Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by Rob Natelson
Get the New Book Today!
In Washington, D.C. a group presents the Secretary of Education with a 120,000-signature petition asking the federal government to fund an effort to require every public school student in the country to take courses the group favors.
In Montana, activists flood the newspapers with letters urging that Congress force all Americans into a single government-run health care system.
In California, state officials lobby the U.S. Treasury to force the rest of us to guarantee short-term California debt so the state can balance its budget without correcting decades of overspending.
None of these demands would make sense even in the best of times. Public education is most effective when funding and other decisions are local. Giving more power to the same government that created the health care mess will raise costs further, and costs will drop only when government largely withdraws from the health care marketplace. Handing a state “free money†will not induce that state to get its fiscal house in order.
But these are not the best of times. Taxpayers are already struggling with a serious recession. The federal budget is trillions in deficit. When you see people promoting such ideas now, you have to wonder at the depths of human stupidity and greed.
As a professor of constitutional law, I also wonder at the depths of human ignorance. Do these people know anything about how our Constitution is supposed to work? Did they ever learn about federalism and the Constitution’s limits on government power? Do they know what freedom is?
Many of the people who now want to give the federal government life-and-death health-care power over 300 million Americans were hugely upset at how that same government treated a handful of foreign combatants at Guantanamo. Do they ever make the connection?
Welcome to twenty-first century America – where federal politics is largely centered on a single question: How much can the stupid and greedy plunder from their hardworking, productive neighbors?
History does not repeat itself, but history often sings variations on the same tune. Consider one historical variation: The American Revolution.
Some history books say that the Revolution occurred when the “Americans†rebelled against the “British†because the “British†insisted on plundering the “Americans.â€Â But that’s not exactly what happened.
Before the Declaration of Independence, Americans and British were subjects of the same Crown. They were all fellow-citizens.
King George III and the politicians in control of the British ministry wanted to increase the number of people getting benefits from government. Their idea was to create new classes of dependents that would be properly grateful to them.
But because the British government was deeply in debt, there wasn’t much money available. So the politicians hit upon the idea of taxing American businesses and consumers to raise the revenue they needed to swell the government payroll.
The resulting struggle was not purely between America and Britain. Some Americans were on the royal payroll, or hoped to be, or were dependent on others who were. These “Tories†firmly supported the London politicians, and some of them fought and killed their fellow Americans.
But among the British people there were many who sympathized with the colonists. Merchants trading with America knew they would bear much of the new tax burden, so they sympathized with the revolutionists.
Many perceptive Englishmen understood that a government that could freely loot productive people to support political dependents was a real threat to freedom. Together, pro-American Brits employed political pressure to help our side win.
In other words, the “American Revolution†was largely a civil war – a war among fellow-citizens. That is why most of the American Founders declared Independence with such regret. The Declaration of Independence speaks sorrowfully of “our British brethren.â€
Some leading Founders, such as John Dickinson and Robert Morris, actually opposed Independence because it broke their hearts to go to war against fellow citizens (although after the decision was made, both Dickinson and Morris rendered great service to the American cause).
Those of us who are outraged at how the federal government treats hardworking, productive people are right to be outraged. We are right to want to rein in the politicians and bureaucrats.
But politicians and bureaucrats are not the whole problem. To a considerable degree, they are responding to the demands of the folks who insist that our debt-laden government spend billions more, or that the federal government assume command of our health care and our local schools.
People who make such demands may mean well. King George and at least some of his ministers meant well, too – but the effect of their policies was a war against millions of their most productive fellow-citizens, and eventually, the loss of those citizens from the British Empire.
Whatever the motivations of those who seek to use the federal government against the rest of us, they too have launched an unbridled and unprincipled political war against their fellow citizens.
From the perspective of history, in other words:Â They are the new King George.
In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado’s Independence Institute.
In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution's original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See: www.constitution.i2i.org/about/.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado's Independence Institute.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Yes, as a Secular Humanist, I believe with my heart 100% that fundamentalists need to be off’d, just as much as all the christian fundies in the USA believe all Muslims should be off’d.
Corey, if I said that I don't think you and your kind ought to "offed," would that make any difference in your opinion of me and my kind? No? Thought not.
It's your life, man, wallow in it.
Thomas Howard, Larry & Terry Morris:
WOW! You guys are great and you nailed it! Originally, "citizenship" was with the States - see, e.g., Art. III, §2, U.S. Constitution. It was the 14th Amendment, §1, which extended "citizenship" to "THE United States" (as a single sovereign entity) as opposed to what it was before the War of Southern Secession, "THESE United States" (a federation of sovereign states allied together for limited and defined purposes).
Corey: I'll pray for you. Meanwhile, read Ayn Rand's novel, The Fountainhead. Pay close attention to the character, Ellsworth Toohey. He is a hater who postures as an "humanitarian". Rand demolishes the pretense of the "liberals" that they are caring, compassionate people. Rand shows that they are motivated by hatred. Review your own posts and perhaps you will see! PH
LARRY Says: On July 2nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
LARRY:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,(MEANING WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS) insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense(COMMON DEFENSE MEANING THE FEDS FORM A MILITARY THOUGH THE STATES CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE NATION ), promote the general welfare,( PROMOTING GENERAL WELFARE DOES NOT MEAN HEALTH CARE, THE WORD PROMOTE, AND PROVIDE DO NOT MEAN THE SAME ) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.â€
MY RESPONSE:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,(I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID) insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense( “ “ ), promote the general welfare,(GENERAL WELFARE IS JUST THIS, HOW CAN WE BE “WE THE PEOPLE†IF WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE “WHOLEâ€) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.â€
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
The way the country is supposed to operate is like this: we 50 States are individually sovereign
MY RESPONSE:
When was this, when the states didn’t threaten each other, when the states didn’t “sell out†to other countries, when the Feds didn’t, bully the states, or whenever anytime those things DIDN’T happen….those things ALWAYS happened.
Like you mentioned above: “Government operates by method of coercion, Example: Roads.. the feds( meaning we the people ) pay for certain road projects and the states operate under the federal guidelines, if they refuse to follow the feds rules the money gets cut off so technically, you are correct, there wont be a federal health care facilityâ€
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
My point is, the country was designed to give us the freedom to choose. like a buffet, you live in a state that best reflects your lifestyle.. maybe you are super liberal… so you would move to massachusetts.. maybe you are a religious type.. so you would move down to the bible belt area…(The only place that doesn’t get the luxury of sovereignty is DC.)
So you see, when you support a federal healthcare program, you are supporting the loss of choice.. the freedom to pick and choose.
MY RESPONSE:
Who can afford to pick up and move? Will the government relocate me? Pay for my housing while I look for a new job?
=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
But, the fact of the matter is, our system of government is by far, superior to anything on the planet. proof is the hordes of immigrants that make up our country.
MY REPSONSE:
Huh…odd, last I looked, the USA has a history of Imperialism and then turned on those who wouldn’t play their little games anymore, when they wanted their people to stop being raped of their natural resources (farming, oil, labor etc)
For Example, here are just a few, off the top of my head, of countries/people that were once “friends†with the US government, but when asked to back off, the USgov put them on their terrorist or axis of evil list: Cuba, Iran, Mexico, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, (however, the Bush folks are still friendly with the Saudis and the rest of the Bin Laden family)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
People need to be able to choose a State that has laws that best fit their lifstyle..
MY REPSONSE:
Okay, I want to live in a state with no “white†people, no heterosexuals, not ugly people and no Christians….which state will allow a Constitutional Convention where I can make that happen, and if I cant get a CC to do all that, I would like to take all “rights†away from those people mentioned above, AND no hunting, no fishing, no churches, free school, free health care, farming, no polluting factoring or animal waste dumping spots…etc..
=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
the More federal intervention, the less choice you have.( a perfect example of federal intervention is grocery shopping in Canada. here, you have 15 different kinds of peanut butter.. in Canada.. you have 1, maybe two.
MY RESPONSE:
I wonder why most of the civilized European companies that have Universal Health care and Education have faster internet connections? Oh yes, I know why, they have more options than we in the USA have, they are more regulated, like our FOUNDERS desired, where corporations didn’t run the world. In fact, from what I understand, the FOUNDERS made laws that allowed corporations only so much power, forcing them to dismantle after a certain amount of time, as to not get too powerful, or end up creating a two-caste situation; the corporate/royalty and the common folk/the buyers.
=-=-=-=-=
LARRY SAYS:
So, let me ask you this, if you are in favor of federal health care are you also in favor of the federal government dictating to you who, when, how much and if you get treatment ?.. or would you rather have the choice to make those decisions on your own?..
So you see, when you support a federal healthcare program, you are supporting the loss of choice.. the freedom to pick and choose.
MY REPSONSE:
Federal Health care DOES NOT dictate anything, the only thing that is done is the docs get paid. As for loss of choice, have you never been denied care in the USA by a docs boss, (HMO etc) says he/she cant/won’t pay for test/procedure?
Watch SICKO, those aren’t actors.
=-=-=-=-=
Corey wrote:
The world would be a better place if all you fundamentalists offed yourselves….
Yes, that is your leftist ... how did you put it before? ... "values and morals I hold as a caring human being."
Corey, be honest with yourself; you're not interested in having a lively debate. And you're a hypocrite to boot. The only person you're fooling is yourself. And what the hell is the point in that?
Corey,
Government operates by method of coercion, Example: Roads.. the feds( meaning we the people ) pay for certain road projects and the states operate under the federal guidelines, if they refuse to follow the feds rules the money gets cut off so technically, you are correct, there wont be a federal health care facility, BUT the health care facilities will be running under the rules and regs of the fed. it makes no difference who is dealing the cards when the game is dictated by the federal government.
Now for some explanations.....
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,(MEANING WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS) insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense(COMMON DEFENSE MEANING THE FEDS FORM A MILITARY THOUGH THE STATES CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE NATION ), promote the general welfare,( PROMOTING GENERAL WELFARE DOES NOT MEAN HEALTH CARE, THE WORD PROMOTE, AND PROVIDE DO NOT MEAN THE SAME ) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.â€
The way the country is supposed to operate is like this: we 50 States are individually sovereign, we have the right to pass laws, and function independently from the Federal government and each other. each state should be unique in it's own existence, and individual laws. The federal government is there to provide the protection ( militarily ) and to ensure that the states do not form monopolies over one another. That Each State respects the god given rights and liberties of the individual. The Federal Government was designed to operate on a limited basis, thus allowing the states to function, make laws, and operate as independents.
so realistically an American, would be primarily celebrating the date his State was admitted into the union, along with Independence day secondary. There was a time, long when a person identified himself with the State that he came from.A proud Tennessean or a proud Texan or whatever... But the emphasis has changed. what I feel this board is trying to do is revive what has been lost by government over stepping it's boundaries. to educate, and explain to people that the way things are are not what was intended, and that what most people have is a distorted view of the way our country is supposed to be run.
Now, if you are a liberal, you could argue that times have changed and we need to change with them. But, the fact of the matter is, our system of government is by far, superior to anything on the planet. proof is the hordes of immigrants that make up our country. The objective should be protecting our Constitution from the abuse of social mindedness, things like federal health care, federal road money, federal guidelines.. these intrusions tread on we as individuals.. as sovereigns if you will. the way it's supposed to work is if you don't like a particular states laws on health care, you move to a state that has laws you can live with.. maybe you don't like New York's crappy gun bans.. so you have a choice to move to say, Montana or Utah where everyone can own..My point is, the country was designed to give us the freedom to choose. like a buffet, you live in a state that best reflects your lifestyle.. maybe you are super liberal... so you would move to massachusetts.. maybe you are a religious type.. so you would move down to the bible belt area...(The only place that doesn't get the luxury of sovereignty is DC.)
So you see, when you support a federal healthcare program, you are supporting the loss of choice.. the freedom to pick and choose.
Now granted, the Republicans are just as crappy at protecting our rights as the dems.. so, you wont find many here that support the GOP either. Most people here are conservative and that doesnt mean Republican!, they want their right to choose back!.. they want to be able to pick and choose, who, when and if they even want health care. They want the freedom to live their lives without being boxed in by the Federal government..People need to be able to choose a State that has laws that best fit their lifstyle..the More federal intervention, the less choice you have.( a perfect example of federal intervention is grocery shopping in Canada. here, you have 15 different kinds of peanut butter.. in Canada.. you have 1, maybe two. Food in canada is highly regulated, you have no selection whatsoever! because government is protecting the few who make the peanut butter.. so much for competition and consumer choice eh?)The reason why federal social programs don't work is because Government on a federal level is by and large inept, this is why the Constitution limited the role they are supposed to be playing. The founding fathers wanted states to have all the power because it is easier to control and to maintain an individuals rights....our system is super easy to understand.. and it makes sense,.. it only get complicated when people start screwing with it and trying to make it into something it isnt, thats why we are so screwed up now.
So, let me ask you this, if you are in favor of federal health care are you also in favor of the federal government dictating to you who, when, how much and if you get treatment ?.. or would you rather have the choice to make those decisions on your own?.. and saying "it's better then what we have now" isn't an acceptable excuse to support it. if states are allowed pass their own laws concerning prescription drugs, Pass laws that don't interfere with federal insurance guidelines.. you would find that there is a much better way of fixing the health care industry
All you have to know is America is around #38, #1 being the best health care in the world.
Cuba has less infant deaths than the USA does.... Read More
Between 90,000 and 100,000 people die A YEAR in AMERICA due to medical errors.
ALL OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRIES have Universal Health care, and MOST give better health care then the USA
Americans pay more and get less than countries with Universal Health care
What more do Americans need to know to make them get their heads out of their butts.
Watch SICKO, like recommended in the third or fourth comment, those aren’t actors.
Also, ask ANYONE on Congress, "How’s your SOCIALIZED Health care?
I just read the articles posted above by Highlander Juan.
I am reposting them at the end of this article. Edwin Vierra holds four degrees from Harvard, including a a Phd and a JD. He has argued and won three important cases before the U.S. Supreme court. I believe he is a law professor in Alabama, but I may be mistaken about this. Here is his bio. http://www.vlrc.org/authors/105.html
He argues in the first article below that Homeland Security was never intended for Islamic extremists, but for normal Americans. He argues (back in 2005) that the "Establshment" has known that the bank crisis and economic crash were inevitible, and thus put DHS in place to keep order, even to the point of suspending the Constitution, etc. Basically, he argues that the militia is absolutely necessary to maintain a free state and that it alone will prevent us from being reduced to slaves when the roof falls in. He is a man of emmanent credentials and perpiscuitity (like that big word?). I have to believe him. The Patriot Act was first proposed by Clinton, but was rejected by a Republican congress. Bush put the same bill through after 9/11. The very fact that it was in the works under Clinton shows it really had little to do with Islamic terrorist. People, we are systematically being reduced to slavery by our own government. I think Vierra's call to re-start the militia is spot on. I hope you will read the articles and act accordingly.
HOMELAND SECURITY†— FOR WHAT AND FOR WHOM?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin.htm
VISIONS FROM A CRYSTAL BALL
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin195.htm
LEXINGTON GREEN, APRIL 19, 2009
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin194.htm
The “left†–“right†model of political analysis needs to be discarded because it distorts thinking. It has long been said that those on the “Left†are communists; those on the “Right†are NAZIS. Well! Where does that leave us “good folks� Right there in the squishy middle. Thus, this model effectively eliminates from consideration the option of a limited civil government with enumerated powers & individual rights.
Communism & fascism are actually two variants of the same totalitarian, collectivist, statist system. Both use terror as a means of achieving their goals. The only differences are nominal. E.g., they both have scapegoat groups: “capitalists†or Jews. In communism, the “state†owns everything; in NAZI Germany, nominal ownership remained in private hands, but the government completely controlled businesses and other property. Yet because of this false model of political analysis, millions of Americans have been conditioned into thinking that communism and fascism are opposites. Is it any wonder we are a rudderless people who don’t have a clue?
The same goes for the “liberal†– “conservative†model. We all know what a modern day “liberal†is, but what is a “conservative� That term has been applied to so many people (Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, John McCain, Pat Buchanan, Bob Dole, the Bushes, etc.) it no longer has any meaning.
The TRUE OPTIONS are statist totalitarianism on the one hand and limited civil government on the other hand. Our own Constitution, with its short list of enumerated powers delegated to the three branches of the federal government, is one of the greatest jewels in the history of political thought.
In Ethics, the options are (1) An objective moral code to which we conform our behavior (e.g., don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t covet, don’t commit adultery, don’t kidnap, don’t bear false witness, etc.); or (2) A subjective standard.
We all have standard(s) by which we decide how we are going to behave: It’s either an objective standard which is based on something outside of ourselves, such as God’s Law or Natural Law; or, it’s a subjective standard: “I feel like it – I don’t feel like itâ€; I want to – I don’t want to; I like it – I don’t like it.
If I am pregnant and don’t want the baby, I CHOOSE to kill it. If you have money in your wallet, and I want it, then I CHOOSE to kill you and take your money. If my parent is elderly and I want my inheritance now, then I CHOOSE to kill my parent. The standard of conduct is WHAT I CHOOSE TO DO?
Where did we get the idea that there is something “moral†in honoring peoples’ “choices†to deprive other people of their Rights? That is a perversion. Liberals are not "moral" people! They know no law but their own whims, likes & dislikes. They pretend to be “moral†and “compassionateâ€, but that is a sham designed to fool us.
Highlander Juan! THANK YOU SO MUCH! I work very hard on those papers. They are written for intelligent non lawyers as well as for other lawyers. I wrote them to be position papers so that anyone who studies them can intelligently defend the constitutional position and make an air tight case (I litigated for many years). I have many more in various stages of development. PH
BK Campbell Says:
June 30th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Larry you may be correct I don’t know. I do know that since the Freedom of Information Act we can get a copy of our FBI files but I’m pretty sure that does not apply to Home Land Security files. Their whole thing is to know all about you while you know nothing about them and they are allowed to gather their information without hindrance such as probable cause etc.
=============
Good observation, BK. He who controls the data, controls the process. It's about control of us by our government. It explains why the feds are insistent on controlling our education, and like mushrooms, if we get to learn too much, or we get to teach too well, we get cut off at the knees.
The last thing the government wants is for us to be smart and educated and to understand what they are doing, and guess what - that's exactly what we need to be doing. I keep looking for the government whistle blowers to open doors of opportunity for us, but they seem absent today.
BTW, guys, I really like this site. I spent this morning reviewing all of the entries, and think most of the posted entries are just grand. I also reviewed PH's site, and really enjoyed that site.
Have a good one.
Juan
Larry wrote:
I don’t think we simpletons would be listed.. it would be the ones who have a large audience.. the Glen Becks, and others with a following who are not party aligned...
Well, I wouldn't count on it. I look at occurances like Ruby Ridge (and there are many other stories like it) and I have to wonder to myself, "why in God's name would the federal government concern itself with someone as non-threatening as Randy Weaver and his family?" I mean, this guy is dumber'n I am, and that's pretty dumb. But it was really Vicki they were after, after she insulted the federalis in a scathing letter she wrote to them. And they got their man ... er, woman.
You might be right about the economic crisis - but if it’s anyone’s final undoing, it just might be “theirs†- leaving a golden opportunity to start anew…..with an eye for liberty.
Yeah, that's kind of what I meant, I just didn't state it very well. But then, when you think about what an economic collapse actually portends, it gets pretty ominous. There will be untold human suffering, violence let loose everywhere, etc. It'll make the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans look like child's play. In that sense, our good reverend friend above is certainly right about the under classes revolting. So I guess maybe I ought to start going to the movies again. And buying groceries at the supermarket. ;-)
I think I understand the "liberal" mindset. It is radically opposed to the Judeo-Christian philosophy upon which Western Civilization was built.
1. They are at war with God's Law - Natural Law (the same law by a different name, and with Reality itself.
OUR view of "rights" is that they are unalienable gifts from God (or as Ayn Rand says, "rights" are necessary for us to live as man), and they may be enjoyed at NO EXPENSE OR INCONVENIENCE TO ANY OTHER MAN: the rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, to work in our chosen trade or profession, travel, to live where we like, to earn, inherit and keep property, to defend ourselves, etc.
THEIR view of "rights" is an entitlement to other peoples' money: rights to medical care, housing, food, education, etc. All this stuff is paid for by other people. This necessarily results in enslaving one segment of people (the productive) for the sake of another segment (the non-productive) and for the sake of the civil government which administers this evil system.
OUR view of "Liberty" is freedom from coercion from civil government or, during certain periods in our history, from church government.
THEIR view of "Liberty" is freedom from the moral laws! Thus, in Roe v. Wade (1973), 7 judges on the U.S. Supreme Court said a
"right of privacy…founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action..."
makes unconstitutional State laws making abortion a criminal offense!
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003),6 judges on the U.S. Supreme Court said a Texas Law criminalizing homosexual conduct was unconstitutional because it violated practitioners’
"…right to liberty under the Due Process Clause …of the Fourteenth Amendment..."
"Liberty" now means being free to kill babies & engage in homosexual conduct. Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, said:
…As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom...
So, Kennedy thinks that "liberty rights" are things which are "granted" from time to time by judges [not by God]; that the laws from which one is "liberated" are the moral laws; and that the standard of when something becomes a "liberty right" is whether 5 of them agree on it.
Our basic concerns are "Moral" - we really care about "Right" and "Wrong"! THEY DON'T!
2. Liberals do not think. They don't know Logic. They are very shallow intellectually. Check around - all the brains are on our side. Our weakness has been that we have not been willing to acknowledge that we have no common ground with these people - they do NOT have "good intentions"; they do NOT play by the rules; they steal elections; they lie; they manipulate; they deceive; and they promise the moon to the rabble to get their votes; and THEY HATE OUR JUDEO-CHRISTIAN MORALITY & WORLDVIEW.
When you challenge them on an intellectual basis, they crumble.
Our Rev. JD Spears is unable to respond intelligently to the objections we raised to his views. He can not defend his position intellectually. So, he moves to threats. PH
Rev JD Spears:
You err Biblically, morally, & Constitutionally.
The welfare state is based on coercion, theft, envy & the distribution of plunder to favored groups in exchange for their votes. That is evil. Don't you know the Commandments: "Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet"? As Prof. Walter E. Williams says, "I'm pretty sure God didn't mean stealing was all right as long as it was done by majority vote!"
Your conception of "rights" is a perversion. A "right" is NOT a claim for stuff or services that are produced by, or paid for, by others. To hold that those who produce exist to be plundered by government for the ostensible benefit of others is slavery. It is evil.
Ours is a Constitution of limited & enumerated powers. Read Art. I, §8, U.S. Constitution. Neither there or anywhere else in the Constitution is Congress given any authority to make laws about health care! READ THE LIST OF SUBJECTS ON WHICH CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE LAWS!!!!! What this means is that the federal government has NO AUTHORITY to interfere in health care or in any other subject which is not included in THE LIST!
The "general welfare clause" does NOT give Congress power to pass any law on any subject as long as a majority of them think it serves the "general Welfare"!
First: You need to learn what the word, “welfareâ€, meant when the Constitution was ratified: “Welfare†as used in the Preamble & in Art. 1, §8, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution, meant
"Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government"(Webster’s American Dictionary of the English language, 1828).
But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English language (1969), added a new meaning: “Public relief – on welfare. Dependent on public reliefâ€. Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when 20th century meanings are substituted for original meanings?
Second, James Madison addressed this in The Federalist, No. 41 (last 4 Paras): Madison pointed out that the first paragraph of Art. I, §8 employs “general terms†which are “immediately†followed by the “enumeration of particular powers†which “explain and qualifyâ€, by a “recital of particularsâ€, the general terms. So, yes, the powers of Congress really are restricted to those itemized in the Constitution (primarily Art. I §8).
OUR FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD that the “general Welfareâ€, i.e., the enjoyment of peace & prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society & civil government, was possible only with a civil government which was strictly limited & restricted in what it was given power to do!
The "general welfare" had NOTHING to do with parasites seeking to live at other peoples' expense!
Friend, you have got a lot of studying to do. I recommend this book for you to start learning of the God-given principles of Liberty:
The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World, W. Cleon Skousen
It's written is a very simple & clear style. Non-lawyers should have no problem understanding it. Good luck. NOW! Get to work and start learning and thinking! Meanwhile, YOU may give every penny you have to other people to pay for THEIR medical care.PH
HighlanderJuan Says:"JD - your arguments appear irrational to me." as does yours to me. What does that statement accomplish?
"I’d be really interested in knowing more about your educational background and your personal experiences that cause you to think the way you do before I offhandedly throw away your arguments."
Now this is an interesting request. What does your education background and personal experiences have to do with my opinion? Likewise, mine has little to do with yours. Further, I do not recall that this group reguires that anyone devulge this information to be part of the discussion. If so can you provide where it requires this and yours?
As far as "offhandedly throw away your arguments" that is your right but doing so, without addressing them, is a disservice to all invovled.
Patrick Henry Lives Says: "The question is “does the Federal govenment have legal authority to enter the health care question?†Here there can only be one answer: No, it does not."
Look to the Preamble of the Constitution:"promote the general welfare" clearly a call for the federal government to oversee healthcare.
JD - in regards to the preamble, you've made a common statement. A very common mistake too.
The preamble is an introductory statement to the constitution and nothing more. It explains WHY the constitution was written, and the rest is how this is to be carried out.
The founders recognized that the best way to promote the general welfare would be to follow the constitution - which creates pretty strict limitations on the power of the federal government.
The Preamble does not give any powers, whatsoever, to the federal government. And, from my understanding it has almost certainly never been relied upon by any court as the decisive factor in deciding a case.
**See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) ("Although the preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments."); see also United States v. Boyer, 85 F. 425, 430–31 (W.D. Mo. 1898)
Terry Morris Says: "Don’t reference the DoI. You’re going to lose." Hardly but that is a diversion to the discussion at hand. A mark of someone that has lost?
Jeff Matthews said: "The takers better stop demanding to take so much because there will become a tipping point where, not only do we refuse to give more, but we start taking back what we’ve been giving away in the first place."
Granted! The issue is always in flux, a dynamic balance. Ultimately the issue boils down to: what is the best ecomonic way to provide that which must be provided? This is as applicable to fire protection as it is to healthcare.
HighlanderJuan said: "The Founders believed in unalienable rights that came from God" actually they believed that the rights were given to the governed by those you govern, i.e. government, reference the Declaration of Independence.
"The individual has the right to keep himself healthy, but if he screws up, or is unlucky, he has to pay the tab - no-one else is obligated to help him." Then you are clearly not aware of existing laws about having to provide care to the sick? Anyone that arrives in an ER must be provided care, irrespective of ability to pay. Who then pays for those that can not? Those that have healthcare insurance or have the ability to pay otherwise. So much for the "someone who just doesn’t give a sh-t"! Pay now or pay later, but pay we all do.
Rev J D Spears Says: June 29th, 2009 at 11:36 am
You said:
"Terry said: “no; no it isn’t. Because you think so doesn’t make it so†Likewise I can state otherwise. The point being is that man must take care of man otherwise you are left with a priviledged class and an unpriviledge class. Left to itself the unpriviledge will eventually revolt. It is therefore in your best interest to provide healthcare for all, thus it is a right to all."
I think I see the problem here. Terry thinks 'rights' come from God, and JD thinks 'rights' come from government.
The Founders believed in unalienable rights that came from God. So, if you are a traditional warrior, as opposed to a secular progressive or statist, you believe rights came from God, and that you, the individual, have to assert and defend your own rights in order to keep those rights.
JD, I agree with Terry. An individual has no rights to healthcare from any other person. The individual has the right to keep himself healthy, but if he screws up, or is unlucky, he has to pay the tab - no-one else is obligated to help him.
Is this tough love? Is this jungle law? Yup. But it isn't forced government care.
Man can (and does, if left alone) care for his fellow man. But once you hold a gun to a man's head and tell him he has to take care of another, the care will decrease in effectiveness. Immediately. the patient will die.
So, what do you want? Voluntary care from a caring person, or involuntary care from someone who just doesn't give a sh-t?
Your call.
I know which one I would want.
Terry said: "no; no it isn’t. Because you think so doesn’t make it so" Likewise I can state otherwise. The point being is that man must take care of man otherwise you are left with a priviledged class and an unpriviledge class. Left to itself the unpriviledge will eventually revolt. It is therefore in your best interest to provide healthcare for all, thus it is a right to all.
Wynne Says: June 29th, 2009 at 10:20 am
You said:
"I readily agree with all the points made in HighlanderJuan’s comment, but, in my experience, the statement that “…the hyper critical left can’t argue with authority (and that’s their weakness)†does not ring true, though I wish it did."
Your comments about how the left argues is accurate, because they don't have any valid arguments, so they merely attack the opponent's character and motives. That's intended to bring the strong down to a more manageable or defeatable level and to distract the conversation away from the topic being discussed. It is very challenging to argue with an emotion driven leftist.
But the left is the group usually identified as statists - they want big government and lots of government control.
I don't believe that statists trust the individual to make his own decisions because the statists themselves are incapable of making individual decisions - it's all about group think and group decisions. So statists use another man's gun (government rules & regulations) to force people they disagree with (individuals, conservatives, etc.) into compliance.
Individuals, however, don't have a problem making their own decisions - it's their way of life. If you look at the reasons why our military is so powerful in the field, it is my opinion they win battles because, inasmuch as they train as teams, they are allowed to make individual and decentralized battle decisions. Not all nation's military are structured this way - some have to wait for central command to issue an order. We conquered the Germans in WW II because they kept waiting for Hitler's orders. Same story with the Iraqis and Hussein.
It is my opinion that statists are immature members of society, and are not the ones who grow and defend the rest of society. Rather, they use up society and ultimately destroy it because they are not able to put anything back into society. They are immature - not ripe yet.
So, if we understand that we have a culture about half filled with children (speaking politically), and the children run the show, then we have problems similar to the ones we see now.
We have taken too much good care of our people, and we have allowed the weak to thrive. But it is too late to cry over spilled milk - the damage is done and the parents will now have to clean up the mess caused by the children.
It is for these reasons I have suggested many times that we need to raise the voting age for civilians in federal elections to age 35 (military = age 21), not allow voters to vote in federal elections unless they have paid taxes (only those who put into the system should get to determine how the money is spent).
But, as I indicated earlier, now is too late to implement these suggestions - we are already beset with the problems of having immature and unqualified voters in federal elections.
I readily agree with all the points made in HighlanderJuan's comment, but, in my experience, the statement that "...the hyper critical left can’t argue with authority (and that’s their weakness)" does not ring true, though I wish it did.
It seems to me that the only authority the left recognizes is that based on self-referential and usually pious assumptions. And they rarely argue any issue within the traditional rules of debate. I cite, for example, the matter of global warming; if there has ever been a serious public debate based on good science, I have missed it.
When the left is challenged by argument their response is generally to attack the motives and character of the person who advances it, and if the argument is sound, they will try to score points only at the margins to destroy the case-in-chief.
We the people face a grave crisis, a Constitutional crisis. After decades of avoiding the Constitution’s explicit prohibitions and duties; and after turning a death ear to the peoples repeated petitions to honor the law, our servant government has brought our grand Republic to the edge of ruin. How we the people respond to these escalating abuses over the coming months may determine whether or not our children may ever enjoy the life of liberty. To be blunt, our government is out of control. It has abused its limited powers, trodden upon the rights of the people, giving no sign of stopping. It has engaged our nation in Middle East quagmire with out Congressional deliberations, or brought about an economic disaster by a privately owned central bank with a debt based fiat currency; deprived the people of their privacy brought forth an emerging police state via the USA Patriot act. Unconstitutional apportioned direct taxes on Americans. Inaugurated a President without requiring him to produce evidence to establish him as a natural born citizen; as required by the constitution. Deprive the people the right to form a militia and to keep and bear arms; plus much much more: the unconstitutional North American Union; the unlawful Treasury bailout; uncontrolled borders and illegal emigration; Election voting fraud. And the most grievous injury, a servant government’s refusal, at every turn, to be held accountable in every way by failing to respond to the people with repeated petitions for the redress of grievances.
Later this year, represented delegates, people of each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia will converge as a national Continental Congress to debate our constitutional crisis, and establish practical strategies the people can take and map that peacefully establishes liberty and restore Constitutional order. These historical proceedings will be known as Continental Congress 2009. Taking a page from our founders, the delegates will assemble for a period of several weeks to begin the virtuous tasks of organizing the people to resist tyranny and once again imposing the yoke of law upon our servant federal government.
Among the potential strategies to be considered by the Congress will be the profound but little known natural right of the people to withhold their money to peacefully hold their servant government accountable to the law. If money is wonted by rulers who have in any manor oppressed the people they may retain it until their grievances are redressed and they peacefully secured relief without trusting defied petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.
A series of promotional meeting are currently being conducted across the country to advance public interest in this Continental Congress 2009 initiative and to expose potential delegates and supporters to this just cause in defense of liberty; we urge all Americans to learn more about the ongoing battle to restore Constitutional Order and secure the rights of the people through our Constitution and Declaration of Independence our founders bequeath to us. Not only the insight regarding the rights of man and inalienable liberty but the natural order of government necessary to enjoy and sustain them. Above all the founders edged a blue print a form of government that would be barred for ever trampling upon those divine gifts. Its time to join together; educate the nation, and take up the tools the founders gave us to peacefully secure liberty. The government has chosen to ignore the peoples repeated petitions for redress of grievances. For more information about the historic Continental Congress 2009 initiative, please visit us at http://WWW.GiveMeLiberty.Org
Here I am, a day late and a dollar short, but I feel the need to comment. Rob Natelson stated this at the end of his article,
"Whatever the motivations of those who seek to use the federal government against the rest of us, they too have launched an unbridled and unprincipled political war against their fellow citizens. From the perspective of history, in other words: They are the new King George."
This gets to the heart of the matter, what has been and is being used against us is "democracy," or mob rule. Once our Republic was wrestled away via Federal encroachment (or given away by "the people") we became a democracy; this is our downfall and it only leads to worse forms of government.
Therefore, it is up to those of us who are "awake and informed" to wake up and inform others! It is an uphill battle, but you know the outcome, otherwise.
Oh yeah, an excellent article!
Larry,
Yes, Corey is a lost cause. Anyone that wants the very people "offed" that would be the primary suppliers of his self-centered demands, and without which the entire scheme would collapse at inception (Corey, why do you think social security is mandatory for all? Take your time.) is worse than a half-wit. But I wonder what the government is going to do when it tries to collect this unlawful, unconstitutional tax from me and I refuse to pay it? Will it put me in prison? It doesn't seem like a very smart thing to do since I still have a business that produces jobs and income, and a family yet to raise. But who ever accused 'govt. men' of being very smart? Anyway, I guess we'll all find out soon enough.
PH,
Well said. As much as unconstitutional law is not law, so a usurper to the office of president really isn't president, now, is he.
You should join the Oath Keepers. We need good people like you.
Juan
Yes! I read Atlas Shrugged almost 50 years ago, and then re-read it last month. Ayn Rand has had a profound influence on me. I converted to Christianity from secular humanism just 15 years ago. [Maybe there is hope for Corey?!] When I re-read Atlas Shrugged, I was struck by the following: although she gives lip service to atheism, her world view - her conception of an Objective Reality and her view that Morality is built into the very Fabric of Reality, is the same as the Biblical Model. So I suspect she was a Theist and didn't know it!
As Alexander Hamilton said, an unconstitutional law is not a "Law" - it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such.
So, like Hamilton, I think the proper course of action for all of us is, just say, "NO, hell NO"! Why do we, as individuals, local governments, & States, think we have to comply with blatently unconstitutional "laws"? Hamilton & James Madison made it clear in The Federalist Papers that WE - NOT THE COURTS - are the ultimate enforcers of The Constitution. We do not have the right or the duty to surrender our independent judgments as to the meaning of The Constitution to the courts!
I did take an Oath to defend it from all enemies, domestic & foreign. I keep my Word.PH
Corey you wrote:
MY REPSONSE:
Federal Health care DOES NOT dictate anything, the only thing that is done is the docs get paid. As for loss of choice, have you never been denied care in the USA by a docs boss, (HMO etc) says he/she cant/won’t pay for test/procedure?
Corey,
In the health care bill there is a provision to FINE citizens for refusing to purchase health care. The fine will be $1000.00 I just read it on the AP yesterday. your healthcare tax will be collected by the IRS much the same way your income tax is collected. they want to make it law, much like car insurance.
I will ignore you facetious replies to my previous post as you already have your mind made up and thus any more explaining or continuing to debate the issue is just wasting my time and yours.
PH,
You said:
"It is just that we are in the Fight of our Lives, the biggest fight we have faced for a very long time, and we need to understand our enemy."
=========
I understand our enemy - just as George Patton understood his enemy.
Nuff said.
PH,
I agree with your comments, but to me the libs, statists, progressives, socialists, communists, et al on the left are like rebellious children. They hate their parents (traditions, conservatives, God, etc) because they haven't assumed the role of adults yet. They exist only because we, the adults and parents, allow them to exist and because we continue to take care of them.
You mentioned The Fountainhead in an earlier post, and I would point you to Atlas Shrugged and the withdrawal of support by John Galt. To me that is the right idea - force the children to grow up. I'm not gifted like Ayn Rand, and I can't give you 62 pages of discussion on the topic, but I think you get the idea anyway.
The left exists as long as we adults keep saying 'OK, I give you credit for having a legitimate position on the subject.' We need to start saying 'NO!'
The left has never had a legitimate position, and after all of the damage they have wreaked on our nation and on our culture, they need to be slammed. Hard! We have let our ship of state drift off course for far too long and need to get our nation back on course.
So, to the left I would say: 'you're either with us or we leave you behind, without benefits and without support, because it is time for you to grow up and assume your role in society.'
To the other huge distraction in our lives today, the Islamo-fascists and terrorists, I would say, 'Leave us the hell alone or we will kill you.'
I am becoming increasingly convinced that to preserve our nation from our inner corruption, that we Americans who believe in God, our nation, our laws, our culture, and ourselves, need to do a lawful purge of every statist in our governments - both federal and state. The statists all act outside the law, and can therefore be considered outlaws.
Those that can't act lawfully deserve to be put in jail and all of their assets used to repay the damage they have caused the United States of America.
Every single person who is an elected representative or hired employee needs to re-certify their oath of allegiance to the United States Constitution and be civilly or criminally prosecuted if they ever violate their oaths of allegiance to America again.
It is my perception that only our military and some law enforcement employees are consciously adhering to the functioning of the Constitution at this time. There are not enough Oath Keepers. We need more.
So, as you can see, I'm mentally ready for the Revolution.
God Bless America and those who preserve and protect Her!
Screw the rest!
Thank you, Terry Morris!
NOW I understand what you were saying about liberals being "moral". I should have known you wouldn't be fooled by their claims of being "caring" & "compassionate".
I have used different terminology: they are made in the image of God - the image is distorted & perverted, but they are still made in the image of God, no matter how much they rebel against it.
Yes, Corey's HATRED does seem more virulent than that of other "Liberals".
But all "Liberals" are willing to impose their views & their policies on us by Force. So, when it comes to the desire to have power over us, to force us to do what THEY think we should do, I see no difference in principle between the extreme haters like Corey, and the "soft" "cuddly" liberals like .............? I can't think of a soft, cuddly liberal!
This is a great web site! It is such a joy to communicate with intelligent people. Congratulations on your success, Michael Boldin! PH
Publius, no I don't.
What I pointed out above is simply this, liberals are moral beings because they are human beings created in the image and likeness of God. They cannot not, therefore, think in terms outside of a moral perspective. I don't care how hard they try. It may be a goofed up moral perspective, which I acknowledged above, but it's a moral perspective nonetheless. I also pointed out in the post that liberals tend to allow their passions to overrule their better judgment. I think we've seen a very good, albeit extreme, illustration of that in Corey's posts. But our little friend Corey is not your average liberal. Corey is a radical leftist homosexual atheist. He's in a whole 'nother league. You're not trying to suggest that Corey is on an equal plane with the average liberal heterosexual theist are you? You'd be laughed out of court if you did.
Hi, Highlander Juan - you of the most excellent judgment,
It is just that we are in the Fight of our Lives, the biggest fight we have faced for a very long time, and we need to understand our enemy. We have been deceiving ourselves for too long, comforting ourselves with the false belief that they have "good intentions". They don't. They HATE US. They HATE our Constitution. They HATE God. They steal elections and we tell ourselves that "we are confident" that the process is fair.
Principle No. 1 of Warfare is: Know your enemy.
Please make whatever use of my papers you like. And thank you again for the encouragement! PH
So, my dear & highly esteemed Terry Morris (I am quite serious about applying these adjectives to you),
Do you want to re-think your statement that "liberals" are basically moral beings?
Truly, if I were trying this issue before a Jury, Corey would be my star witness! He proves my point. And he is not alone. Ellsworth Toohey shows that Corey is an actual Type. All that talk about being "caring" & "compassionate" is a sham designed to deceive us and themselves. PH
I think while we are discussing legal matters associated with individual rights, lawful government, state's rights, and the U.S. Constitution, we are making progress. It appears to me that when we get distracted by political banter, homosexuality, etc. we make no progress.
The issues of importance in America today legal issues.
In my humble opinion.
Yes, as a Secular Humanist, I believe with my heart 100% that fundamentalists need to be off’d, just as much as all the christian fundies in the USA believe all Muslims should be off’d.
Corey, if I said that I don't think you and your kind ought to "offed," would that make any difference in your opinion of me and my kind? No? Thought not.
It's your life, man, wallow in it.
Thomas Howard, Larry & Terry Morris:
WOW! You guys are great and you nailed it! Originally, "citizenship" was with the States - see, e.g., Art. III, §2, U.S. Constitution. It was the 14th Amendment, §1, which extended "citizenship" to "THE United States" (as a single sovereign entity) as opposed to what it was before the War of Southern Secession, "THESE United States" (a federation of sovereign states allied together for limited and defined purposes).
Corey: I'll pray for you. Meanwhile, read Ayn Rand's novel, The Fountainhead. Pay close attention to the character, Ellsworth Toohey. He is a hater who postures as an "humanitarian". Rand demolishes the pretense of the "liberals" that they are caring, compassionate people. Rand shows that they are motivated by hatred. Review your own posts and perhaps you will see! PH
Corey wrote:
Who can afford to pick up and move? Will the government relocate me? Pay for my housing while I look for a new job?
So your answer to the dilemma is that since you can't afford to pick up and move, and the government presumably won't support you while you look for a new job, then the federal government, for your sake (or the minority's sake), ought to force on the majority of the people in your current state free health care and blah, blah, blah. All for your sake, Corey. Because that's what you want, Corey. What is this, a joke?
I think you must have eye problems. Umm, I mean "I" problems.
Terry I said it "with all due respect" like you did when you insulted me...but I understand, you have your god telling you you are right, and no matter what you do, you will always be right.
No one can talk, debate, converse, email, or chat with a bumbling fool that follows a mythical being that has caused more death and oppression than anyone could imagine.
So your loss.
Yes, as a Secular Humanist, I believe with my heart 100% that fundamentalists need to be off'd, just as much as all the christian fundies in the USA believe all Muslims should be off'd.
So please do not respond to me, I am below you and not worth the trouble...I am a...oh what is it your types call me...oh an abomination, worse than a terrorist, shouldn't have the right to vote or live...huh...too bad religious folks to try and stop all the child molesters religion has protected over the years, you dont hear much about that in the news, the movement to expose all this from the Relgious Right, they are too busy trying to re write history and make everyone believe the USA is a christian nation...gee...what a way to make more people hate us...follow George Bush's HOLY WAR, and get us all killed.
It was and is the Religious Right's ideology that got us attacked on 9-11, keep that in mind...and yes, I believe you are my enemy, and enemy of the USA and should be tried for treason and taken away and taken care of like a Nazi sympathizer.
If by saying this gets me banned, so be it, just know what I have said:
It is people like you that caused 9-11;
It is people like you, woman get their genitals mutilated around the world;
It is people like you who demand that ALL tax payers pay for your religious institutions to teach lies and hatred;
it is people like you that is the reason more people will die of HIV in africa, and had died in the USA;
It is people like you who cause more single mothers to be created in the USA;
It is people like you who want to take those single mothers, and make them starve, never get a better education, and become just what you state you are against;
It is people like you, who with Reagan's support, allow corporations to pay less in taxes than a person working at McDonalds all while destroying the environment and sending the money back to whatever country they
claim they are from because of some legal loop hole.
It is people like you that vote against woman getting paid the same as men while doing the same job.
It is people like you that make people like me fight for my rights to have you people disappear from the USA....or just move to Alaska, the Socialist State, or Texas where cops still beat-up gays, and Christians support the killing of innocent people.
Good bye
Proudly signed:
Corey Mondello
cpmondello (at) yahoo.com
http://www.CoreyMondello.com
7-3-09
LARRY Says: On July 2nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
LARRY:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,(MEANING WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS) insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense(COMMON DEFENSE MEANING THE FEDS FORM A MILITARY THOUGH THE STATES CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE NATION ), promote the general welfare,( PROMOTING GENERAL WELFARE DOES NOT MEAN HEALTH CARE, THE WORD PROMOTE, AND PROVIDE DO NOT MEAN THE SAME ) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
MY RESPONSE:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,(I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID) insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense( “ “ ), promote the general welfare,(GENERAL WELFARE IS JUST THIS, HOW CAN WE BE “WE THE PEOPLE” IF WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE “WHOLE”) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
The way the country is supposed to operate is like this: we 50 States are individually sovereign
MY RESPONSE:
When was this, when the states didn’t threaten each other, when the states didn’t “sell out” to other countries, when the Feds didn’t, bully the states, or whenever anytime those things DIDN’T happen….those things ALWAYS happened.
Like you mentioned above: “Government operates by method of coercion, Example: Roads.. the feds( meaning we the people ) pay for certain road projects and the states operate under the federal guidelines, if they refuse to follow the feds rules the money gets cut off so technically, you are correct, there wont be a federal health care facility”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
My point is, the country was designed to give us the freedom to choose. like a buffet, you live in a state that best reflects your lifestyle.. maybe you are super liberal… so you would move to massachusetts.. maybe you are a religious type.. so you would move down to the bible belt area…(The only place that doesn’t get the luxury of sovereignty is DC.)
So you see, when you support a federal healthcare program, you are supporting the loss of choice.. the freedom to pick and choose.
MY RESPONSE:
Who can afford to pick up and move? Will the government relocate me? Pay for my housing while I look for a new job?
=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
But, the fact of the matter is, our system of government is by far, superior to anything on the planet. proof is the hordes of immigrants that make up our country.
MY REPSONSE:
Huh…odd, last I looked, the USA has a history of Imperialism and then turned on those who wouldn’t play their little games anymore, when they wanted their people to stop being raped of their natural resources (farming, oil, labor etc)
For Example, here are just a few, off the top of my head, of countries/people that were once “friends” with the US government, but when asked to back off, the USgov put them on their terrorist or axis of evil list: Cuba, Iran, Mexico, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, (however, the Bush folks are still friendly with the Saudis and the rest of the Bin Laden family)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
People need to be able to choose a State that has laws that best fit their lifstyle..
MY REPSONSE:
Okay, I want to live in a state with no “white” people, no heterosexuals, not ugly people and no Christians….which state will allow a Constitutional Convention where I can make that happen, and if I cant get a CC to do all that, I would like to take all “rights” away from those people mentioned above, AND no hunting, no fishing, no churches, free school, free health care, farming, no polluting factoring or animal waste dumping spots…etc..
=-=-=-=-=
LARRY:
the More federal intervention, the less choice you have.( a perfect example of federal intervention is grocery shopping in Canada. here, you have 15 different kinds of peanut butter.. in Canada.. you have 1, maybe two.
MY RESPONSE:
I wonder why most of the civilized European companies that have Universal Health care and Education have faster internet connections? Oh yes, I know why, they have more options than we in the USA have, they are more regulated, like our FOUNDERS desired, where corporations didn’t run the world. In fact, from what I understand, the FOUNDERS made laws that allowed corporations only so much power, forcing them to dismantle after a certain amount of time, as to not get too powerful, or end up creating a two-caste situation; the corporate/royalty and the common folk/the buyers.
=-=-=-=-=
LARRY SAYS:
So, let me ask you this, if you are in favor of federal health care are you also in favor of the federal government dictating to you who, when, how much and if you get treatment ?.. or would you rather have the choice to make those decisions on your own?..
So you see, when you support a federal healthcare program, you are supporting the loss of choice.. the freedom to pick and choose.
MY REPSONSE:
Federal Health care DOES NOT dictate anything, the only thing that is done is the docs get paid. As for loss of choice, have you never been denied care in the USA by a docs boss, (HMO etc) says he/she cant/won’t pay for test/procedure?
Watch SICKO, those aren’t actors.
=-=-=-=-=
Corey wrote:
The world would be a better place if all you fundamentalists offed yourselves….
Yes, that is your leftist ... how did you put it before? ... "values and morals I hold as a caring human being."
Corey, be honest with yourself; you're not interested in having a lively debate. And you're a hypocrite to boot. The only person you're fooling is yourself. And what the hell is the point in that?
Publius/Huldah: Rush, Heritage Foundation...those wakco hypocrite, religious motivated, liars are about are honest as the devil, if there were one.
I have no CHOICE but to be a "Leftist" or "Liberal" for two main reasons: who I am; gay, atheist and what values and morals I hold as s caring human being:
"...if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
That makes me a bad person in the Religious Right/Conservative/Republican's eyes.
As for your statement: "With all due respect to you as a fellow human who is made in the image of God, your comments reveal a profound ignorance."
Why is it Christian Fundamentalists and Conservatives like your-self have to be such a-holes? All your comments mean nothing once you throw your; "You don't know the truth..because you dont know my god".
Please dont bother to respond, I was willing to "debate" or have a friendly chat UNTIL I re read your post more clearly and saw that god-crap.
The world would be a better place if all you fundamentalists offed yourselves....oh I say that with "All Due Respect"
Corey,
Government operates by method of coercion, Example: Roads.. the feds( meaning we the people ) pay for certain road projects and the states operate under the federal guidelines, if they refuse to follow the feds rules the money gets cut off so technically, you are correct, there wont be a federal health care facility, BUT the health care facilities will be running under the rules and regs of the fed. it makes no difference who is dealing the cards when the game is dictated by the federal government.
Now for some explanations.....
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,(MEANING WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS) insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense(COMMON DEFENSE MEANING THE FEDS FORM A MILITARY THOUGH THE STATES CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE NATION ), promote the general welfare,( PROMOTING GENERAL WELFARE DOES NOT MEAN HEALTH CARE, THE WORD PROMOTE, AND PROVIDE DO NOT MEAN THE SAME ) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The way the country is supposed to operate is like this: we 50 States are individually sovereign, we have the right to pass laws, and function independently from the Federal government and each other. each state should be unique in it's own existence, and individual laws. The federal government is there to provide the protection ( militarily ) and to ensure that the states do not form monopolies over one another. That Each State respects the god given rights and liberties of the individual. The Federal Government was designed to operate on a limited basis, thus allowing the states to function, make laws, and operate as independents.
so realistically an American, would be primarily celebrating the date his State was admitted into the union, along with Independence day secondary. There was a time, long when a person identified himself with the State that he came from.A proud Tennessean or a proud Texan or whatever... But the emphasis has changed. what I feel this board is trying to do is revive what has been lost by government over stepping it's boundaries. to educate, and explain to people that the way things are are not what was intended, and that what most people have is a distorted view of the way our country is supposed to be run.
Now, if you are a liberal, you could argue that times have changed and we need to change with them. But, the fact of the matter is, our system of government is by far, superior to anything on the planet. proof is the hordes of immigrants that make up our country. The objective should be protecting our Constitution from the abuse of social mindedness, things like federal health care, federal road money, federal guidelines.. these intrusions tread on we as individuals.. as sovereigns if you will. the way it's supposed to work is if you don't like a particular states laws on health care, you move to a state that has laws you can live with.. maybe you don't like New York's crappy gun bans.. so you have a choice to move to say, Montana or Utah where everyone can own..My point is, the country was designed to give us the freedom to choose. like a buffet, you live in a state that best reflects your lifestyle.. maybe you are super liberal... so you would move to massachusetts.. maybe you are a religious type.. so you would move down to the bible belt area...(The only place that doesn't get the luxury of sovereignty is DC.)
So you see, when you support a federal healthcare program, you are supporting the loss of choice.. the freedom to pick and choose.
Now granted, the Republicans are just as crappy at protecting our rights as the dems.. so, you wont find many here that support the GOP either. Most people here are conservative and that doesnt mean Republican!, they want their right to choose back!.. they want to be able to pick and choose, who, when and if they even want health care. They want the freedom to live their lives without being boxed in by the Federal government..People need to be able to choose a State that has laws that best fit their lifstyle..the More federal intervention, the less choice you have.( a perfect example of federal intervention is grocery shopping in Canada. here, you have 15 different kinds of peanut butter.. in Canada.. you have 1, maybe two. Food in canada is highly regulated, you have no selection whatsoever! because government is protecting the few who make the peanut butter.. so much for competition and consumer choice eh?)The reason why federal social programs don't work is because Government on a federal level is by and large inept, this is why the Constitution limited the role they are supposed to be playing. The founding fathers wanted states to have all the power because it is easier to control and to maintain an individuals rights....our system is super easy to understand.. and it makes sense,.. it only get complicated when people start screwing with it and trying to make it into something it isnt, thats why we are so screwed up now.
So, let me ask you this, if you are in favor of federal health care are you also in favor of the federal government dictating to you who, when, how much and if you get treatment ?.. or would you rather have the choice to make those decisions on your own?.. and saying "it's better then what we have now" isn't an acceptable excuse to support it. if states are allowed pass their own laws concerning prescription drugs, Pass laws that don't interfere with federal insurance guidelines.. you would find that there is a much better way of fixing the health care industry
Well,the way I see it is that the club of States called america have gone through 4 stages: colony 1600s to 1776, independence 1776 to 1789, union 1789 to 1861, and despotism 1865 to present. I know we all like to read about the 9th and 10th amendments but the Constitution was nullified by the lincoln administration on April 15 1861.The only power that could have kept the federal govt.within it's Constitutional bounds,the threat that States would withdraw from the union(thus beyond federal power) was eliminated by force in the War between the States.
Corey, you have been indoctrinated into statism. You listen to liberal(statist) sources and you believe everything they say. But liberals (statists) don't deal with Facts & Reality. They manipulate people like you by means of lies, propaganda, & psychological conditioning. With all due respect to you as a fellow human who is made in the image of God, your comments reveal a profound ignorance.
Are you going to let them get away with this? Why not discover within yourself some intellectual independence? Start checking out other sources of information. Listen to Rush Limbaugh. Go to the Heritage Foundation website and study. Read the lead articles and comments on this website. Get a pocket copy of the Declaration of independence and the U.S. Constitution. Read them! They are both short and easy to understand. Open your mind, read, think! Best wishes. If you have questions about what you learn, there is no lack of people who are willing to assist you.PH
ps...you are the enemy of the US government.
Always keep in mind, the US gov thinks of you as cannon fodder!
LARRY:
The "government" wouldnt be running the health care, they would be paying for it.
Keep in mind we are already paying for it...as Bush suggested...just walk into a emergency room.
And NO, it is NOT only illegal immigrants that don't have insurance, the 47+ million are Americans.
If we were to have the BEST health care, we would use Socialized health care. Socialism is "We the People" NOT "We the Government".
AS for fear of rationing health care, that already happens, watch SICKO, do your own research, you will find MANY people who are sick that are refused treatment even if they have treatment.
Now, "cap and trade"...no not THAT "cap and trade" but I wanted to make another point.
Look into Christopher Reeves health care situation. He was cut off after he reached a "cap" aka the amount the insurance company will cover if you get sick.
Robin Williams paid for the rest, until Reeves died.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Corey,
I found the source of your information stating the ranking of the US.http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
"The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task"
This means it's not as cut and dried as you would like to assume. Also, did you happen to see where France rated?.. have you ever studied the French economy or their tax structure?.. Are you willing to be taxed at 60%? ( and it's going up ) because thats the tax rate in France.
Also, your statement that "Medicaid, Medicare, VA, SS, ALL work when the US gov doesn't steal from them." proves my point., how do you know they work? when government has always run them?
every one of those programs are a dismal failure, and you want to implement another one? where is the logic behind that little beauty?
Back to your source- did you notice where Canada ranks?, Canada is much closer to our way of life and Standard of living then any of the above Countries, study the Canadian Health care system, it's a train wreck. People are dieing in Canada because of waiting lists, and the rationing of health care by government ( and they only have 38 million citizens! compared to our 300 million!)
I am not in favor of giving up my independence, or my right to choose, in favor of latching on to the federal government teat as my source of healthcare. Granted the health care is broken, but the answer isn't just rolling over, I don't think you understand how government implements programs, if you did you wouldn't be so quick to jump on board. Paying the Federal health care isnt going to be based on some sort of honor system Corey, it will be paid like your federal income tax, screw up your health care tax, and you get the full weight of the IRS coming down on you. whether you can afford it or not, it will be paid.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
Corey you wrote:
MY REPSONSE:
Federal Health care DOES NOT dictate anything, the only thing that is done is the docs get paid. As for loss of choice, have you never been denied care in the USA by a docs boss, (HMO etc) says he/she cant/won’t pay for test/procedure?
Corey,
In the health care bill there is a provision to FINE citizens for refusing to purchase health care. The fine will be $1000.00 I just read it on the AP yesterday. your healthcare tax will be collected by the IRS much the same way your income tax is collected. they want to make it law, much like car insurance.
I will ignore you facetious replies to my previous post as you already have your mind made up and thus any more explaining or continuing to debate the issue is just wasting my time and yours.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like