Subscribe to Live Updates
Receive live updates when new articles are published to the web site. The goal is to promote quality of articles over quantity of posts. Not to worry – I don’t plan on spamming articles with reckless abandon!
Merry Christmas – You’re Now Legally Required to Fund Abortions
As hundreds of millions of Americans gather to celebrate the miraculous birth central to their faith, U.S. Senators will be passing legislation that will require these same Americans to pay for the ending of unborn lives. The timing can be described as nothing less than the epitome of sick and morbid irony.
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.
Is Government Mandated Health Insurance Unconstitutional?
It’s become increasingly popular over the last several decades to twist, manipulate, and apply subjective interpretations to the Constitution of the United States. After all, a misreading of the call to promote the general welfare has led to countless federal programs designed to provide and ensure the general welfare of anyone living in the U.S. (either legally or not), regardless of their initiative or capacity to provide for their own general welfare. There is a reason why the framers chose the words: “provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare.” One needs only to grab a dictionary to see that “provide” and “promote” mean two totally different things.
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.”
9/12/09 – The Million Patriot March
(I’m going to break stride a bit from previous posts and shoot from the hip in the next several posts. Time for a little first-person editorial fun!)
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!
Massive Liberal Counter-Protest at St. Louis Tea Party Rally
Several hundred St. Louis taxpayers took part in a rally outside Senator Claire McCaskill’s offices this afternoon, while hundreds more participated in other locations across St. Louis. As one might expect, there was a ragtag collection of counter-protesters in attendance. However, this enterprising group of aspiring actors put quite a clever twist on their approach. Dressed in a style consistent with the played-out mis-characterization of conservatives as 1920’s corporate big wigs, they did their best to portray the alternative to socialized health care as an option only benefiting the “rich.”
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.
A Bad Case of Protest Envy
Those familiar with Sigmund Freud will recall a rather famous gender-based postulation in which he investigated the causes for certain human feelings of inferiority and psychic conflict. Currently, debates are raging over the rights of the federal government to impose its will upon our everyday lives. As the number of Americans standing up in opposition to attempts to socialize the United States medical system increases, so do the numbers of those who wish to hear these concerned citizens silenced. More strikingly, with each passing day it seems as if those who wish to silence the critics are suffering from a rather Freudian condition of seeing a superior counterpart to their own position, thus spurring on feelings of anxiety, animosity, and pure envy.
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.
Obama-care: Down but Not Out
As reported Sunday by the Associated Press, the White House now seems open to pursuing options other than the massive government takeover previously being pushed through Congress by the Obama administration. Top aides to the President are giving this new pitch the rather nebulous title of a “co-op.” Clearly, this is a move that is in response to a growing and passionate populist revolt against wide-spread Democratic attempts to commandeer the American health care system. However, we cannot presume that this is the end of this administration’s attempt to impose itself upon our freedom to make our own individual health decisions. They might be angling for the perception that they are easing back on the throttle temporarily, but by no means are they giving up.
Obama Doubles-Down on False Dilemma
As opposition against Obama’s proposed massive government takeover of health care grows, so does the sense of urgency on both sides of the debate. It seems an all-too-familiar argument is popping up all over the place – appearing recently and most prominently in Obama’s carefully manufactured “Town Halls” on 8/11/09 and 8/14/09. In essence, the argument goes:
“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?
“Astroturf” on the Left?
(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.)
Government Health Care Costs to be Paid Through “Efficiency” and Taxing “The Rich”
During Obama’s “Town Hall” today in Montana, he explained that the estimated cost of his Government-run Health Care Plan ($90,000,000,000 per year) would be funded as such:
$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.
ConservativePopulist.com 