radarrider: (Default)
 I've been holding back on this until after Christmas so you could all enjoy the holiday before being subjected to my rant.  Well the time has come.  If you have the guts, please read on.

The legislation recently passed by the Senate purporting to reform the way people obtain health care goods and services in this country, as well as the legislation passed earlier by the House, is quite possibly the single largest affront to Liberty that has occurred in my lifetime, and possibly that of this nation, though it's possible that some of the New Deal legislation was worse.

Just about everything about it is bad, but I wish to draw particular attention to the mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance.  At no time in this nation's history has the Federal government required that a citizen purchase a good or service as a consequence of that citizenship.  "Ah, but what about automobile liability insurance?" you may ask.  Well, allow me to explain why that argument is fallacious.  First, the Federal government does not require that you have such insurance; it is mandated at the state level.  Second, you only have to have it if you are going to drive a car on the public roads.  You do not have to buy it as a condition of your very existence.  And let me cut off your next fallacious argument right now:  driving on the public roads is not a right.  It is a privilege licensed by the state in which you live, much the same as practicing medicine or law.  You can choose not to drive and still have transportation options.

If you actually support this legislation, I would ask you one simple question:  Where in the Constitution is the Federal government authorized to require this?  Oh, that's not a serious question?  It absolutely is, in fact it's the question that literally trumps all others.  The answer is that nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal government empowered to control health care in this way.  Not that much of what the Federal government does is so authorized but that's a whole topic in itself and beyond the scope of this post.

As a consequence of this, every Representative and every Senator who voted for their house's respective legislation has violated their oath of office, specifically the part where they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution.  They have demonstrated that they are unfit for the offices they hold; those that know they've violated their oaths because they willingly did so, and those that don't know because they do not possess the basic understanding of that Document that is required to serve as Representative or Senator.  If you voted for them when they were elected to their current terms, I'll accept that you couldn't know (at least not absolutely) that they would do this.  But now you don't have an excuse.  If you vote for them again the next time their seats are up for election, you will have demonstrated that you at least accept this violation of the Constitution and affront to Liberty.  And if you have a problem with me saying that, well that's just too bad.  This is more important than any friendship, relationship, or respect that might be between us.

This "health care reform" is nothing less than the first step on the planned path to single-payer socialized medicine.  It's what they want, by their own admission.  If you don't know it, particularly if you actually support this legislation, you haven't been paying attention, you're an idiot, you're a fool, or a combination thereof.  And if you have a problem with me saying that, I direct you to the previous paragraph.  It will only serve to raise costs, reduce quality, reduce access, and will ultimately result in rationing.  The number and quality of physicians will go down.  Remember the stories of how horrible it was in the former Soviet Union, with drunk doctors, unhealthy facilities, and just general horror?  Not that I think it'll get that bad here, at least I hope not, but we'll certainly get far too close to that extreme for my comfort.

Of course, the battle isn't yet over.  Now the respective bills must go to the conference committee where they'll hammer out a compromise bill (which I wouldn't be surprised is even worse).  Then it has to go to both the House and Senate for final votes before the President signs it.  At this point my hope and prayer is that the bills can't be reconciled before the November, 2010 election, and/or that Scott Brown wins the special election in January to fill Ted Kennedy's seat which would deprive Democrats of the 60-vote supermajority in the Senate.  Because if this becomes law, the United States of America as we have known it will cease to exist.  Then may God help us all.
radarrider: (Default)
This just came into my inbox.


BELLEVUE, WA – A key amendment that would allow national park visitors to carry concealed firearms in accordance with state statute is a common sense provision that deserves support, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), the amendment – added to House and Senate credit card legislation – was adopted by an overwhelming 67-29 Senate vote Tuesday, showing broad bipartisan support. If passed into law, Coburn’s amendment will essentially restore a new national parks concealed carry rule that became effective in January, but was challenged in court by the gun ban lobby.

In a statement, Coburn noted that, “If an American citizen has a right to carry a firearm in their state, it makes no sense to treat them like a criminal if they pass through a national park while in possession of a firearm.”

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb agrees, noting that the rule change merely brought national parks in line with national forests and other federal lands, where citizens typically can carry firearms under the statutes of the state in which those lands are located.

“Opponents of this change,” said Gottlieb, “have wrongly suggested that allowing concealed carry in national parks will somehow lead to poaching and reckless target shooting, and diminish park safety. None of that alarmist rhetoric is true, but the rule has been challenged in court. By making this a provision of law, rather than an administrative rule, Senator Coburn’s amendment can put an end to that nonsense.

“One would think,” Gottlieb added, “that after the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment last year, the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms would be respected everywhere, especially on federal park land. It looks like the majority in the United States Senate agrees with that concept.”
radarrider: (Default)
Newt Gingrich writing about the situation in Gaza sums things up rather succinctly:

Two Facts of Violence in Mid-East: Hamas and Iran

There are two main facts of the violence in the Middle East that all Americans -- and particularly our leaders -- should be aware of:

The first is that Hamas exists to destroy Israel. Its leaders wake up every morning with one goal -- to eliminate what they call the “Zionist entity.”

The second fact of violence in the Middle East is the ongoing effort by Iran (using Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas as its proxies) to undermine pro-American governments in the region.

“A New Emphasis on Respect” in Relations with Iran?

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, President-elect Obama repeated his campaign pledge to negotiate with Iran.

He also promised that there would be a “new emphasis on respect” in his administration’s dealings with Tehran.

President-elect Obama may want respect.

But Iran’s theocratic rulers want victory.

This is a dangerous mismatch of goals for America and a potentially nuclear, aggressor regime to have.

Later on, he sums up what the policy of the United States must be:

The Policy of the United States Must Be That Israel’s Right to Survive is Unequivocal

Similarly, there are no easy solutions in Gaza.  But there are a few milestones that Israel should achieve -- and the United States should support -- before any ceasefire with Hamas is granted:
1)    Hamas’ capacity to inflict violence on the state of Israel must be destroyed, or at least significantly reduced.
2)    No missiles -- period -- must be fired from Gaza into the sovereign state of Israel.
3)    The border between Gaza and Egypt must be sealed and verified by an Israeli and/or independent verifier.
The policy of the United States of America has been and must be that Israel’s right to survive is unequivocal.  Therefore, the greatest danger to Israel in the long run is for it to experience violence followed by a false truce which allows its enemies time to rearm and initiate yet another cycle of violence.

Iran and Hamas will not voluntarily end this cycle of violence.  They must be brought to the point where they have no choice.

I think that pretty much covers it.


radarrider: (Default)

August 2010

123 4567
15 161718192021
29 3031    


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 09:51 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios