Nebraska’s Democratic Senator Ben Nelson was quick to forget his opposition to abortion when Harry Reid offered forth taxpayer money from 49 other states to pick up the tab for Nebraska’s Medicaid program (if you live in any state other than Nebraska, you’ll be paying for your state’s Medicaid program as well as the Medicaid program in Nebraska).

Even more unconscionable, this bill will lead to your tax dollars funding any and all abortions.  Never mind that 73% of Americans oppose taxpayer-funded abortions (while 23% support).  Forget that the concept of ending a viable human life is morally reprehensible to many Americans.  Even further, if your religious or moral beliefs compel you to reject the barbaric practice of late-term abortions, where a living human being (who could survive outside the womb) is sliced, diced, butchered, and suctioned out of the mother – well, that’s too bad.

According to the Senate bill poised to pass, you’re going to have to pay for it regardless of your core moral convictions.  By the way, where exactly is the “Right to Choose” for those who do not wish to fund abortions?

There is already chatter on various blogs regarding the idea of “Conscientious Objection” to being forced to pay for abortions.  Doctors are allowed to invoke this protection against an action they find morally reprehensible, however will American taxpayers be given the same protections?

On the eve of Christ’s birth, our Senators will be passing a law that will require Americans to pay for abortions.  If you disagree with abortion – including late-term abortion – what will you do when your taxes come due, and you realize that a portion the money you are sending to the federal government will be responsible for ending unborn babies’ lives?  Regardless of your own personal views on abortion, is it right to force those who are morally opposed to abortion to be required by law to pay for it?

The content of the current health care bill about to pass shows each and every Democrat in the Senate could care less, and the timing of the vote (on Christmas Eve) amounts to nothing more than a complete rejection and belittling of the majority of Americans’ moral convictions.

What a special Christmas gift from our Senate.

The latest, and potentially most damaging, misinterpretation of the Constitution now approaches us in the form of the 2,000+ page leviathan of a bill nearing passage in the Senate.  After arm-twisting and more than a few multi-million dollar bribes, it appears the Obama Administration has the votes it needs to pass a bill that will, after a few trillion taxpayer dollars, provide free health care to a limited number of people living in the United States.  Nestled within the massive bill (which nobody has actually read entirely, can understand fully, or explain clearly), are provisions that penalize people for not taking part in the plan.

Without a doubt (and probably by design), the various manifestations of the Democrats’ health care bills all seem designed to move towards a Government-run Health Care system that requires citizens to purchase health insurance.

This is where that pesky Constitution causes a few problems.  One particular segment of the Constitution has come up in debate:

Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

“A-ha!” the Democrats will say, “this clearly says Congress can pass a law that allows it to collect money from taxpayers in order to provide for the general welfare of the people!”  Sure, it does in fact say “provide.”  But exactly where are the “people” specifically mentioned?

This is where it’s important to pay close attention to the wording.  The Preamble states that “We the people” ordain and establish the Constitution to “promote the general welfare.”  However, Article I, Section 8, states that Congress can levy taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States.  Clearly, the United States refers to the collection of States within the Union – not specifically to the individual people living in the United States.

In other words:

Preamble – We the people, to promote the general welfare (of the people).

Article I, Section 8 – Congress to levy taxes, etc, to provide for the general welfare of the United States (not United States citizens).

The authors of the Constitution were brilliant writers.  They understood the meaning of words, and wrote sentences that were constructed in a specific manner for a specific reason.  When they used “provide” in one section and “promote” in another, they did it because they meant two completely different things.  Likewise, when they referenced “the people” in the Preamble, and referenced “the United States” in Article I, Section 8, they meant two completely different things as well.

Unfortunately, the Democrats’ contemporary translation of these completely different wordings demonstrates a level of intellectual dishonesty that is embarrassing at best, and intentional at worst.  Sadly, there are many Americans – and many politicians, for that matter – who do not understand the conceptual differences between an entity (the United States) and the individual (the People).   However, the framers of the Constitution did understand the difference – which is why they chose the language they used.

It does not take a constitutional lawyer to come to the conclusion that the current health care proposals are in clear conflict with the Constitution of the United States.  Instead, it takes someone with what used to be considered a high-school reading comprehension level.  Again, this is why the authors of the Constitution chose specific words to express specific meanings.

In order for this health care bill to pass the constitutionality test, it must be proven that it will provide for the general welfare of the United States as an entity, not for the citizens who, as individuals, comprise the entity.  In its current state, the bill essentially takes money from people who can (if even barely) afford health insurance and gives it to people who cannot (or prefer to spend their money on premium cable, cell phones, or new car payments).

Each of the proposed health care bills have been explicitly sold to the American people as a means by which we can “provide” health care to individuals who cannot otherwise acquire it.  Clearly, this is an attempt to apply Article I, Section 8, in a way that levies taxes in order to provide for individuals, not to provide for the entity of the United States.  Worse yet, these proposals punish citizens for things such as failing to purchase health insurance!

Thus, we are faced with having a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama that requires citizens to purchase something, or otherwise be fined or jailed.  It confuses the meaning of “provide” with “promote,” while ignoring the differences between the concepts of the individual American versus the entity of the collection of the States.

Ultimately it is clear that these health care proposals, and any eventual laws based upon these proposals, are predicated upon a misreading of the Constitution and the obvious limits placed upon Congress with regards to passing laws that “provide” or “promote” the general welfare of “the people.”

I just got back to St. Louis after an absolutely amazing four days, in which my good friend Darris and I drove out to Washington D.C. for the 9/12/09 March on Washington.  On this trip, we made a special stop at Charlottesville, Virginia, so that we could visit Thomas Jefferson’s University of Virginia and his home and final resting place at Monticello.  It was only fitting that we pay special respects to the author of one of the greatest pieces of literature in human civilization and one of the fathers of our great Republic.

As noted above, I’ve decided that it’s more important to get this information out as quickly as possible, rather than going through multiple proofreading and editing steps.  Most of what I’ve written previously has been in third-person commentary, rather than a first-person personal account.  However, after witnessing an overwhelming display of Americans exercising their free speech – only to find that the event was roundly under-reported and in many cases completely ignored – I have felt called to do all in my power to bring the events in Washington D.C. on 9/12/09 to the attention of as many Americans as possible.

I want to be clear:  I am not a conspiracy guy.  I don’t like to think that the powers-that-be would try to withhold information from American citizens so as to promote an ulterior motive.  I am hesitant to believe that fictitious Orwellian creations like the Ministry of Truth could ever truly exist in the United States.

But I was there on 9/12/09 in Washington D.C.  I personally witnessed hundreds of thousands of Americans filling the Capitol Building grounds, while Freedom Plaza was still feeding hundreds of thousands more on to an already packed mile-long stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue.  I saw the three-hour long march, and I took as much video as I possibly could.

I was deeply and emotionally moved by what I saw: Real Americans.  Dads carrying their children on their shoulders, Moms pushing infants in strollers, grandmothers and grandfathers marching proudly with canes in hand, and great-grandmothers and great-grandfathers being pushed in wheelchairs.  I saw young men and women in their 20′s and 30′s.  Professionals, executives, doctors, and nurses.  Students, teachers, laborers, veterans, and every other walk of life.

These were the people who work hard every day, diligently paying their taxes every year to fund this ever-growing federal government.  These were the people who worked for a living – rather than voting for a living.  These were the people who had never protested publicly in their lives.

While I was moved by what I saw, I was equally moved by what I did not see.  On the positive side, I did not see one act of violence, one act of property destruction, or one act of disrespect for our great Republic.  On the negative side, I did not see one camera from any major news organization.  ABC, CBS, and NBC did not find this event newsworthy enough to send ONE cameraperson to document this march of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

The only people taking video or pictures were the participants themselves.

Hence, since the major media outlets have completely failed to do their duty to report important news – and history – as it happens, it is my duty as an American to do all I can to spread footage that I was able to collect on the ground during the event.  I will be posting raw video footage over the next several days in order to get as much out there as possible.

Please understand, I do have a full-time job and I am an admitted amateur when it comes to video-editing, so it might be several days before some more polished video collections are posted.  However, I encourage you to watch as many of the clips as you can.  Spread them to your friends.  Feel free to take them, download them, and use them for your own video projects.

Our “free press” has failed us and has refused to truthfully report the historic events that occurred on 9/12/09.  We each have an obligation to ensure any American interested in these debates – regardless of their viewpoint – have access to information, sounds, and images, so they can come to their own decisions.

Thank you, and God Bless the Republic!

I actually made the mistake of wearing a $7 hat with the Nike logo on the front.  Of course, I was immediately chastised and tagged as a supporter of “rich corporations.”  Not surprising.

While it was clear this group had at its fair share of chuckle-worthy amateur actors, it was difficult to ignore a bitter sense of desperation about this rag-tag group.  The ten or so individuals epitomized the extent to which the counter-protests have devolved.  Also, it appears they unwittingly waltzed directly into a losing argument.  By posing as fake “rich bigwigs” in opposition to socialized health care, they legitimized the very claims of the actual health care protesters – that the “Obama-care” proposals are indeed deeply socialistic in nature.  Regardless, it is worthy to note that those who took the time and effort to have their voices heard in favor of socialized health care could be counted on two hands.  Those who oppose the massive government takeover numbered in the hundreds.

Today’s rally was one of several across St. Louis, and was a clear sign that the Tea Party Movement is very much alive and well and continuing to gain steam.  The passion is real, the people are real, and their voices are gaining in strength.

Click Here to Subscribe via an RSS Feed

This counter-protest began in earnest during the widespread and heavily-attended Tax Day Tea Parties on April 15th, 2009.  Spurred on by members in the national media, liberals immediately dismissed these protesters in a number of colorful ways.  If you attended any of these public exercises of your First Amendment rights, you were likely a:

Right Wing Extremist

Tea-bagger

Racist

Conspiracy Theorist

Obama-hater

Potential Terrorist

As public opposition to socialized medicine increases, so have the attacks from the left.  However, instead of only coming from media outlets, it’s coming from elected officials.  If you exercise your First Amendment rights to peacefully protest socialized medicine and massive unprecedented government spending, in addition to the above-mentioned list, you are likely a:

Liar

Nazi Sympathizer

KKK Sympathizer

Member of a Mob

Insurance Company Shill

Paid Representative of the Republican Party

Potential Timothy McVeigh (special thanks to Washington State’s Democratic Representative Brian Baird)

Evil-Mongerer (special thanks to Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for introducing a new phrase to the English lexicon)

Those who actively smeared these hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters were simply following along with the radical Saul Alinsky playbook, Rule #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”  According to Alinsky, there is no defense to ridicule – and it infuriates the opponent.  While Alinsky did a pretty thorough job of outlining effective rules for radicals, perhaps he did not give enough credence to the Machiavellian idea best summarized by Joe Louis: “The best defense is a good offense.”

Much to the chagrin of the Alinsky faithful, everyday Americans who wish to avoid the socialization of our great country are not intimidated or frightened by these attempts to ridicule.  Instead, they have become more bold, more determined, and more vociferous.  Whether it be because of personal attacks by the media and the government, or because of active intimidation efforts such as the recently withdrawn “flag@whitehouse.gov” initiative, these free Americans realize that those in power wish to silence any and all opposition – and they refuse to shut up and sit down.  They have also seen what will happen when they disagree with the policies of the party in power, and it scares the hell out of them.

Those in opposition to recent and massive government incursions into key economic sectors (such as the auto, banking, energy, and financial industries) understand that should the final shoe drop and the medical industry be socialized, the effects could be disastrous.  Not only would the quality and availability of care suffer, but the tremendous financial burden of the government taking on an estimated 1/5 of the economy would likely bankrupt the country.  Of course, this brings on the question as to how a bankrupt nation would provide health care to its newly claimed subjects.

In the larger scheme of things, these concerned Americans understand the inherent dangers of a too-powerful government.  They understand that the role of the government should be to help manage, rather than to completely take over and dictate the terms.  They understand that the government that governs least, governs best.  They believe in their own independent ability to make the right decisions for themselves, rather than depending upon a nanny government to coddle them and decide what’s best for them.  In short, they believe in the ideas and philosophies established by our nation’s founding fathers.

But what is really driving the attempts by the media and liberal politicians to silence those who are peaceably exercising their First Amendment rights?

Perhaps it’s a bad case of “Protest Envy.”

After all, it seems throughout the last several decades that protesting was the sole domain of the liberal activist.  Save the rainforest.  Stop all war.  No blood for oil.  President (insert name here) is a Nazi.  Et cetera.  Since the main vocation for these liberal protesters was usually just that – protesting – they really didn’t have any other responsibilities to get in the way of their noble struggle against “the man.”

However, lately it seems like the tables have turned.  The whole world is upside-down and the liberals have been completely caught off guard.  Hard-working, middle-class, taxpaying Americans – with jobs – are out in force and refusing to allow their republic to be swiftly, radically, and fundamentally transformed by a far-left administration.  These Americans don’t protest for a living – and most have never protested anything in their lives.  But they see that should they do nothing, they will wake up to a country they no longer recognize.

Of course, this has really gotten under the skin of those who thought the only “real” protester was one with liberal ideas.  After decades against fighting against “the man,” they believe that theirs is the only cause worth fighting for.  The struggle against oppression is the highest priority, as long as that oppression is coming from the “right.”

But “the man” is carrying a new banner.  This time, those in total power of the government seek to expand federal power to new heights and dominate the vast majority of essential social resources.  By commandeering these resources, they know they will be able to control the population more completely.  The oppression is real and dangerous to those who value liberty and freedom.

What the liberals in the media and in government are trying to tell you (if only you would listen) is that you are only allowed to protest something if you agree with them.  Any cause is protest-worthy, as long as it is consistent with a liberal-progressive philosophy.  If it isn’t, then you’re crazy, uneducated, or ill-informed.

Simply put: If you don’t agree with them, you’re a bad person.

Most importantly, you’re trespassing into their area of expertise.  They are the ones who have perfected the art of protest, and you’re stealing their shtick.  Even further, they see the passion and determination of conservative-minded Americans such as yourself, and they are more than a little jealous.  If only they had a cause to defend that was so fundamental to the foundations of our free nation.  They’re green with Protest Envy, and they will do anything they can to shut you up.

In the end, the coordinated attempt to silence these Americans has only caused the protest movement to become even more resolute and more determined.  Perhaps these freedom and liberty loving Americans are following the advice of Obama White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina: “If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard.”

One can only imagine the vitriol that will spew out of the liberal media and politicians if and when their protest envy reaches critical mass.  Perhaps they should take heed to the warnings inherent in Freud’s postulate, as in his example this type of envy is quickly followed by self-castration.  Of course, one could argue this is already taking place.

Kathleen Sebelius has stated that the government “option” is not an “essential element” of the plan, but has not stated that it is being removed.  She also holds fast to the fallacy that a government plan can be a “competitor to private insurers.”  Robert Gibbs echoed this notion by insisting we must have “choice and competition in the insurance market.”

Americans who have organized against government intervention and takeover of the health care industry must continue to realize that private industry cannot compete with government programs.  Unlike private industry, government programs are not required to make a profit.  When costs rise, they either raise taxes or cut services.  Unlike government programs, private industry must immediately respond to its customers: if the private business does not deliver the goods, consumers vote with their dollars and take their business elsewhere.  Unhappy “customers” of massive government programs must face endless lines of red tape, while the “suppliers” of these programs (the taxpayers) are helpless supporters who have no hope of getting a refund, let alone of taking their business elsewhere.

We must not be fooled into complacency by these latest moves by the administration, as they are merely nuanced changes in their depiction of the government plan.  Their goal continues to be the creation of a government “option” for health care.  Once this happens, all private companies are in danger.  Their goal has been and continues to be a single-payer, government run health care system. They don’t care how long it takes to get there, as long as they achieve their goals.

If the administration seeks to promote “choice” and “competition,” perhaps their first action should be the one that is easiest.  Currently Americans are not allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines.  Sure, we can purchase auto insurance, but not health insurance.  What is the result?  Less competition and higher prices.  By removing the in-state limitations on health insurance purchases and opening it up to the entire country, this would immediately introduce nation-wide competition amongst providers.  Instead of your insurance company having to compete with only those located in your state, all of a sudden it would be up against companies located in the other 49 states.  It’s simple Macro-Economics 101: Increased number of competitors results in higher quality and lower costs to the consumer.

We must remain focused and not be lulled into the false perception that the battle is won.  The administration, like any other group of savvy politicians, understands that they must give the impression of making concessions so as to ensure the success of their ultimate goals.  However, Americans must remain vigilant and stay constantly informed as to exactly what these purported concessions are, and how they affect the future of our freedom to make our own future health decisions.  We cannot go back to our homes, back off our pressure, and think this fight is over – because this is exactly what these recent statements by the administration are intended to make us think!

More importantly, we must remain steadfast in our conviction that the government has no role in influencing or even taking direct control over the life-and-death decisions regarding how we take care of our health.  We must not give up the fight against HR 3200, or any other form of nationalized health care.  We must keep increasing the pressure on our local congresspersons until this bill is completely defeated.  Only then can we start over and pursue health reform solutions one at a time, in a manner that is pragmatic, controlled, and responsible.

“Opponents to the plan are trying to scare you.  What is truly scary is if we do nothing.”

… Wait … are those our only two choices?

This is the False Dilemma fallacy at its finest (with a touch of Circumstantial Ad Hominem for good measure).  The problem with the False Dilemma is that it presents you with a false range of choices, then requires you to choose one.  In this case, a broad generalization is made about opponents: That their main purpose is to scare you.

Who wants to be scared?  Not me!  Those opponents must be bad people, so why should I listen to them?

Never fear!  The false dilemma has a second choice for you: “We must act now!  After all, the truly scary thing would be to do nothing at all.”

Unfortunately for this particular argument, there are numerous options other than only “scaring people” and “doing nothing.”  The health care system is massive, the problems are growing, and it does require prompt attention.  The potentials for positive reform are many, and there are several key issues that deserve open, pragmatic, deliberate, and robust debate. A vast majority of Americans agree that our health care system needs “reform.”  However, this does not mean they want massive, sweeping, sudden, and permanent government-mandated changes to the current system.

For example, many have argued that addressing tort reform would make a huge difference in health insurance costs.  (Ever notice all those ambulance chasers peddling their services on TV, begging you to sue a doctor?)  Lawsuits cost money, regardless of the outcome.  Either way, frivolous lawsuits drive up the amount of insurance doctors and hospitals require, thus resulting in increased costs to the consumer.  Additionally, in order to avoid getting sued in the first place, doctors will run multiple tests “just to be on the safe side” when fewer tests would suffice.  Little do patients know, the doctors are being “safe” with regards to their legal liability as much as they are being “safe” out of concern for their patients’ health.

Others point to the rising costs associated with the drug industry.  It is not uncommon for doctors to prescribe name-brand drugs to those with insurance, while prescribing generic drugs to those with lower quality (or non-existent) insurance.  (How many slick, multimillion dollar drug campaigns do you see running next to the ambulance-chaser ads?  Think you might have Restless Leg Syndrome?  Short of breath?  Feeling blue?  Go see your doctor and get a prescription!)  Ultimately this results in higher consumer drug purchases, more costs to the insurance company, which in turn passes this cost on to consumers in the form of higher premiums.

These are only two possible areas in which huge savings could be realized.  These are also two areas that Obama has completely ignored.  In fact, nowhere in the 1,000+ page bill have any proposals been addressed regarding tort reform or drug costs.  I guess it’s “hands off” the big drug companies and the lawyers.

It is clear that opponents to Obama’s massive government-run health care plan have reasonable and valid concerns.  There are also countless ways to start reforming the health care system, one step at a time.  However, one of Obama’s core arguments for completely commandeering 1/6th of the U.S. economy overnight is faulty at best.

Is it wrong for Americans to be concerned that their government seeks to take control over the way they are able to tend to their own health needs?  Is it unreasonable for Americans to ask their representatives to slow down, read the bill in its entirety, and consider the repercussions?  Is it not possible to achieve reform by aggressively taking on individual problems one at a time, rather than trying to use the heavy fist of big government to smash what currently exists, only to rebuild something in its own image: a massive, wasteful, bulky, and clumsy bureaucracy charged with the duty of ensuring our personal health and well-being?

Perhaps Obama’s False Dilemma argument deserves a False Dilemma counter-argument:

Proponents of this plan are trying to scare you.  What is truly scary is if we rush in and try to do too much, too suddenly, and too permanently.

Somewhere in between is compromise.  The vast majority of Americans know reform needs to happen, and happen soon.  However, if many Americans are feeling a little uneasy about Uncle Sam marching in and “offering” to take over their freedom to make their own health care decisions, all the while with a big ear-to-ear grin and a “trust me, nothing will go wrong” attitude, perhaps their fears are not altogether unwarranted.

(UPDATED 8/15/09 – More “grassroots” supporters of government-run health care are showing up with professionally printed Obama-campaign style placards.  Follow the gallery link below to view these images, as well as some screenshots of Craigslist ads paying as much as $16 an hour for people interested in “Working for Change”.  That’s right, paying people to go SELL government-run health care.  Unbelievable.)

Over the last couple of weeks, a common accusation coming from Democrats and the mainstream media has been that the citizens showing up at town hall meetings to protest the government takeover of health care are contrived, artificial, and pawns of “big insurance” and the GOP.  Leftist news commentators like Bob Beckel have referred to these protesters as fake.  Politicians like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have gone so far as to call these citizens “Astroturf” and accuse them of carrying swastikas.

Those who have witnessed these protests, either in person or via YouTube, have seen and heard the clearly heart-felt passion behind these protesters’ words.  This grassroots swelling of populist resistance is evident all the way down to the manner by which they have crafted their signs, which are clearly of the “home made” variety.  Following the April 15th Tea Party, some on the left even made disparaging remarks about the messages “scrawled on cardboard.”

However, it’s only fair to take a look at some of the signs that are popping up in the hands of government health care supporters.  These are the same supporters who are mysteriously being let in back door entrances (as long as they have a special e-mail), or being seated ahead of time before the general public is allowed in.  While watching a few videos of these events, I was struck by a couple of pro-government health care signs that appeared both in St. Louis, MO, and in Grafton, NH.  These pre-fabricated signs were clearly printed out from an existing template so as to fit on a standard sheet of paper.  Also, they display the exact same “Gotham” font type which was used extensively throughout the Obama presidential campaign.

Is it not hypocritical of the left to accuse their opponents of being “fake” and “Astroturf,” when there are documented, organized, and well-funded efforts by the sitting administration and their financial supporters to promote their agenda in such a contrived manner?  At what point does “community organizing” become “state-sponsored propaganda”?

For being such proponents of “Change,” can’t these “grassroots” liberal progressives at least change the font type they use?

$60,000,000,000 ($60 billion) / year from savings through “efficiency.”

$30,000,000,000 ($30 billion) / year by reducing tax deductions taken by “the rich.”

Of course, if the costs of Government Run Healthcare turns out to be more expensive, what does this mean?  Keep in mind, Medicare has ultimately cost almost 10 times what was originally estimated.

Also, what does he mean when he says he will improve “efficiency”?  He mentioned cutting Medicare supplements, but isn’t that reducing people’s actual coverage?  In typical fashion, he’s used terms that are so vague they are open to any number of possible interpretations.  This has fueled one of the many concerns of those of us creating what Obama called a “ruckus” at recent Town Hall meetings.

How does one increase “efficiency” as it applies to health care?  Will this result in reducing the quality of care being provided, or by rationing the amount of care given?  Will this result in paying doctors less to reduce overhead, thus encouraging them to relocate to other countries?  Needless to say, the questions surrounding how Obama would achieve $60,000,000,000 ($60 billion) in “savings through efficiency” each year are numerous and multi-faceted.

Let’s also consider the class-warfare argument waged by Obama, as he proposes at least $30,000,000,000 ($30 billion) a year in increased health care revenues through reducing the deductions allowable by the “rich” from 35% to 28%.  One key example Obama used was with regards to a “rich” person giving to their local church.  Why, he argued, should that person get a deduction “just because he makes more money.”

Ultimately, not-for-profit organizations will suffer greatly from this change, as charitable donations will necessarily decrease.  While many do give to charitable organizations for ethical and moral reasons, many also do in order to realize tax benefits.  In either case, these charitable organizations benefit immediately from these direct cash donations.

Under Obama’s suggested “tax on the rich,” these funds will go directly into Big Government’s pockets, to spend as they see fit.  We are told the money will go directly towards finishing off the zero-balance funding this health care package.  Does this not equate to using charitable not-for-profit organizations to help fund the Obama Health Care Package?  Further, even the least skeptical amongst us would have to wonder: Even if a minimum of $30,000,000,000 ($30 billion) a year could be raised by taking money away from charitable donations made by “the rich,” would it actually cover the rest of the costs of this massive health care package?

After all, when has the government been wrong about how much one of its programs would cost?  Sure, Medicare has cost almost 10 times what was originally thought.  Suppose Obama-care only costs 5 times more than what is expected.  We’ll only need another $360,000,000,000 per year ($360 billion).  Let’s also not forget that the Congressional Budget Office, the bipartisan gold standard, has estimated the cost of this massive proposal to be well in excess of $1,000,000,000,000 ($1 Trillion) … with a “T” … (as in one million million) dollars over 10 years. It’s unlikely we will be able to fleece “the rich” for that much money, which would leave the government with the unenviable task of finding ways to be a little more “efficient” in the way they cut back on health care expenses.

What could possibly go wrong?