pages and never run dry. But I’m sure you have been watching the news and can clearly see that our nation is about to step into the pit of socialistic doom, with a mighty shove by both the White House and Congress.

So, instead, I shall give you a very simple cure.

Can we stave off the slide into oblivion? Cane we as common Americans, with such a limited voice in opposition to the tirade of the present political tyrants, be heard with loud clarity?

The answer is a resounding, “Yes!”

You see, tomorrow we have the power and opportunity to let the administration know that we, as conservative Americans, still have one power we have retained within the political system. We have both the opportunity and responsibility to vote.

There are a few elections, such as the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia that will be pivotal. But they are not a stand alone message. With every issue in play throughout the nation, we have a singularly unique opportunity in time to tell the politicians that we will no longer be willing participants in the downfall of our nation.

The turnout is not expected to be much at all. It never is during an off-year election. These are the cycles where communities pass their tax levies, the local dog warden gets a new truck, the school board picks up new membership, and a few initiatives make their way either onto the law books or out of consideration until the next cycle.

Not much business takes place during the off-years. Except, this year the eyes of the nation are watching.

The left is counting on you to stay home. If you do, they will see the lack of interest, and interpret it as your tacit approval for all they’re doing in congress at the moment.

However, if the governorships and various elected seats throughout the nation go conservative, it will send an entirely different message. There are those who know that their seats in congress lie in how the public perceives them, and if a conservative message is sent, then conservative they shall become.

One shouldn’t expect that tomorrow will completely erase the votes cast last year. As Rush Limbaugh says, “Elections have consequences!” And there are always those who really don’t care what their constituents think of them.
Still, there are a lot of those we call “Blue Dogs”, who know full well that their path of following the liberal leadership, is likely to be their path back to the private sector.

And so, it is essential you make time tomorrow to go to the polls. It will take only a few moments of your time, but may set the outcome of American politics for decades to come.

While I urge you to vote conservative, I also believe in the American ideal of conscience. Do what your heart tells you is right.

Regardless, take time and vote. Just by being a part of the numbers and showing an increase in action, we can send the message that Americans are both active and watching. And our voice will be heard, regardless of how it is reported by the mainstream media.

Who knows. By this one small act of personal patriotism, you may just be part of the sleeping giant that awakens to make real change, and to offer real hope. Those are two things we’re sorely in need of, but have yet to even begin to realize . . . especially under the present administration!

IN MEMORIUM

Yesterday, my wife and I attended the funeral of her best friend’s mother. It was a simple ceremony, and in dignity and solemnity, she was commended to the eternal, putting down the struggles of ordinary life.

Afterward, we chose to drive through the cemetery and we pondered at the inscriptions chiseled into the cold stone markers. Each represented a real once living person, with friends and family, and a life lived to the fullest extent each was capable.

As in most memorial gardens, there lie the dead from our nation’s wars, interred after realizing the ultimate price of their pledge. Some dating back almost to the revolution, they rested in the hope that we should hold their sacrifice sacred, and to give notice of that for which they died.

It was a moment for reflection, not lost on those of us living, who in the hush of a mid-day’s breeze, could hear the breath of patriots calling to us, urging our hearts to enjoin with their cause. Of life, of liberty, and with a generosity only those born into freedom can muster, they endowed us with prosperity, and the gift of opportunity.

It also was the first day of fall, the season where the year hints of its impending demise, and that the hush of winter would soon be upon the landscape. The leaves have gone golden and will progress into crimson. The sun hangs lower and for far less of the day than before. And as for the breath of autumn, the words aren't clear any longer as to what our ancestors promised.

Looking back, we saw spring blossom one July afternoon, whereby a nation arose from the tyrannical ashes of a people whose homeland had misused and forgotten. In the name of God’s sovereign bestowment to all humanity, brave men banded to pledge their lives, their liberty, and their sacred honor. They took to arms and put off the yoke of a king, for the sake of their children, and of all generations to follow.

Others, in later years, gave homage to that pledge by leaving the shores of home to secure the freedom of others. They conquered distant lands, only to return the soil soaked with their own blood, to the people for whom they came to save. They reserved only enough land in which to lay to rest the bravest amongst them.

It was as summertime then, and from invention to investment, from fashion to frivolity, in all ways of culture, science, philosophy, medicine, and machinery, the liberty bought in the blood of our youth, paid the dividends only freedom can grant. But the reason for their success is because imagination is only incited when it is set free, and with the jewel of capitalism, shining like a distant star upon which to navigate, our people put their hands and shoulders to their industry and showed the globe what it meant to be powerful and secure.
And occasionally, in the quite moments of our memorials, we stopped to remember to whom we owe such gratitude. Patriots all, they fought to ensure our people would have the opportunity to peruse that idyllic goal promised by the founders.

But in time, seasons pass. The passion that flourishes in youth, dims with age and follows its course from vigor, through lust, to confidence, and into forgetfulness. We scarcely recall the reason for their graves, and the struggle for autonomy no longer gives rise to contemplation.

Thus, here we are. The leaves are turning, the colors fading, and the warmth in which we basked for so very long has cooled. It was only a moment’s time in the great scheme of humanity that we were strong and agile, and able to stand proud in self-definition. But apathy does its cruelty, and people forget as years progress. All too comfortable in what they have, they never realize that in a twinkling, it could be lost, stolen, or simply given away.

Diligence is all too necessary now. The season is passing more quickly than before, and we seem to be heading headlong into winter. As our independence weakens, and oppressive civic paternalism grows, we seem to be running full-tilt into the deep chill where “We the People” are no more. Winter’s wind may well be a gasp, the fears of our founders realized.

For you see, today the President stood before the world and decried the inhumanity and desperate imperialism of America. Aligned with the top terrorists of the world, he spoke out against a small and desolate country, our staunchest cohort and most steadfast international friend. He paid homage to dictators, and pledged our support in tearing down the prowess of a nation that once held high the principles of liberty and democracy.

In one speech, he tore down the foundational beliefs that fueled manifest destiny, and gave aim to the bullets of those who rally to fight against our homeland. In his oration, it was America whose sin was in daring to profit by making the world prosperous.

But such was to be expected, as his aim is one of national degeneration and a tacit alignment with globalism. And though it means the empowerment of our enemies, while inciting the reproach of our allies, his concern is for his own legacy, even if that story is written in the further blood of patriots, who serve and die at his leisure, all for an illusive dream that may well pass without reawakening.

And so, with further reflection, the lives of those – the brave – call to us. From the tomb they ask only that we give ear to their cause. For it was in freedom they were born, and it is for liberty that they died. Only in active opposition to this corruption of our Constitution may we find the redemption of their dignity.

For the time being, we can little avoid the fading of fall into winter. But how severe will be this season is yet to be told. By the almanac of politics, brace well, my friend. For unless we are able to turn from this present malignant direction, the embrace of such an early frost, will give way to an icy dungeon, built with every wayward house resolution and senate vote.

DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT?

There is nothing more personal as one’s health. No amount of wealth, power, or prestige can overcome the loss of it, and thus, there lately seems to be no end to the clamor concerning health care reform. Today’s banner issue is whether people have a “right” to affordable health care.

The dictionary defines a “right” as, “a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral . . . that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.”

Thus the argument is that people should have the just claim or moral guarantee they are able to receive medical treatment if they fall ill. Everyone should have the “right” to good health, right? The conjecture is that our present free market heath care system somehow abridges this concept.

Are we not presently free to buy health insurance, avail ourselves of emergency services, and to seek out any form or fashion of health care we choose? Granted, we can’t all afford the same level of care or quality, but that imposition is not on the part of government, but rather is a limitation brought to us by our own economic choices.

And what is “freedom”? According to the dictionary, it is “Exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.; the power to determine action without restraint.”

Again, no right is denied or abandoned on the part of any societal or governmental infringement . . . that is, at least for now.

While we have the freedom to exercise our rights within the American framework, we are often either unaware of or completely overlook the fact that freedoms and rights are not sacrosanct. They exist only as long as the one who wishes to exercise them is also willing to adhere to and maintain them.
Both freedom and rights can be lost, or rather, forsaken. It’s all in the tenacity of a society in guarding them, and once we become apathetic in that regard, we open the door to tyranny or at least to oppression by those who wish, regardless of intent, to set limits, boundaries, and controls.

According to the Declaration of Independence all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Reading further, it is the purpose of government to “secure these rights”. But the ultimate point is that God endows, and the only function of government is to ensure that this endowment is never supplanted.

Moreover, our very Declaration of Independence claims that, “To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In the eyes of our forefathers, government was solely to secure and protect liberty, and only to act with our consent.

The reason government cannot grant rights, is because it is only a servant of the people, and not in equality to God. According to the founders, the endowment of rights was to be left to the Creator. No human institution was to interfere with, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Of course, reason injects that there must be some order to society, and part of securing liberty for all means that some freedoms must be subjugated to the public good. Obviously, by abusing freedom, such abuse infringes on the rights of others. For example, killing another individual may celebrate your liberty, but it also deprives your victim of their right to life. And so it follows that mankind needs some form of administration to ensure the operation of justice and freedom, and that liberty not lead to oppression.

The founders sought a balance between the responsibility of the state to keep the peace, and the freedom of the individual to seek the fruits of their own labor.

But with liberty, there also comes responsibility. In the early summer of 1776, and later in September of 1787, the great men who wrought our republic hammered out the guiding documents that set us on the road to becoming the nation we are. This wasn’t done by chiseling out a narrow pathway in which the country, as if on rails, would continue forward without regard to growth or change. They gave us the power of freedom, which was the very nature of why they revolted against their sovereign in the first place. But in doing so, they also gave us the ability to evolve, whereby we are no longer the nation they originally envisioned.

In regards to liberty, their aim was boundless. In regards to responsibility, they saw it fit that the government was to protect the borders, ensure equal trade between the states, enter into international treaties on behalf of the people, and to create just laws and uphold them through an unbiased judiciary. And so government was to serve the cause of promoting the general welfare by fostering the opportunity for her citizens to pursue happiness, without any requirement to grant it.

By “equality”, they simply meant that all men, being equal in generalized nature, were unfettered, or free, to seek whatever fortune their own ability in choice would lead them toward. There never was a mandate for public charity, and in fact, many of the forefathers warned against it.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." (Letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816)[1]

Some who have held the office of President, such as Roosevelt, Johnson, and now Obama, in their war on poverty, are in direct opposition to the concept held by the very man who penned the Declaration of Independence. While all men have the right to live well, and as they are given protection of their liberty to exercise such, there are, however, no guarantees they will meet with success. It was never envisioned that we should have equality of outcome, but rather, that all men were set free to seek their own destiny, by a path of their own choosing, and through their own good judgment and dedicated industry.

This is an essential concept within American political doctrine, as it also betrays the caldron from which the poison of tyranny is brewed. We must return to the Declaration to understand that the boundary of government is set at whatever line to which the governed are content to draw. As the first words of the Constitution announce, “We the People . . . do ordain and establish.”

While the rights of the citizenry can never be usurped, they can, however, be forsaken. And that’s the heart of why it is so essential that liberty be our first cause, and only when one person’s freedom is abridged by another, should any laws or legislation exist. That was the founders’ intent. They sought to create a nation whereby people had the complete freedom to act, gather, speak, work, trade, and essentially live, without the infringement of government. But, in the words of Thomas Paine, "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." (The American Crisis, No.4, September 17, 1777)

Because living in a free society is arduous, liberty can be abandoned and rights lost. You see, because government can only grant privileges, once the authority to rule is conveyed to it, the individual risks losing the right of self-determination. For example, anyone has the “right” to own a car. All you need is the economic means to purchase a motor vehicle. You do not, however, have the “right” to drive it once you own it.

When automobiles were first invented, anyone who wanted one could have one and use it at will. You simply bought the car, started the engine, and off you went along your merry way. But not everyone was responsible in their driving habits, and over time the people determined that in the name of safety, the operator must have a permit. Consequently we have the driver’s license, and the “right” to drive was abridged by the consent of the people.

Therefore, we have established that regardless of the Constitution, the people are able to abdicate their place as free citizens and take on constraint. Rights are lost and freedom compressed because the will of the people have vacated them.

It is, after all, the character of government to govern, and much the same as nature abhors a vacuum, so government will fill the void left behind by an indifferent or unmindful electorate.

But why is this erosion occurring in a country that was born from the act of throwing off the yoke of oppression? In a word, apathy comes to mind. Ignorance too has beset the very people who select their representation based on the most arbitrary traits, such as personality and physical appearance. History is full of finely dressed men who spoke well, yet acted surreptitiously once handed the reins of power. And yet, we never seem to learn from history.
To ensure the security of their office, in the manner of potentates throughout the centuries, our representatives found it quite useful to buy the indulgence of certain people with the revenue collected from the public at large. Much like any ponzi scheme, politicians are good at fleecing the flock, then handing out the booty to those who will continue them in power. And so, the word “right” has further morphed into “entitlement”.

The latest cry of the “disadvantaged” is that everyone should have a “right” to “affordable” health care. Do we have the right to treatment for injury or illness? Of course we do! But to say we have the right for it to be affordable, as Jefferson outlined, makes a mockery of liberty. To engage in determining affordability is to hamper the exercise of free commerce, and is then an affront to those whose enterprise it is to provide such services. If philanthropists are so inclined, let them donate toward the health care of others, as they surely have that freedom. There is no hindrance thereto. But to demand that all be willing to give up their industry for the sake of charity is a usurpation of the very nature of our founding documents.

No man is entitled to the fruit of another man’s labor!

To codify such action is to, in a sense, nullify the laws against theft. Were you or I to take from a wealthy man In order to, as spoken by our President, “share the wealth”, we would find ourselves in front of a magistrate just prior to conviction. And yet, the people of our once free nation no longer see this as an issue. Welfare is generally accepted, and we further confuse charity with pillage.

Worse yet, once established, these actions are nearly impossible to reverse. As people come to rely on state or federal programs for their daily sustenance, they quickly become unable to care for themselves. In the loss of liberty, they also lose industry, and a once proud and productive working class, devolves into dependence, taking the whole of our nation with them into decline.

We are now in the process of writing the “Declaration of Dependence”, whereby we the people are reduced to “We, Some of the People”, all because we continue to choose representatives that are only willing to represent special interest for the sake of their own desire for power. Thus, we are truly lost. They will pass health care reform that has no reforms at the behest of Big Pharma. They will continue to buy other people nice vehicles with the money we entrusted to them for education and our infrastructure. They will set rules and regulations that protect the delta smelt at the cost of our country’s bread basket, and they will pour countless $millions into foreign banking interests to protect their nest of campaign donations.

It’s time to awaken America! Robin Hood was, in truth, a thief, and no amount of injustice to one class of men will ever create equity for another. Should we not heed the words of Benjamin Franklyn who stated, “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means; I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

If we truly want health care to be affordable, then shouldn’t we foster full employment, and remove the present government shackles from the free enterprise of medical delivery, research, and insurance? Could we not contain malpractice, and ease the tax burden of our citizens through medical savings accounts and expanding various deductions? Otherwise, as is presently proposed, we will place our “right” of quality health care into the hands of an incompetent, for government surely is unable to grapple with the complexity that the free market has well shouldered for ages.

Do we really want to give over our “right” in replacement for “permission”?
That which the government controls, is that to which the people no longer have a right. So if the state determines that a given procedure or medication is either impractical or too expensive, they may nullify such care at will, and you, therefore, have lost the permission for your desired wellbeing. You are at the mercy of the state, and no longer have a just claim or entitlement for your treatment.

If you fear not having the right to quality health care, should you not more intensely fear Washington’s plans for its arrogation?

Or are you deaf to the calling of our second President, John Adams, "Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

At least, for the moment, you have the “right”. The question is can you keep it? I guess that’s all answered in how we choose to be governed, and we’ll know soon enough. 2010 is right around the corner, and it’s time once again to give our consent.

David J. Arthur
Patriot
Defender of Freedom

Writer’s Note: As with all of my works, you are more than welcome, and in fact, I encourage you, to copy and send them forward to all who need to hear these lessons on liberty. This message is far too vital to ignore. I only ask you give credit where credit is due and post my name along with my words. Comments below are welcome.

---

[1] In appreciation to the work of Dr. Walter Williams, this, as well as other quotes, was taken from his website, http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/wisdom.html, of which I strongly recommend all to read and reflect!

AMERICA, ONCE BEAUTIFUL

I can’t say exactly when things changed in America, but in my lifetime it seems the nation in which I was born, is no longer the one in which I live. As a child, I was taught the blessings of liberty and the responsibility of citizenship. Such concepts were common then. Today, they seem outdated as we enter the age of government dependency.

Security is an evil temptress. She intoxicates with the promise of peace and leisure, but instead delivers only enslavement. Throughout history people have sought security, and in that search, obligated themselves to servitude in subjection to kings, dictators, and potentates of all sorts and political arrangement.

One would think that the desire for liberty would stir men’s hearts into action against such tyranny, yet as each oligarchy ruled, the masses bent to their will with little resistance. Most of the time, the hierarchy held sway because they had the power of force to do so. Even if one had the resources or courage to challenge them, those who dared were often relatively alone and met with execution as their reward!

From Spartacus to William Wallace, heros would arise and fall. But the sword couldn’t overcome them all. Ultimately the desire for freedom stirred deep enough within the hearts of men that even open warfare couldn’t quell it.

Such was the case in the 1770’s. Europe was awash in social and political friction. The people had thrown off the yoke of Roman oppression hundreds of years earlier. Yet the more interesting aspect of that subjugation was that Rome was a democracy.

The Roman state sprang from nationalistic and democratic ideals. But over time her people gave over their republic to unscrupulous politicians. The once great empire slowly morphed into an apathetic society dedicated to little more than leisure, and their indulgences were financed through extortion of the rest of the world. That oppression led to revolt, and revolt to liberation. From a once great empire’s crumbling, the world fell into the Dark Ages, but from the darkness grew the Age of Discovery.

Human nature is none-the-less insurmountable, and over time, men returned to their natural state of servitude. Somewhere along the way, the feudal system was born, and the weight of oppression again crushed the people. Thus, by 1776, Europe was no less enslaved than they were under the gauntlet of Cesar.

As is said, history repeats itself and again freedom stirred.

Bit by bit, from 1492 until the American Revolution, a slow trickle of misfits and malcontents made their way to our shores. Many were disillusioned by the repression of their day, and sought refuge in the new land. And with them came the hope of liberty, to worship at will, to engage in commerce without the fetters of a king, and to live peaceful and secure lives.

What most history books neglect to mention, is that the early settlers were loyal subjects of their sovereign. In much the same manner as Martin Luther loved Catholicism, they too cherished their homeland and saw no real reason not to be governed by a king. But such leadership often led to oppression, and without a way to dissent, they found their only option was to declare their independence and to build a new nation from the dregs of the old.

Thus, America was born. She was a new experiment in the history of men; a true representative republic, where the people were governed by and at the will of themselves. Government would instead be the servant of the people, and freedom her lifeblood.

Granted, human nature surfaced momentarily as George Washington was first approached by the Continental Congress to be our nation’s first king. Instead, in his wisdom, he chose to give us the reigns of our own destiny and not to build the house of Washington.

Our nation grew from those humble beginnings. Through the concept of Manifest Destiny, she reached her arms from shore to shore, drawing her borders carefully in blood to both the north and the south. Over time she drove out those who sought to lay claim to that which now belongs to her, and secured the blessing of peace by withstanding the tests of many wars.

She also conquered indigenous peoples and rose through the sting of slavery.

So it was not without sin that our lady of state took her place amongst the nations. There was blood on her hands, which is common in such a crucible. But she also grew in those times of realization where the fields of Wounded Knee and Gettysburg became hallowed. Eventually she came to welcome and enfold those who were once oppressed.

And so the great tide of humanity came from across the seas to seek that illusive treasure only liberty can provide. Some came to America to make a name for themselves, and they did so with the sweat of their brow and the strength of their own character. Granted, it wasn’t always done fairly, but nothing in liberty is guaranteed to be fair. Great or small, they heeded that enigmatic voice from within that whispered the call of opportunity.

Many of those same greedy industrialists are the ones who hammered a transcontinental ribbon of rails, refined iron into steel, constructed great concrete metropolises, wove textiles of every shape and color, and grew an abundance of produce and livestock that was and is the envy of the world. They set in motion the industrial and agricultural prowess we to this day still enjoy. Thus in the fervor of rugged individualism, the name “America” began to mean something. We became the land where the streets were figuratively paved with gold.

Racially and culturally diverse, penniless millions swarmed through Ellis Island and into “the Great Melting Pot”, where they understood that the prospect of success was all they would receive. The Constitution offered freedom of life and liberty, but it also entrusted each individual to take upon him or herself to pursue happiness. Nothing was guaranteed, and if a man wanted to succeed, then he had to make sound decisions and to work hard. And even then, there were no promises. But at least each man had an equal chance to excel.

This was all done by limiting the scope and reach of government, interfering as little as necessary, and always reserving rule to the people. As each grasped for prosperity, they made of this nation the industrial and cultural powerhouse that won the world’s wars, assured the blessings of peace, and at the same time brought so many others back from the brink of starvation and disaster.

But with affluence comes apathy.

With the historically immense economic and social growth we experienced coming out of the 1940’s and 50’s, we also gained the luxury to ponder the imponderable. Compassion is a wonderful thing, but even Jesus in his time said, “The poor will be with you always.”[i] Our hearts went out to those in need. However, philanthropy wasn’t entirely the intent of our leadership. By their generosity, and while using the public treasury for their gains, they also ensured their place in power for the generations to come by supplanting private charity with the open hand of government.

With all good intent, the people went along, and slowly, somewhere in the middle of the last century, the dependent began to confuse the terms “opportunity” and “entitlement”. Some began to supplant pursuit with an expectation of sustenance. After all, the Constitution did promise to “promote the general welfare”.

Worse yet, the very leaders we hired to protect our freedoms found power by promising gifts from the public trust.

After the internal strife of the 1960’s, through hyphenation, faux philanthropy, and a misinformed abandonment of historical context, America grew weary of liberty. One must admit that it’s hard work to plan for the future while making a temporal way for one’s self. So as Uncle Sam held out his hand, there was no shortage of takers, some of whom sentenced generations of their offspring to public dependency. And thus, the size and scale of government grew, and the citizenry became all the more apathetic.

Today, “In God we trust”, has evolved into a tacit demand that the government provide us with manna.

Rivet by rivet, we’re pulling down Lady Liberty. We’re rolling up the gold from the streets, to give away to the tired, poor, huddled masses that come across our freshly opened borders to enjoy the bread and circuses. We enter wars of liberation, then halfway through the battle, we turn upon ourselves and abandon those we hope to save to the very oppressors we sought to evict. And our great attempt at creating social and economic equality has instead created the scourge of reverse discrimination. The blood of our patriot forefathers has turned cold, and no longer surges through our veins.

We’re killing ourselves with the good intentions that pave the road toward the new American concept of civil liberties.

Because of this, our cities run wild with gang violence and drug abuse beats down our young. While fending off attacks from abroad, we are more at war with ourselves than we seem to be with our true enemies. We no longer educate our children to value success and enlightenment, instead opting for indoctrination in societal conformation and public self flagellation over imagined civic wrongs.

Success is evil and profit is likened to greed. We no longer strive to, “Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. Rugged individualism is lost to phlegmatic collectivism. Looking in the mirror, America has become unrecognizable to herself. She has lost the luster only independence can instill.

And so we prepare her eulogy. Here lie the remains of a once great nation formerly dedicated to freedom, liberty, and that never-ending pursuit. She is now abandoned by the apathetic into the hands of self-appointed kings and nobles.

We can only hope that tomorrow brings a return of patriotism. With the rise of socialism and the banishment of the capitalistic system that brought us our affluence, that itch for freedom seems to be stirring once again in the form of the Tea Party movement. And like a faint heartbeat, only time will tell if our patient survives.

“America, America, God mend thine ev’ry flaw. Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.”

The words of that song once echoed through the school halls. I only pray we’ve now not forgotten the tune!

David Arthur
Patriot
Devote’ of Freedom

P.S.: In conclusion, let me coin a new phrase, “Fauxlantrhopy”. (“foe-lan-thro-pee”) This is where well-meaning people are duped into surrendering their liberty to a ne’er-do-well oligarchy poised for oppression!

[i] Mark 14:7

HEALTH SCARE

Trying to follow the health care debate has been dizzying at best. Instead of the usual skirmishes between Republicans and Democrats, this battle seems to be more of a civil war within the Democrat party.

With the 2010 elections looming and public opinion decidedly against many of the provisions within the proposed health care reform, red state Democrats are more than nervous about how this bill will affect their political futures. However, the administration and congressional leadership are decidedly backing the plan, to the point where they are willing to take drastic measures to ram the legislation through congress without the public’s approval or any form of bipartisanship.

This, of course, flies in the face of “representative government”.

Much of the furor is over the inclusion of a “public option”, whereby the government would own the insurance aspect and hold an ironclad grasp on the rest of the American health care system. Instead of the patient making their own decisions with the assistance of their personal physician, instead, the government would dictate what care is allowable for a doctor to provide.

The plan has come under fire from all sides, both conservative and liberal as it is either too restrictive and removes guaranteed constitutional freedoms in the eyes of the former, or does not go far enough in assuring societal control as viewed by the latter. The bill even includes provisions for state funded abortion, and the elimination of the "conscience clause", whereby those who find such action to be morally and socially reprehensible would have no recourse financially, and health care providers would have no protection to object professionally.

And so the intensity of the debate has reached a near fever pitch whereby senators and representatives are being openly and angrily challenged at town hall meetings held during their August break. There have even been instances of violence, as the union organizers and other proponents of the plan press to quell any negative discussion.

Last Sunday, at the peak of the tumult, President Obama let it slip that the “government option” was not a critical component to health care reform, and that there may be consideration of “insurance co-op’s”. This outraged his proponents on the left, as this is the kingpin in moving toward a single-payer system.

Immediately seeing he was losing their support, by the following day he flatly retracted his statement, returning to the government option as the only option for reform. This drew fire from the conservatives, and caused those who were fairly undecided to question their trust of both the plan and the President.

There are also questions about the solvency of his proposal. With a $multi-trillion deficit, the matter arises regarding how we’re going to afford such a huge endeavor. During his campaign, President Obama promised his programs would never affect anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

After calculating the costs involved in administering the proposed system, the Government Accounting Office (GAO), which is responsible to rate all bills proposed by congress in a non-partisan manner, came forward with the conclusion that with present revenues there is no possible way to pay for it. That leaves only two choices; tax hikes and rationing.

From a taxation standpoint, the top 1% of American taxpayers only account for around 20% of the nation’s combined income. Yet those same folks shoulder more than 40% of the present tax burden. Take 100% of their paychecks and those same folks don’t earn enough to pay for what’s being proposed. Thus, the administration let it slip a month or so ago that we shouldn't expect that there wouldn't be some rise in taxation, regardless of income.

This soon to be broken promise has since increased the President’s credibility gap with moderates.

His explanation outlined that some of the monetary offset will be done through major cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Here the President has been very clear. In a system that is already seriously overspent,there will be cutbacks. Following this logic, it seems that any savings being attributed back into health insurance reform is really nothing more than a reduction in the rate of deficit already being spent on the other two programs. So where's the savings?

According to the President, the plan will become self-sustaining and will encompass a much greater share of the health care market than Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are nearly insolvent. Thus, the proposal will outspend the previous two programs, yet somehow will save money while dong so. One can only assume this must be part of the fiscal policy outlined by our Vice President, Joe Biden, who recently stated, “We have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt.”

With the present demand alone, there’s no other way to keep the prices down. It’s a matter of supply and demand, and by throwing the door open for “free” health care, the inflow increases exponentially. Add in the potential that the new legislation would cover illegal aliens; the demand has just blown straight through the ceiling.

Simple economics says that when you can't increase income, then the only other way to reduce cost is cut expenses by restricting access to the supply. But the President said there would be no rationing. Of course, the President also has no private sector experience trying to meet the delicate balance of a profit margin. And so, at the rate of expenditure predicted within the plan, rationing is as much a fate of health care as was the Titanic’s demise after meeting mister iceberg.

And the ultimate result? One example is the British system, where because of rationing, 20% of the patients who are deemed curable when they enter their system are beyond help by the time they receive treatment.

As the former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, stated in her August 7th Statement On The Current Health Care Debate, “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 so the concept of “Death Panels” entered the debate.

While the President was quite emphatic that there is no death panel in the legislation, the inevitability of rationing leads down no other road. In fact, from the first page, in the bill’s preamble, the whole purpose is to reduce health care costs. This obviously begs the question of how the plan intends to deal with maintaining the elderly or those with chronic illness, both of which are overtly expensive.

Pages 425 through 430 of the House plan outline a calculation whereby a person’s remaining quality of life is compared with the medical costs involved in treating a given illness or condition. The older and/or sicker you are, the less years of “useful” quality of life you have left. And so it follows, is it worth spending great amounts of money on those who have fewer remaining quality years? At the moment, the individual decides if their life is worth spending that extra money to sustain. If this legislation passes, a bureaucrat somewhere in Washington will make that decision for you!

How will such a calculation affect American patients? In just one example, a comparison between U.S. and European women being treated for breast cancer, 63% of women under our present health care system successfully complete treatment. Under European single-payer systems, only 56% of women with similar cancer survive.

To offset the obvious implication that government will be the only one making the determination, money will be available to employ and train specific health care providers to counsel those who don’t meet the quality of life criteria on “end of life” care to assist you in your transition.

This, of course, is nothing new to the government. They already have a Veteran’s Administration pamphlet – “Your Life, Your Choices” – that deals with these considerations. In one of its checklists, the pamphlet asks, “What makes your life worth living?” This document is given to every VA patient undergoing government health care, and the obvious intent is not lost on them.

Thus, if you’re over the age of sixty, you may find it a bit more difficult to get that hip replacement or necessary knee operation. Instead, you may be offered a sedative or a wheelchair, along with any necessary medication to ease your pain without actually treating your condition.

As for advanced cancer treatment, in both the Canadian and British systems, as well as the Oregon State Health Plan, treatment is not an option, and you are simply made comfortable for what time remains.

So much for aging gracefully!

For those who do meet the calculated cutoff, the President made it emphatically clear in recent speeches that his reform would increase access to doctors and higher quality health care. In fact, he said that you will still be able to chose your own doctor and get whatever care you need.

The House plan has provisions scattered throughout that will cut training for medical students aspiring to enter a specialty. Instead, education money is focused on general practitioners, reducing the number of specialists in lieu of generalists. Specialized health care is expensive, and to save cost, the emphasis is directed toward more generalized care. That means there will be fewer physicians practicing specialties, causing less availability to specialized care, which, in turn, relates to higher mortality rates.

So while the President claims our health care system will continue to grow and improve, added emphasis away from specialization will dramatically drop quality. Thus, his concept of “improvement” seems to follow the same logic as the Vice President's understanding of economics.

And what happens when a condition lingers, or a patient relapses during a chronic illness. If you have to be re-admitted after being released from hospitalization, pages 136 through 142 explain how the doctor and/or hospital can be fined by the government for doing so. What chance do you have of getting that follow-on treatment, if the government is going to punish your doctor?

It hasn't taken long before reasonable people began to peer through the presidential promises to see that what is being promoted is not what will eventually be delivered. There is no way the government can provide a “free” single-payer system that will meet everyone’s needs, and do so with more efficiency and less expense than the free market. It has been tried throughout the world, and to date, it has not worked for any population nearing the size of America.

Clearly tort reform and changes to the present government restrictions on health insurance, such as portability and grouping beyond state boundaries, would ease cost and bring about real reform. Yet none of this is proposed.

And what if you don’t like this new and improved health insurance system? The President says that under his proposal, you can keep your present health insurance if you like it. Of course, on page 16 of the House version of the bill, you may only keep it if you have a plan in place prior to the date the legislation passes, and if there are any changes in your plan after that date, you’re automatically swept into the government program. This will be automatic and done without your consent.

Also, the government is not in the business of business. Because it is not profit motivated, and all revenues collected must be spent annually, waste is actually a boon to the government. Thus, with no requirement for profit, they can cut the price of the new “insurance” program to well below the premiums of private companies. This will undercut the present providers and drive them out of the market. All the government need do is shift the economic burden within the treasury, and they can effectually offer their plan for free. Of course it is not free at all, and the cost of a single-payer system is shouldered by massive taxation, which will not be related to the premium so as to keep it off of the people’s radar.

When was the last time you looked at the present Medicare deduction on your pay stub?

In no time at all, there will be no private insurance to be had, and many are concerned that taking this course is an incremental way of introducing socialized medicine. In the guise of a national health insurance program, we would transition from our present free enterprise system into a single-payer program owned and operated by the government.

Just the other day the President assured us that he has never suggested, nor envisioned, nor would he support and sign legislation introducing a single-payer plan. But he’s also on tape saying exactly the opposite to a room full of union members just a few years ago. He clearly stated that though it would take in upwards of fifteen years, he strongly supports moving to a single-payer system.

And so the battle rages on. Throughout all of it, false information is being spread around about the President’s proposal. To counter this, there’s a new website available; healthreform.gov. It was instituted by the Whitehouse to counter all of the lies and misinformation regarding Congress’ new health care plan . . . or is that health insurance reform . . . or whatever their focus group polling tells them to call it this week.

Yet lately, it's the President who seems to be making statements counter to what the proposed legislation actually contains.

And to make sure all of this misinformation doesn’t spin out of control, the Whitehouse also set up an e-mail address – flag@whitehouse.gov – so you can report your friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, and others who spread these vicious lies.

Didn’t the Hitler Youth also reward young Arian children for reporting their parents to the government?

Anyway, none of this is really addressing the heart of the issue at stake. Again, our politicians have drawn another line in the sand regarding the limits of American freedom. We are about to lose another major chunk of our liberty, as well as up to one fifth of the U.S. economy, all in the name of providing health insurance to - when all of the calculations are done - little more than 1% of our population who actually can't get it. Everyone else is either already covered or doesn't intend to get health insurance at the moment.

By the way, don’t think about going without health insurance under the Obama plan. If you do, you will receive a penalty of 7% of your income on your next tax return. That goes for businesses who don’t offer insurance to their employees as well. And that’s above and beyond the tax hikes slated to pay for the program in the first place.

Best of all, the evil truth is that in this legislation, no real improvements or reforms are even proposed. It is all about control, and not about reform.

This seems to be the most recent trend in Washington. Americans aren’t driving the right kind of cars, so the administration offers “Cash for Clunkers”. Under this program, you can get up to $4,500 cash for trading in your gas guzzling clunker for a nice shiny new fuel efficient automobile. Of course, they decide what sort of cars you may buy, and your trade-in must be destroyed, never to drive again.

The program ends this upcoming Monday after spending almost two $billion out of our pockets. The trade-ins that could have gone to people who can’t afford a new car are destined for scrap, dealerships across the nation are not receiving the promised government payments and are out of pocket the $4,500 per vehicle, and a majority of the vehicles that were purchased were foreign models.

Very little of the Cash for Clunkers program actually stimulated the American economy, and it was all done with your and my money. And that doesn't include the mountains of regulatory red tape and paperwork that so far has slogged the whole system to near paralysis. Didn't they do enough damage when they bought up General Motors and fired a slew of healthy dealerships?

Another shining example of how the government runs things, just as they will health care, if given the chance.

We once valued rugged individualism. Now, everything seems to revolve around civic entitlements. And even worse is the takeover of our economy through the semi-nationalization of various private companies, such as GM, and the banking system. Once they own the medical industry, there’s little else they can’t grab.

This is why this fight is so fierce. It’s not that people don’t want to help others. Philanthropy goes well beyond individuals, whereby the big, evil, profiteering, pharmaceutical companies even give out free medication to those who truly need but can’t afford it. And as for being denied health care, people already show up at their local emergency room, whereby they cannot, by law, be refused care, even if they obviously can’t pay.

So what are the politicians really after?

It may be summed up in one word . . . “power”!

There are a lot of perks that go along with being a senator or congressman, and if they can’t buy that power with your money through a “free” health plan, they now seem quite comfortable in sending either ACORN or the Unions to ensure any opposition is silenced.

Of course, most of the media seems unable to report such involvement, attributing disruption at various town hall meetings to the grass-roots movement afoot to stop this juggernaut. The only humor in all of it is in listening to the left dissent against itself. There are plenty of Democrat senators and congressmen whose conservative districts will surely ease them back into the private sector should they pass such a monstrosity.

And as for the President, considering that there are plenty of recordings of him speaking on both sides of this issue, I think we should really take him up on his offer to report the one spreading lies to his special website. Of course, it all depends on if he’s for or against any provision that he proposes, or never proposed, or never will propose, or already did propose . . . or . . . or . . .

I'm all for "Change you can believe in". I say in 2010, we change the power structure in congress and vote these power hungry lunatics back into private society! And that leaves only one answer for that old saying, “I’m with the government and I’m here to help you.”

In this case, not on your life!

David J. Arthur
Conservative Thinker
Private Citizen
Public Nuisance
And Devote of Constitutional Patriotic Liberty


(Note: I surely invite you to send this blog to any and all you wish. Just remember to leave in the byline, or better yet, link to this blog, where there’s plenty more political irreverence to ponder. Oh, and don't forget to report me to the President's "snich site".)

GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WHERE ARE YOU?

Much like the song City of New Orleans, Saturday, July 18th, was another dreaded travel day. Like the proverbial downstream salmon, I shuffled off on business to sunny California, via what seemed like the other forty-nine! But the one good thing about multiple stops is that it gives one time to think.

Of course, that also seems to be the one thing lacking in American society today. People have simply lost their curiosity. We never seem to ask why about stuff, and just take what the media gives us at face value, even when the facts at hand don’t align to a logical truth.

Such is the state of the union today. We’re being given all sorts of things to wonder about. For example, our fine Vice President told us that we’re going bankrupt. The nation is out of money. We can’t pay our bills, and so we must avail ourselves of the single most effective method toward solvency. Spend more!

Huh?

Ok, putting that small incongruity aside, how about the line that the economy is getting better. Things are looking up. No more need to worry about our jobs, our mortgages, or our pension plans. Why, everything is safe and secure. Of course the news says unemployment is topping 11%, home foreclosures are nearly at an all-time high, and the stock market hovers around 9,000.

Wait a minute!

And what do we hear lately? Everyone who feels a little under the weather will no longer have to await the ravages of our evil industrialist health care system. Our good President and fine congress is coming to save the day. Nationalized health insurance will be cheap, easy, and with unlimited access. Drugs will cost less and there will be no more long lines in the emergency room. So don’t sweat life; just kick back and take it easy and you’re soon to be all better. Of course, under the proposed plan winding through the House, in order to make ends meet, you also will see rationing and a loss of benefits, especially if you’re closer to 90 than 30.

You mean someone has to pay for that?

As I was traveling through the terminals, I saw the Transportation Safety Authority (TSA) doing their best to keep the traveling public safe. They stand guard over the nation’s airways, and do their level best to make sure that nothing dangerous – you know, things like nail clippers and knitting needles – gets past their hedge.

Yet in studies over the years, the truth is, the TSA does no better at stopping contraband, than the airlines did for ages previous. Beyond better gadgetry, we really have no greater security than we did pre-911. But there has been a strong increase in one area of airline security. Because of the government take-over, it sure costs one heck of a lot more!

The principle is clear. Anything the government manages, they also manage to screw up. They come in, capture, reorganize, bloat the costs, hire and promote the least able of their kind, and in the end, they wind up doing more harm than good. Such is the impending fate of General Motors.

But why is this so? Why does the government have such a hard time making ends meet? When I was in college, I had the opportunity to study the secret art of public financing. I learned that there’s one small aspect of the government that clearly separates it from the likes of industry. The government is not allowed to make a profit!

Profit drives efficiency, and while a company must remain in the black to survive, should a civic entity do the same, it is seen as a problem. Having too much money remaining at the end of the fiscal year puts federal agencies in line to lose that same amount during the next year’s budget cycle. This is why frivolously spending “end of year” funds is a most cherished federal tradition.

Also, the government is service based, and produces extremely little that is marketable. Money flows in via taxation, and nothing of market value flows out into the economy. Granted, there are some paybacks in the form of arms and technology sales. But even those goods are provided by private contractors, and the government itself receives only a pittance in return. This is part of the reason why the great stimulus package of 2009 did nothing toward easing the recession. Small business, not the government, creates prosperity in a capitalist system, which, like it or not, is the very economic structure upon which the foundation of our nation was laid.

And as for accounts receivable, other than the IRS, the only other revenue generating sources are the various fees, fines, and penalties imposed by regulatory agencies like the EPA. Heck, since carbon dioxide is now a pollutant, there must be a way for the feds to make a buck with every breath, right?

Thus the whole process is geared toward losing – not making – money. And when they speak of “efficiency” within an agency, they’re actually only talking about ways to lose less over a longer period of time. Essentially, spending is the rule.

Thus, the idea that putting any form of private industry under government control to somehow make it more efficient, is much the same as saying you’re going to Seattle by boarding a train for New York. The rails just aren’t designed to take you to your desired destination, and the only thing you can control is the time at which you arrive where you don’t intend to be.

As I boarded my plane from Chicago to Denver, I found myself sitting next to a couple heading off on a relaxing excursion. We spoke of the man’s time as a soldier in Viet Nam, of their family, and other incidentals. But it wasn’t long before the topic evolved into politics. And as the discussion settled on health care, he suddenly came to the observation, “But wait, who’s going to pay for all of this?”

His words could not be truer. Who is going to pay for all of the health care, the automotive warranties, Social Security, the deteriorating infrastructure, and who knows what else will be grabbed in the near future. It’s all happening so fast, nobody thought to check the checkbook.

Worse yet, there is also the aspect of control. As we relinquish our freedom to choose our own health care, what sort of vehicle to drive, to own or carry a weapon, or even whether or not to dry our own laundry in our own back yards[i], we eventually will subjugate ourselves to the very entities we entrusted to protect us from subjugation.

Through excessive taxation and overt regulation, these “leaders” we elected to protect our freedoms have instead, bowed to the will of special interest and are hedging in the population, constricting individual choices to modify public behavior. Why else would congress propose a “fat tax”? Is it not my choice as to whether I decide on a Big Mack over a granola bar for lunch? According to the most recent discussions on Capitol Hill, the answer is “no”, and I can only have that choice if I’m willing to be punished through my wallet.

So here we are, one hundred forty three years after abolishing slavery, intent on indentured servitude.

Maybe the real question isn’t, “Who’s going to pay for all of this,” but rather, “What are they buying with our money?” After all, the real issues aren’t ones of reforming the health care system or providing greater opportunities for the “less fortunate”. The real question is will America remain as “the land of the free”?

Already, we are seeing congress buy the loyalty of voters with entitlements, and are twisting the system to the point where being more than 200 votes ahead in an election is only valid for liberals. Otherwise, keep counting until the conservative opponent falls more than 200 votes short, and all with the aid of ACORN. You know them; they’re the ones with over seventeen indictments for voter fraud, yet were invited by the President to help count the next census.

Won’t that effect re-districting in the next election?

And as I landed in Ontario California, I wondered, is this still the “home of the brave”? Will anyone – especially those few conservatives remaining in congress – stand up for our liberties? Is there anyone left to defend the essence of capitalism in American culture and society? The irony was not lost on me. The great Eden of the West Coast is exactly the way our leaders want to shape the nation. But there’s one small hole in their concept.

Utopia is broke!

=================================================================
[i] http://www.laundrylist.org/index.php/advocacy/76-the-right-to-dry-campaign