Elections Matter

Elections are about choices, and choices have consequences. Think about what’s at stake. Unless we elect candidates with real world experience who consider politics a short term public service rather than a career, the country will continue it’s current slide. We as a society will suffer a government which will spend more than our entire countries GDP. This will necessitate the largest tax increase in our nation’s history.

Consider the explosion in spending—supported by both political parties—that threatens to drown the country in red ink. Unless we get expenditures under control, the long-term prospects for our economy will be diminished.

Think about the deluge of new regulations embedded in the health care and financial reform bills and those coming from the federal agencies. Will we continue to pile ever more burdensome regulations on businesses, or will we demand fewer, smarter regulations that will provide businesses with the certainty they need to grow and hire new workers?

Should a centralized government be in charge of many aspects of everyday life? Should more government intervention, make us all better off? I believe that this premise is flawed because we cannot have the Federal government take money from a productive segment of the population, give a portion of that money to an unproductive segment of society and make the country as a whole better off.

Government should be involved in little more than National Defense, infrastructure, and the rule of law. History has shown that government doesn’t do anything else efficiently and social engineering by a centralized government is much more oppressive than productive. Government cannot regulate a “level the playing field” or engineer society through the tax code, yet it tries to with every election. We are meant to be free and our founding fathers understood this. I truly believe that our constitution enables the citizens of our country to be free and regulastions and extreme taxation is an infringement on our freedom. I speak of infringement that happens from both sides of the political spectrum and is accomplished through the use of the 70,000+ pages of the tax code and more than 80,000 pages of Federal regulations. Remember the words of one of our founding fathers: “That government is best which governs least”.

One last thought. When a company becomes inefficient, doesn’t pay attention to the requirements of the market or fails to serve it's customers, except in cases where that company is supported by the government, that company will likely go out of business. When the government fails to serve it’s constituents, spends beyond it’s means, taxes the productive to the point that they are not competitive or overburdens the productive with regulations, we all suffer. Consider this when you go into the voting booth.

Ideaological Politics

Ideologues, when in charge of either party, are extremely destructive. One of the greatest attributes on our Republic is that the Founding Fathers devised a system which generally ensures a balance of power. Balance of power shifted too far in either direction, as we saw during the 2000 cycle and the 2008 cycle, is very bad for the country.

Yet, calling either of the past two Presidents names, such as a "Hitler without the mustache" is an unserious position and one that adds nothing to a legitimate discussion of the issues. Using these pejoratives to dissuade Obama supporters, many of whom now suffer nearly terminal buyer's remorse is not helpful. It's as obtuse as saying "Bush Lied, People Died," or that George W. Bush ran for president so he could fabricate intelligence to unjustifiably take the country to war to avenge his father and enrich his military contractor friends. Remember that neither Bush nor Obama act alone. Every Republican Senator and most Democratic Senators voted to invade Iraq. Every Democratic senator voted for the "stimulus" and for ObamaCare.

Bush made serious missteps and brought America along for the ride, but at least he truly believes in American exceptionalism. The problem is much deeper and far more serious with Mr. Obama, who is more a symptom of what truly ails America. Obama’s nomination was reactionary and he was elevated to princely status. Yet, blaming the prince should not blind anyone to the vacuous multitude who elevated him.

Obama's leftism is mainstreamed by his party. If stating that Obama is evil, what does this make those who support his agenda? To claim they are all evil is just plain foolish. It's more on point to say that Obama is an inexperienced, naive, wrongheaded ideologue who, even now, doesn't recognize the harm he is doing to the country. Truth be told, the President is an arrogant man with a racial chip on his shoulder. He is unquestionably a wealth redistributionist who, by his own statements, thinks of America as an imperialist power that needs to apologize to the world for its past sins. This does not make Obama evil, it simply makes him wrong, which in many ways makes him harder to deal with -- and even more dangerous. The fact that he's not out to intentionally destroy America makes him a larger menace.

Good intentions make it difficult to persuade people to fight against his policies, harder to focus not on intentions but rather on consequences and results. The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry willing to entrust a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved, apathetic electorate willing to elect either Bush or Obama for their president.

Over the next two years, Obama's will retreat toward the middle. It will be tactical, not reflective of a change of heart or core belief because he will have no choice. The balance of power will shift and he will either check himself or be checked. This is the reality of American politics.

The Republic will survive George Bush and Barack Obama, who are merely ideologues. It is less likely to survive the multitude of fools and their political parties, who elevated such men to national candidacy in the first place.

CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

Thomas Jefferson, paraphrasing from James Madison’s “Virginia Declaration of Rights” began the US Declaration of Independence with the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government

Later, in an indictment of King George, he included:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.

The most important words in the foregoing paragraph are that the government derives it’s just powers from the consent of the governed.

The most interesting issue with the latter paragraph is how much our current professional politicians parallel the injuries and usurpations of King George.

At this point, I want to ask a number of questions:

1) Do you give your consent for a government to create more than 13 TRILLION DOLLARS in public debt which it forces its citizens to repay? If so, continue to vote in the incumbents and party line legislators (of both major parties) who are responsible.

2) Do you give your consent for the government to create more than 80,000 pages of Federal regulations which determine and limit every movement you make in your daily lives? If so, continue to vote in the incumbents and party line legislators (of both major parties) who are responsible.

3) Do you give your consent for the creation of more than 70,000 pages of Tax legislation which determines how much you will send to the operation of the government every year? If so, continue to vote in the incumbents and party line legislators (of both major parties) who are responsible.

4) Do you give your consent to a government which creates an agency to decrease the importation of foreign oil at a time when we imported 20% of our oil and now spends more than 16 BILLION dollars per year to have us import more than 75% of the oil we use annually? If so, continue to vote in the incumbents and party line legislators (of both major parties) who are responsible.

5) Do you give your consent to a government which is hiring more than 15,000 IRS agents who are being tasked with the responsibility to find and prosecute the businesses and business owners who do not comply with the recently enacted health care legislation? If so, continue to vote in the incumbents and party line legislators (of both major parties) who are responsible.

6) Do you give your consent to a government which writes and enacts legislation which has more than 2700 pages of rules and regulations in spite of the fact that most, if not all did not read the legislation before voting in favor of enacting it? If so, continue to vote in the incumbents and party line legislators (of both major parties) who are responsible.

7) Do you give your consent to a government which is tasked with defending our shores, yet allows more than 250,000 aliens to illegally cross our borders without consequence? If so, continue to vote in the incumbents and party line legislators (of both major parties) who are responsible.

8) Do you give your consent to a government which in a warped attempt to protect and defend our shores, chooses to ”nation build” by waging war against countries which have different views of how a government should operate? If so, continue to vote in the incumbents and party line legislators (of both major parties) who are responsible.

9) Do you give your consent to a government which limits the term of the President, but allows its national legislators to serve indefinitely and pass laws which undermine outsiders attempts to serve the government? If so, continue to vote in the incumbents and party line legislators (of both major parties) who are responsible.

10) Do you give your consent to a government which dictates legislation to the states rather than accepting direction from “these United States”? If so, continue to vote in the incumbents and party line legislators (of both major parties) who are responsible.

If, on the other hand, you do not give your consent to be governed by an overreaching legislative body of professional politicians whose main interest is their own self preservation, I implore you to go out into your neighborhoods, find the best, most responsible members of your community and vote them into office.

There is a better way to operate this Republic and if we, the citizens of these United States, don’t wake up and change the course of the nation, in a very short time -- within the next 20 years -- there won’t be a nation left. The answer, in my opinion, is to return political power and the ability to collect and administer taxes to the individual states. This is not as radical an idea as it may sound, and it is much easier to enact than many might think. It is also an idea which will, if applied properly, will encourage business creation, job growth and American exceptionalism. Detailed explanation to follow.

THROW THE BUMS OUT!

If you step back and take an honest look, you’ll see that the unfortunate state of affairs in American politics has resulted from the reign of both political parties. The politicians, from both parties, work together in lockstep to advance their various agendas. Perhaps not as often during this cycle, but don’t let that fool you, this is only an effort to corral people into one party or another in order to maintain their power structure. Reality dictates that both parties logroll together and when necessary, one side “takes the hit” for political expediency. Whenever the illusion of accountability is needed, one or the other party makes a “sacrifice” in order to maintain the fictional separation between the parties. The system depends on the delusion that people can “vote the bums out.” I believe it is time to actually make good on this promise.

As long as we continue to elect the same people to hold the same offices, every government failure becomes the pretext for more regulatory interference in our lives. If you don’t get distracted by the spectacle, it’s impossible not to notice the pattern: Every political solution to any problem involves more regulation of your life and more taking of your money. If you fall for the political fallacy that we live in a country where government operates with the “consent of the governed” you end up with the faulty conclusion that America is populated by a citizenry which enjoys having its every action regulated by one or another branch of the government.

Americans, over the past 40 years have become the most regulated people on the planet. Consider that the Federal Register – for 2008 alone – had 80,700 pages of laws and regulations. This is before the addition of the hundreds of thousands of pages of laws and regulations at the state and local levels. Oh, and did I mention that the IRS tax code consists of more than 70,000 pages of regulations defining how much of your earnings are going to be confiscated by the government in order to enforce these regulations? The sheer annual output of all the federal and state “lawmakers” makes the 70,000 page IRS code seem miniscule by comparison.

The current administration claims this overburdening regulatory environment is necessary to “share the wealth” with the less fortunate amongst us. The most recent past administration claimed it was necessary to protect us from the “Axis of Evil” who mean to do us harm. In fact, the beneficiaries of this “sharing of the wealth” are the regulators. We don’t need to be told how to “share the wealth” or how to protect ourselves. The act of sharing is a voluntary act. That's what makes it sharing. If you're compelled by threat of imprisonment to give somebody something, then it's not sharing. Nor is it fair. Paying your fair share is what you do when you go out to dinner with friends. But when strangers whose salaries you're forced to pay decide, under threat of prosecution, how much of your money to take, in order to spend it on things you often detest, then fairness is not part of the equation. To show just how unfair it becomes, in other nations, if you’re fed up you can just leave, with no future consequence. In America, unless you properly complete the regulatory process to become an Ex-Patriot and remain outside of the country for the balance of your life, you continue to be forced to pay homage to the government or be prosecuted.

Millions of Americans are fed up with the lies, the debts, the taxes, the bailouts, the hypocrisy, the rip-offs, and the wars. The rise of the Tea Party is an acknowledgement that the average American understands that the system is rotten to the core and it is time to take back out nation. It is time to “throw the bums out” and return the citizen legislator to the halls of government.

Protecting our Southern Borders

So, while meeting with with the President at the Whitehouse, a group of Republican Senators discussed responsible immigration reform. The senators put forth the argument that prior to enacting any further regulations the Fed should secure the southern border. Our President disagreed with the Senators at the meeting, but shortly afterward announced that he was sending 1200 National Guard troops to “help police the border”. While some may herald this as a move in the right direction and others may claim that he is trying to make the Republican Senators look foolish for vociferously disagreeing with him, a closer examination portrays incredibly partisan political extremism.

Before anyone stops reading because I am bashing this administration, consider my reasons for taking this position. First and foremost, 1200 additional troops is atrociously inadequate to the task. Secondly and more important, the 1200 troops are not allowed to guard the border, they are only allowed to offer administrative support to the boarder patrol. This administrative support does nothing to “help police our border”. Even in the event that these troops were actually allowed to function as boarder guards, 1200 additional troops covering a border which is 1800 miles long and has a very harsh DMZ of approximately 60 miles north from the border wouldn’t begin to address the problem. This can only be interpreted as partisan political gamesmanship by the President.

In support of the previous statement I note that since the Presidents announcement, administration officials have already begun to spin his action as an attempt to “reach across the table” and come to a compromise with rigid Republican legislators who are not willing to work with him. This administration and most specifically the President continue to follow a growing habit of deriding anyone who disagrees with his position. The President will now pander to the ignorant and uniformed of his supporters to portray the Republican legislators as partisan politicians who place their interest above those of the American people. In fact, his actions show that he is unwilling to consider the opinions of anyone who doesn’t support him blindly, including the majority of the American voting public.

I am truly depressed that I have come to think this way because, although I couldn’t in good conscious vote for candidate Obama, I had hoped that as President, he would grow into the job of being a statesman. I had the same hope for President Bush and was disappointed by him as well, but at least he didn’t embarrass the office of the President. Unfortunately, what I see in President Obama is a growing narcissistic arrogance which belittles the man, the office of the Presidency and embarrasses the people who are proud to their core to be an American. We, the proud and loyal citizens of this country, deserve better from our President. We also deserve to have our borders protected from the absurdly excessive illegal and criminal entry across our southern border.

KAGAN NOMINATION

First, let’s consider what we actually KNOW About Nominee Kagan:

1) She argued that movies, library books, and other media may be banned or censored in some circumstances, before SCOTUS in the CU v. FEC case.

2) She believes the Court can continue expanding rights and governmental power/control and supports broad executive powers. She vigorously defended "EXTREMELY BROAD EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY" before her 9-0 smack down from the Court on her challenge of the Solomon Amendment.

3) She wrote, “The bottom-line issue in the appointments process must concern the kinds of judicial decisions that will serve the country and, correlatively, the effect the nominee will have on the Court’s decisions . . . If that is too results oriented … so be it. . .”

4) In her senior thesis, "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933," she bemoaned the death of socialism in this country.

Now, consider some reactions from Liberal Academians and Bloggers:

“She appears to have gotten tenure at the University of Chicago based on a single article, something that’s not allowed at most top schools, she is certainly a nominee who has one of the thinnest records, in terms of writing, that we have seen in years.”” said Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at The George Washington University

“Accepting Kagan just because people like Obama is wrong. That’s appropriate for ‘American Idol,’ not the Supreme Court. Nobody knows what she stands for but him.” - liberal blogger Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake

While Kagan did win tenure at the University of Chicago in 1995, her limited body of academic work played a role in the university’s decision not to allow her to reclaim her post after her White House stint, associates said.

My personal reaction to her nomination:

The SCOTUS was envisioned and designed to be an independent entity for a reason -- to avoid executive pressure. Like an umpire, the SCOTUS should have the reputation of an impartial entity, interpreting our basic document, the Constitution, not amending it or changing it. Otherwise, it is a useless, bureaucratic monstrosity and the tool of an over-reaching executive power grab.

Justice, especially on the SCOTUS, MUST look at the facts and only the facts of the case, apply the tenets of the constitution and render a decision based upon the constitution, period. The court should not be functioning as another government agency supporting the executive branch and its ideological views.

I may be old fashioned but I think the Supreme Court's highest duty is to protect the liberties of the American people as outlined in the Constitution of the United States. More often than not, it should not be assisting the inevitable thrust of the government for more power, but reining it in. The race, wealth, politics, or status of the people involved is immaterial.

Consider that nominee Kagan tried to kick military recruiters off the Harvard campus, despite the federal law authorizing it. Like Pres. Obama, she appears ambivalent about whether federal law needs to be followed. She seems to think you can ignore it if it suits you or it is politically expedient. Is this the proper attitude for a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land? I think not.

Unfortunately, Madam Kagan, like Judge Sotomayor do not believe that this is the case. They have stated that the court should consider cases, not based upon the constitutionality of the issue but on the basis of the individual. President Obama is doing his level best to appoint functionaries who support this ideological belief in the expansion of a central government. Madam Kagan is another example of this effort and I find her appointment very threatening to the operation and independence of the SCOTUS.

One of the most dangerous views expressed by Nominee Kagan is her seeming desire to move toward administrative law. If what she writes and says is true, she has little respect for the rules of law, let alone the constitution if it doesn’t support those, who in her view, are the underdogs. She has written and seems to believe that person A deserves a different level of justice than person B because A and B are of different races, religions, political parties, income levels, sexual orientation or whatever. I firmly believe that anyone who holds these views should not be considered qualified to serve on any court in this country and most especially a lifetime appointment the SCOTUS.

Reality Strikes Again

Did anyone really not see this coming? The Obama White House just got slammed by two government agencies charged with analyzing the costs of ObamaCare. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported yesterday that the healthcare "reform" legislation will not, as President Obama repeatedly promised, reduce health care costs. To the contrary, it will "increase national health care spending by $311 BILLION" over the next decade.

Previously, anyone who said that more government intervention would lead to higer costs was accused of making "bogus" and "wild" claims. But according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, it was Barack Obama who was making bogus claims.

I has serious questions about whether even President Obama believed the words he spoke when he made his pronouncements. It was very obvious, at least to the majority of Americans, that the health care bill had become more a referendum on the Presidency than reasonable, fair and balanced legislation which would help the average citizen keep their health care costs down. Yet the power of the few who were allegedly our representatives, over ruled the majority of everyday citizens and got this overwhelming legislation passed.

Personal responsibility and self determination -- two cornerstones of my belief in the beauty of being an American citizen. Over the past 40 years or so, we have seemed to abbrogate our rights and responsibilites to the Federal government. We have allowed the Federal Government, by small degrees, over a long period, to becoma an omnipotent entity which does whatever it chooses as long as it can exert more control over the masses. The end result is a government which has become morally and financially bankrupt. And it is taking us all down with it.

It is well past time to pull in the reins on the Federal Government and return America to the principles which make us, the citizens of this country the most free and united citizens of the the world. If we don’t, we will be spending ALL of our money in support of Federal policies which we don’t support.

The Passage of Health Care

I was recently asked what I think were the reasons behind the passage of the health care bill.

While I believe there were a few Republican legislators with good market centered ideas for the reform of the health insurance industry, I think the general Republican opposition to the bill as written, while justified, played right into Obama's hand and is the primary reason for passage.

The Republican party had the chance to put forth a comprehensive market centered bill and promote it to the public. In other words, offer a positive, market centered solution to health insurance abuse which could stand up to any criticism the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumpverte might throw at it. Instead they offered small adjustments or the "scrap it and start over" BS argument.

"We The People" will suffer as a result of this strategy for the balance of our lifetimes, in all likelihood, because there is no way this all inclusive plan will cut the deficit or in any way decrease the cost of health care.

I will offer a personal example: Being a self employed entrepreneur it has been very hard for me to obtain a competitive insurance policy. I found my best option to be a policy which includes a Health Savings Account of $5,000.00 with the insurance company picking up annual costs after this account has been extinguished. Now I find that under this comprehensive "cost reducing" health care overhaul, the $5,000 deductible, HSA policy is being eliminated in favor of a much less comprehensive policy with a lower deductible, but much higher monthly cost. So much for keeping the policy you have, if you like it. My monthly cost of health care has increased and my choice in policies has decreased.

In a recent NY Times article the following question was asked:

All this raises a question that goes well beyond the health care debate: can the Republicans make any progress, in Congress or at the polls in November, with that ‘Party of No’ label?

I respond yes and no --

Yes they will lose seats due to the general anger at the house and senate. There will be massive turnover which will hit both parties and because there are currently more D's than R's, there will be more turnover with the D's.

No they won't make headway on the "Party of No" label. If repeal of the health care bill becomes the battle cry in a one pony show, the Republican candidates will not gain in either the house or senate.

The gain, if there is to be a unified one issue campaign across America will come if the issue is deficits and public debt, but only if they present a comprehensive, solutions based action plan.

Think Newt's "Contract with America" focused on deficit and debt reduction. Of course, health care must be included in that mix with well researched examples of the cost increases, but the primary focus MUST be deficit and debt reduction if the Republican party is going to blunt the "Party of No" label and gain traction.

Remember, James Carvelles famous quote "It's the economy stupid"! History shows that it's always the economy and as David Frum points out in the article, the economy will be a bit better come November so the focus of opposing candidates MUST be the effect of deficits and public debt on the economy if they are to make any headway.

My continuing observation is that the incumbants know the voting public has a very short attention span so they can get away with quite a bit today in the belief that the public will forget by the time election day comes around. Health Care will be old news by the majority during the mid term cycle. The voters will not forget about deficits and public debt if candidates remind the voters in a dramatric manner, what the incumbents have allowed to occur.

Health Care in Haiku

HEALTH CARE HAIKU
by Roger Pol and Matthew Gelfand

The goal of providing access for every American citizen to health insurance is laudable. But the 2,700-page health reform bill that the President has signed represents an overly complicated, lengthy and micro-managed approach to restructuring the health care industry. This health care reform bill ignores the laws of economics. Congressional Budget Office estimates of the plan's costs are based on unrealistic assumptions. Government run entitlement programs such as Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid historically run well above budget projections. It seems very unlikely given historical experience and unrealistic projections that this bill will decrease the deficit. As a business entrepreneur and an economist, we favor a market-approach to health care reform with appropriate guardrails to ensure a fair but efficient system. In our view, a superior program with fewer dictates and a lot fewer words would have been – indeed still is – feasible. We demonstrate our approach with a 16-point health care reform program in Haiku.

"Preamble"

The health care reform:
Americans would prefer
A common sense approach

"Constitutionality"

Required purchase:
Unconstitutional and
Unenforceable

"Citizens Request"

We, the People, ask,
“Why no market solution?”
There is an answer

"Coverage"

Basic benefits
At regulated prices
No underwriting

“Preventative Care”

Annual checkups
Catch problems early enough
to lower health costs

"Personal Responsibility"

Private ownership
Forces people’s attention
On personal health

"Eligibility"

Cannot consider
Pre-existing conditions.
Insurance for all

"Open Season"

Anyone can buy
During first open season
Of six to twelve months

"Waiting Period"

Open-season done?
Pre-existing conditions
Must wait for six months

"Affordability"

Subsidize the poor
Who cannot afford to buy
Their own insurance


"New People?"

Open season for
New born babies and
Naturalized citizens

"Reality"

Increased demand and
Stable supply of doctors
Breaks the camel’s back

"Exchanges"

Jobs and insurance
Are very different matters.
Separate the two

"Taxation"

Eliminate the
Tax deductibility
Of health premiums

"Tort Reform"

Limit punitive
Awards to one million
So doctors can work

"Economics"

Lower demand and
Increased supply of doctors
Cuts the cost for all

A few simple questions --

I try to keep things simple and apply common sense solutions to whatever I attempt. So, after watching the passage of the health care bill last evening, I am left with the following questions:

How can this be considered a good bill and good policy for the American Public when the first and most immediate action will be the hiring of an additional 15,000 IRS Agents to police the program and fine those who don't comply??

How can this be good policy when the only bipartisanship was in opposition to the bill?

How can this be good for the nation when a majority of American citizens do not support it?

How can the President celebrate this as a victory when a majority of the states are contemplating or preparing legal action to invalidate the bill on the basis of constitutional legality?

When are our legislators going to wake up and listen to their constituency?

Remember this in November and vote them all out! It is time for fresh blood and fresh thinking.

Kicking in the Doors

Many of my more progressive friends told me that the health care bill would never reach the point of passage and don't complain so much -- that was about 6 months ago. At that time, I stated that we had to prepare and fight or the American prople would lose. Now we are at the stage where the fight has become one of we don't give a damn about rules or parliamentary procedure, we don't care about the process, we only care about getting a "health Care bill" passed. It doesn't matter that the bill is extremely bad policy which will cause much more harm than good. It doesn't matter to the likes of Obama/Pelosi/Reid what the process or rules are as long as they are able to "Break through the doors" by whatever means possible and pass "historic Legislation". Legislation which has been attempted since FDR without success -- for good reason!

Consider Madam Pelosi's own words from Monday of this week:

March 18, 2010

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said “once we kick through this door, there’ll be more legislation to follow” on Obamacare during a Monday blogger conference call. (Ben Margot/AP)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi used an unexpected analogy Monday during a conference call with liberal bloggers to discuss Obamacare, saying "once we kick through this door, there'll be more legislation to follow." At least four things need to be said about Pelosi's braggadocio.

First, just whose doors are being kicked in? Since virtually every survey taken in recent months has shown majority opposition to Obamacare, it's the door to public approval that's being kicked in by Pelosi and her comrades. Their attitude is that when rational argument fails to persuade a majority of Americans to support Obamacare, then it should be jammed down their throats. Pelosi evidently has decided to refine American democracy using the Hugo Chavez manual on public persuasion.

Second, just how hard are Pelosi and other Democratic leaders willing to kick? One thing in the debate has been clear for months: As the public learns more about Obamacare, the opposition grows. Pollster Scott Rasmussen's latest survey finds 53 percent opposed to Obamacare. "The numbers are virtually unchanged from last week and are consistent with findings in regularly tracking going back to just after Thanksgiving," Rasmussen said. It appears that Pelosi and company will keep kicking, no matter how great the public opposition.

Third, Pelosi's candor among friendly bloggers demonstrates that Obamacare is only the beginning, not the end of the liberal campaign to put bureaucrats between doctors and patients. What will Pelosi seek next in health care reform? An obvious candidate would be the public option not contained in the Senate version that has become the primary legislative vehicle for passing Obamacare. Then, as government health care costs skyrocket, a price control system won't be far behind. And, since price controls always cause shortages, the inevitable next step will be rationed health care services. At which point, the Left will have finally achieved the dream of making America and European health care equally socialized.

Finally, there is the unprecedented "Slaughter Solution" that Pelosi has endorsed in her door-kicking campaign. This legislative monster -- named after House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter of New York -- would mean that, by passing a health care reconciliation bill, the House would "deem" itself to have also passed the Senate version of Obamacare. Pelosi likes this approach because then "people don't have to vote on the Senate bill" and theoretically avoid the negative fallout back home

Huh? No wonder respected nonpartisan political analyst Stuart Rothernberg told The Washington Post that "we've leapt to a totally different planet with this deeming. I feel like I've fallen through the rabbit hole:

'Oh, they are going to not pass the bill and just pretend they passed the bill.'

Actually, Stuart, we're all being kicked down Pelosi's rabbit hole.

So, now I ask again -- are you mad yet? Are you willing to take action yet? Or are you willing to let the doors be kicked in and the constitution be trampled on by the same people you elected to protect it?

McDonald vs. Chicago

This case is based upon the 1982 law in which Chicago enacted a handgun ban, along with other firearms regulations, because “the convenient availability of firearms and ammunition has increased firearm related deaths and injuries” and handguns “play a major role in the commission of homicide, aggravated assaults and armed robbery.” Chicago City Council, Journal of Proceedings, Mar. 19, 1982, at 10049. Under Chicago’s ordinance, “[n]o person shall . . . possess . . . any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm,” and no person may possess “any firearm which is unregisterable.” Unregisterable firearms include most handguns, but rifles and shotguns that are not sawed-off, short-barreled, or assault weapons are registerable. Registerable firearms must be registered before being possessed in Chicago and registration must be renewed annually. Failure to renew “shall cause the firearm to become unregisterable.”

The case has been narrowed to a question of whether the 14th amendment “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses incorporate the 2nd amendment. At it’s core, the issue is whether the states rights overrule the Federal regulations. The Slaughter-house decision of 1873 is very prominent. The point in the Slaughter-house decision is: “the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established” The Petitioners counsel argues “SlaughterHouse’s illegitimacy has long been all-but-universally understood. It deserves to be acknowledged by this Court. Because SlaughterHouse rests on language not actually in the Constitution, contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s original textual meaning, defies the Framers’ intent, and supplies a nonsensical definition for Section One’s key protection of civil rights, overruling this error and its progeny remains imperative. No valid reliance interests flow from the wrongful deprivation of constitutional liberties. The reliance interest to be fulfilled remains Americans’ expectation that the constitutional amendment their ancestors ratified to protect their rights from state infringement be given its full effect.”

The Petitioners case is based upon the incorporation of the 2nd amendment into the 14th amendment. They claim that “the right should be deemed a privilege or immunity of national citizenship even under the test set forth in The Slaughter-House Cases. Thus, even if the Court declines to incorporate the Second Amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it should still incorporate it through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Their argument is centered upon the rights of the individual as seemingly incorporated across the history of the United States.

Many, myself included, are opposed to giving the Federal government the power to impose regulatory oversight on the States, for the same reasons that I would oppose giving the United Nations the power to impose regulatory standards on the U.S. I believe that states should be able to determine what is best for the individuals living within the state regardless of the desire of the Federal Government. This presents opposition to Gura’s argument based upon the 14th amendment and I would rather see the argument made based upon the merits of the 2nd amendment alone.


The respondents case is focused on the first sentence of the 14th amendment. "All persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside" The question is whether the right "to keep and bear arms" is a "privilege" of citizenship or is part of the "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment. The Respondents claim that “neither the Court’s selective incorporation doctrine under the Due Process Clause nor the Privileges or Immunities Clause provides a basis for imposing the Second Amendment on the States and establishing a national rule limiting arms regulation.” Respondents claim “local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule,” and “[f]ederalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon.”

They infer that the terms incorporate severance rather than inclusivity. In other words, the states have the right to infer regulations which are more or less restrictive than Federal regulations. Neither argument, in my opinion, considers the rights of the individual wqhich is the basis for the decision o in DC vs. Heller.

In DC vs. Heller, which only 2 years ago ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment, the question of whether the states have the right to restrict gun ownership was left unanswered. This is the question which McDonald is seeking to answer. Perhaps it will require the incorporation of the 14th amendment to make the case. If so, I hope that the ruling is limited to the priviledges and immunity clause rather than including the due process clause as well. This will identify the right to “keep and bear arms” as a right of the individual and not a right bestowed by the Federal or State government to the people. I worry that expanding the decision to include the “Due Process” clause will open the door to Federal expansion and limit both the rights of the state and of the individual.

The justices were surprisingly animated and seemed skeptical of any attempt to restrict the rights of the individual. They seemed to wonder, based upon their questions, why they should reconsider their finding in DC vs. Heller, that the rights granted in the 2nd amendment flowed to the individual. It will be interesting to see how the opinion comes down, but my guess is that there will probably be another five/four vote to reverse the decision of the Chicago court and affirm the individual right to own firearms without addressing the question of the 14th amendment Due Process and priviledges clauses

America isn’t “ONE SIZE FITS ALL”

When are the politicians in Washington going to get this message? When it comes to the disastrous and incredibly disingenuous Health Care Bill, it has taken a blunt hammer right between the eyes to get from the voters in Massachusetts to begin to get the message across. When one of the most double dealing and conniving politicians from Massachusetts, Barney Frank is in full retreat, saying about the health care bill: “…there is now no bill that I believe can pass or should pass”, perhaps it is time that our national representatives wake up and smell the roses. I realize that the utterances of Barney Frank are more for personal salvation than in any way a true reflection of his core beliefs, but I sincerely hope the good independent voters of Massachusetts continue their house cleaning and replace him this November.

It is equally important for the legislators of both parties to understand that the voice of Massachusetts is the voice of the people across this great nation. We, the majority of Americans are angry at the arrogance of legislators such as Barney, Harry, Chris dodd and Nancy. We the People are gaining a voice and have come to understand that the power of the people can trump the perceived power of the Fed. The voices of the Tea Party protestors for the past year and the TownHall usurpers last summer are the true voice of America and this voice is getting louder. This voice will become stronger during the 2010 election cycle and reach epic proportions during the 2012 election cycle.

The Federal Government, currently looking to increase the Federal Debt ceiling does not understand that we really are watching and fully comprehend the power of our vote. These “inside the Beltway” politicians from both parties are going to find that the voters of this country are rapidly coming to understand that "one size does not fit all" and legislation by caveat from inside Washington directly violates the terms of the 10th amendment to the constitution. We the People understand this. To those progressives amongst you, I realize that a case can be made that the 10th amendment has been toast since before Theodore Roosevelt, that some have even said since Lincoln and the Civil War. I personally think we the people of these United States fully understand that the representatives from California and Nevada don’t necessarily represent the values of the citizens of Minnesota or Mississippi. The legislators from Texas don’t represent the values of those residing in New York. It is time, nay beyond the time, to drastically limit Federal power and return the power of legislation to the States where the people can once again determine how they should be rightfully governed on a local level.

The morning after Massachusetts

I watched Brown victory speech last night and noted that his first comment was thanks to the independent voters who elected him. In fact, I believe, if I am quoting him right, he made the statement immediately thereafter that the independent voters are the largest voting block in the country.I really don't think anyone except the most partisan can claim this as a victory for the Republican Party. Even Carl Rove doesn't claim this as a Republican Party victory. It truly is a victory for the engaged, energized and strengthening block of independent voters. Without the support and help of the Tea Party Express and the independent voters, Brown would not have won. I would go one step further and say that Brown could have (and probably should have, IMO) run an independent campaign and won.One fear I have is that the Republican party is going to claim this as a major victory for the party rather than see it for what it is -- a vote against the "politics as usual" in Washington -- by both parties.

Recently when the argument in favor of a 3rd party was made and that the Republican party, the party of Lincoln, was originally a third party, the counter argument was made that at the time of Lincoln there were probably less than 125 million citizens while now there are about 350 million. The respondent was making this argument in support of the need to maintain a two party system. I don't think anyone would say that all Americans have similar views, nor do they vote the same way, so I'm a bit confused by this, I would think that the argument better supports the theory that because we have more than double the number of citizens today than the last time a major 3rd party became mainstream we should not have 3, but 4 or more major parties.

You may note that the news wires are rapt this morning with announcements that Brown won by a "landslide" or a "huge margin". FIVE, let me state this again FIVE points. This is considered a landslide. When a 5 point margin indicates a landslide, it seems to prove the point that very few people across this country think the same way and that more and more they are finally making their choice based upon the issues rather than the party affiliation.

How can anyone argue that 2 parties can effectively represent the width and breadth of the American citizenry? As shown by Browns election to the Massachusetts "Camelot" seat in the senate, it is the independent voter who makes the final decision in America and it is the independent voter who going to save the Republic not the Republican party, the Republic. Politics of the party -- whether Republican or Democrat are rapidly becoming an anachronism.

I don’t know whether anyone noticed the federal suit which was filed by Eric Holder before last years election against Kinston, N.C. The basis of the suit was to enjoin Kinston from removing party affiliation from the candidates names on the ballot. The good citizens of Kinston were in favor of voting for a candidate based upon his/her core issues and beliefs, not his or her party affiliation. Holder, sought (and was successful) in obtaining an injunction against Kinston on the basis that the voters would not know who to vote for if they didn’t know which party the candidate represented. IIRC, both the Republican and Democratic parties as well as the ACLU offered "friends of the Court" briefs in favor of Holders injunction. Sure makes one wonder.

Like I've been saying for the last year, sit back and watch because we are on the edge of a major paradigm shift in American politics and it's going to be an interesting show.

Today, on the date of the special election in Massachusetts, I want to make the point that the political paradigm is changing. It is not the Democratic voters who elected Obama and it will not be the Republican voters who elect Scott Brown today. It is the non affiliated independent voters who are determining the outcome of the elections and like it or not, they (we) will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

In fact, I will go out on a limb and make the case, as I have in the past, it is going to be the independent voter, gaining strength through the evolution of instantaneous communication, who are going to save the Republic from implosion.

We're not happy with what is happening on the national political front -- with either party -- we're energized, we're organizing and we're beginning to make our presence known. It doesn't take a genius to see this, you only have to observe what happened with Ron Paul and Obama during the 2008 cycle, with McDonnell during the 2009 Va. Gubernatorial race and with Scott Brown during the last 90 days to see the independents fingerprints all over the electoral process. Combine that with the remarkable showing of the (admittedly poor) independent candidate in Upstate NY. and to a lesser degree the NJ governors race and you can track the growing influence of the independent voter.

I had a very interesting breakfast meeting with a couple of friends this morning. One is an extremely rare and intelligent businessman who is rare because he is both Jewish and a Republican voter. Much of our discussion centered around politics, Scott Brown's campaign and my belief in and support of the independent movement. One of the most interesting points which I came away with is this: As a block, Jewish people are the second largest group of Democratic voters, averaging more than 75% democrat -- not because they necessarily agree with the Democratic platform, but because they historically and I might add, very emotionally, oppose their perception of the Republican platform. They're not strict democrats, they are strict anti-republicans.

If this block is offered a third alternative, one lets say, which espouses compassionate conservatism, without the Republican label, it was opined by these esteemed gentlemen, that a significant percentage of the Jewish vote would fall to the third option.

One thing which has become apparent over the last year -- our short term emotional experiment with Obama is over and our 50 year experiment with the growth of professional politicians is rapidly on its way out -- if we want the Republic to survive.