The War on Arrogance

One of the greatest threats facing our country comes not from without but from within. I'm not talking about people deliberately trying to bring about the downfall of the government. I'm talking about people who have been blinded by their lust for power and money. This has been highlighted by the stunning return to democracy in Massachusetts with the election to the people's senate seat that was held for too long by Ted Kennedy. Martha Coakley assumed that the seat would go to her, not because she had earned it, or because she best represented the wants and needs and philosophy of the people represented by the seat. She assumed that she would win because she was a democrat. Nobody has denied that, not even her. And of course, the campaign she ran clearly demonstrates that. She might well as well have phoned the campaign in. But Martha Coakley is just a small, single example of the new war on arrogance.


We see Mr Obama back in campaign mode, putting on his common, populist suit, standing in front of a group of handpicked supporters with prescreened questions, railing against all the bad guys who are responsible for all the evils we are suffering from. And even with prescreened questions, he still struggled. But that's Mister Obama. He cannot speak without a teleprompter. As a student of history, I have learned that when an unpopular leader (and Mister Obama has the lowest approval ratiings in history for a president at this point in his term) starts to appoint a new villain at every corner, it is usually because they have nothing of real substance to offer. It is an attempt to distract you from the real problem. During the presidential election, it was "they're going to tell you, don't vote for him, because he's got a funny name, or he doesn't look like the guy on the dollar bill". You see, suddenly it wasn't why you should vote for him, it was about 'they'. About why you should look at 'them', because they're out to get you. Then it was 'the people who made this mess'. Don't look at Obama's record. Don't look at the record of his cohorts. Of course if you did look too closely at Mister Obama and his cohorts, you'd see that they are some of the 'people who made this mess'. Along with Mister Clinton and Mister Bush. Even now, it's the evil bankers. It isn't that Mister Obama has spent us into record deficits and unemployent with no end in sight. Come next year, when his cohorts in Congress are running for reelection, it won't be about the attempts to usurp the constitution, or the secret meetings or broken campaign promises, or the arrogance. It'll be about 'the people who want us to fail', or 'the people who want to take us back, rather than forward'. It will never be about their wrongs or their failures or their arrogance. And that, again, is the warning sign. If all you ever hear from a failing, desperate leader is how it's all about some nameless, faceless villain, then odds are its just an attempt to divert your attention.

Mister Obama and his liberal cohorts have been frightened by this second shot heard 'round the world' (coincidentally, both came from Massachusetts), and they have their idea-starved liberal playbook out. It is a book filled with the same old tricks and distractions and smoke and mirrors, and it didn't save Martha Coakley. This election in Massachusetts, this second shot heard 'round the world, wasn't about local issues, as they would like you to believe, or about 'those people' trying to stop so-called health care reform. It was really about arrogance. Entrenched, corrupt, out of touch arrogance. And next year, and hopefully 2012 will also be about arrogance.

I said entrenched, and that speaks to another fundamental, clear and present danger facing us. That is the legislators who are elected on promises and then dig themselves in to power that they never have to surrender. It is a tried and true process. Make promises to labor unions, corporations, and other special interests, to essentially buy elections, then spend their terms paying those bills, ignoring the needs and wishes of their constituents, and always looking to the next election. All the while, they do favors and exchange political markers, putting people in their debt and engaging in brinkmanship that would give the greatest thriller writer a headache. And in the end, they have more and more power, and less and less interest in actually serving the people that they got elected to serve. These virtual lifetime appointments guarantee nothing but an entrenched and essentially out of touch aristocracy that we cannot afford and cannot allow. What we need to truly make the legislature work for WE THE PEOPLE is a constitutional amendment mandating term limits for every elected official in the federal government. Make it impossible for any legislator to amass so much power that they are no longer answerable to the people. We also need to take money out of politics. Write a law that says that any political advertising of any kind, in any form of media, can only be paid by the government Require any aspiring candidate to obtain a certain number of petition signatures in order to qualify for funding, and then use taxpayer dollars to pay for that. I don't necessarily love the idea of more taxpayer dollars going out, but if it takes the unions and corporations and other special interests out of elections, I say it's worth it. If politicians are only going to serve the people who fund their campaigns, then lets make sure we control who does that funding. If it's going to cost me another bite out of my check to actually be represented, well, so be it.

On another note...

One thing that I've been struck by for the past week that my wife and I have watched the nightmare in Haiti unfold, is not just the outporing of generosity by common people who can barely make ends meet (including my household). That gives me hope for the country and the world. It isn't even the CNN correspondents who have shown the courage to not just report the news, but to intervene on behalf of the helpless, I don't normally like the idea of the crusading reporter more intent on making news than reporting it. But in this case, they've chosen principles over objectivity, and courage over manners. I like that. Anyone who pulls a bleeding child away from the thugs who attacked him has got it right. Sometimes you have to do the right thing, no matter why you're supposed to be there, or who's corporate logo is on your paycheck.

But what I'm really struck by is the huge number of celebrities giving their time during telethons for Haiti. That isn't a new thing, but what I note is the fact that they are giving their time, speaking very naturally and easily with people who are phoning in donations. I'm not a starstruck person. I've met enough celebrities to not be overcome by the very sight of them. But what struck me is that they are giving their time, willingly. They may be rich, and the small donation that my wife and I made would be nothing in their weekly budget. But their time is just as valuable and irreplacable to them as mine is to me. Time is important to everyone, and I appreciate them giving it. I saw Steven Speilberg and Julia Roberts among others take the time to talk to people who had called in. They didn't hurry the call, they took the time to get the callers' names and they took the time to actually talk with them. I am truly impressed by anyone giving their time, because, as I said, time is irreplacable for everyone. Well done.

"Haiti, "Kennedy's Seat", and Forgiveness"

I'd like to start off by mentioning the terrible, terrible tragedy in Haiti. I can offer no words as eloquent as those that have already been spoken. So many countries and organizations have contributed through money, goods, and services, and it is truly a testament to the goodness of the world's citizens that during these times of a world-wide recession, people and governments still find a way to give. Crises seem to be almost a dime a dozen these days, and that is a shame. But this is a big one. Too big to ignore. I am proud and touched to see in this country that we can actually (with a few notable, embarrassing exceptions) put aside our political differences to make a difference: http://clintonbushhaitifund.org . Indeed, people of all faiths and beliefs seem to be coming from all corners of the globe to help the people of Haiti.


And I'll just point out that the murderous thugs who claim to work on behalf of God (or Allah, as they call him) have been noticably silent. We know you have the means. How about working for the God you claim to serve and saving and creating rather than killing? You won't, because you are cowardly thugs who truly care nothing for religion. It means something when you feed off of death and chaos and desperation rather than life and truth and light. Just like cockroaches, you only thrive in filth.

I am pleased to see that what our liberal friends still like to call "Ted Kennedy's Seat" is actually back in the hands of the people, to whom it was actually always supposed to belong. That magical 60th senate vote may well be going to Massachusetts Republican state senator Scott Brown. This is very important, because for one thing, it needs to go to someone who represents not just the people of Massachusetts, all Americans, because he'll be voting on something that affects us all. It's also important because we need a reminder that these seats belong to us all. Something else. I feel sorry for the Kennedy's who no longer have Ted. Nobody should have to lose a family member. But it gives us a preview of what life would be (indeed, how it should be) with term limits. The Founding Fathers well understood the dangers of government out of touch and out of control. When people can run for term after term and gather more and more power and money, until they are so entrenched that they are untouchable, we find that we are no longer represented. We find ourselves ruled by distant (not geographically, but culturally), out of touch despots. Despots who regularly submit to show-elections that rank with Cuban and North Korean elections for real challenge and suspense. Truly, there is no greater threat to true democracy in this country than politicians who are so powerful that they have, for all intents and purposes, lifetime appointments. This is how we find ourselves with a government shoving illegal programs down our throats. Illegal programs that are so heinous and crooked that they can only be crafted in secret meetings. Certainly there are exceptions to the lifetime appointments. Sometimes they are so foolish and crooked that they run before they're arrested (so long, Chris Dodd!). But the old axiom still stands. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Term limits now.

Finally, I'd like to talk about forgiveness. I have been guilty of holding grudges many times in my life, against many people. Any real or imagined slight, and I'd decide that they were not only bad people, but that I would never forgive them. Why should I? Why should I let them get away with what they'd done? But I finally realized (and way too late in life for my own taste) that when you refuse to forgive someone, you are really hurting yourself more than anyone else. You are robbing yourself of happiness. Especially if the object of your anger doesn't know or care that you don't forgive them. It's like a house in wintertime where you heat every room but one, and you force yourself to live in that cold room. The only person living in that cold is you. When you forgive, you are freeing yourself of a burden of your own making. And that goes for forgiving yourself. We all do things we regret. We all make mistakes, and it is easy (and probably seems virtuous) to condemn ourselves. But if you can admit to your mistakes and learn from them, it is okay and important to forgive yourself. Nobody can say that they've never regretted anything that they've done, so you've got lots of company. Give yourself a break. Throw it off. Be free. Live your life as fully as possible. The tragedy in Haiti is a good reminder of just how short and precious life can be. Don't waste it.

Harry Reid IS a racist!!!

I don't care what Reid thinks about Obama, or black people. But the fact that he assumes the racism of white voters makes him, by definition, a racist. He is assuming behavior and attitudes about white voters, based upon their skin color. He is assuming that white voters would be more likely to vote for him because he looks white and talks white, and that is stupid and racist. What Trent Lott said years ago was wrong and stupid, and doesn't compare to this. But there is an undeniable double standard here. If a Republican had said this, they would be calling for his or her head, and probably getting it. Reid is a democrat, who is involved in an unconstitutional conspiracy with Pelosi and Obama in order to plunge this great country into the depths of socialism. Reid could put on a white sheet and hood and get away with it. The message here is that the democratic leadership thinks nothing of voters. They are easily manipulated racist fools, and are only valuable for their tax dollars and votes. That is what is revealed by Reid's mouth. Again, I say, don't you dare call me a racist.

Kapact to Mister Obama: "You lie!"

This is, again, a present from Mister Obama, one that I hope any opponents he faces in 2012 will use (and word is, Mister O.(Oh)b.(boy)a.(another)m.(mistake)a.(a$#h&e) may be facing a primary challenge). Newt, I don't expect you to be reading this, but I have to hope you're thinking about it.

"We will have a public, uh, process for forming this plan. It'll be televised on C-SPAN.... It will be transparent and accountable to the American people." --Barack Obama, November 2007

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process." --Barack Obama, January 2008

"[T]hese negotiations will be on C-SPAN..." --Barack Obama, January 2008

"We're gonna do all these negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people will be able to watch these negotiations." --Barack Obama, March 2008

"All this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." --Barack Obama, April 2008

"I want the negotiations to be taking place on C-SPAN." --Barack Obama, May 2008

"[W]e'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who is, who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." --Barack Obama, August 2008

"We will work on this process publicly. It'll be on C-SPAN. It will be streaming over the Net." --Barack Obama, November 2008

Well, it turns out this administration has as much respect for their own campaign promises as they do for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (that archaic bit about 'endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights', as opposed to 'endowed by Obama/Reid/Pelosi with certain rights that they decide you can handle', and some obscure reference to taxation without representation). The legislature has handed down its latest decree, indicating that there would be no typical conference committee on the competing House and Senate versions of the health bill, as "leaders" opted instead for private negotiations with "key" congressmen and senators, none of whom is Republican. Once an agreement is reached, each legislative chamber will vote again and send the unified bill to the president.

Without a conference committee, a rule requiring public access to the conference report for at least 48 hours before a vote would conveniently not apply. This is just the kind of trickery and crooked shenanigans we've come to expect in a very short time from the Obama administration. This is a worse administration than the last one (not an easy thing), more ineffective and damaging internationally and domestically than the Carter Administration (seemingly impossible, but somehow true), and more corrupt than the Nixon administration.

So what does our legislature have to say about it? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who's served here's experience." Speaks for itself, doesn't it? Ms Pelosi, you won't read this, and you wouldn't care if you did, but you are also a liar. A corrupt liar, and I hope you lose your job very soon.

So why is it they're so worried about hiding this glass of legislative poison? On page 1,020, the Senate bill states: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

What's in the subsection in question? The infamous "death panel" -- the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), whose objective will be to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending" (in other words, to ration health care).

In effect, the bill creates an eternal law by prohibiting future elected Congresses from making changes to this subsection. We must simply pray that Republicans have the courage to take this illegal rag to the Supreme Court, and further pray that the Supreme Court has the integrity to strike it down.

Don't Tread on We The People

Now that the hubbub of the holidays is over, we need to get back to the real
honest-to-goodness crime and/or incompetence going on in our nation's
capitol. This health care bill that nobody has read, and that we can't pay
for, is not only a real step towards full-blown socialism that Hugo Chavez
admires, (yes, he admires it. He has said that, at the same time that he is
laughing at us for falling for it), it is also illegal. Unconstitutional.
There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically gives Congress the power to require that people purchase a good or service. Insurance is a state concern, and therefore doesn't come in under the laws regulating
interstate commerce, nor is it connected to the authority that Congress once exercised to regulate the speed limit. And our liberal congress members seem to think that they can grant themselves this power. They forget that their power does not come from themselves, or any bills that they propose. Their power comes from We The People. If you'd like to see an example of this shocking mix of ignorance and arrogance, consider that at least two (in fact, many more) Congressional leaders cannot or will not explain where in the Constitution they are given the power to require that people purchase insurance. I have here information from CNSNews.com, quoting, amongst other places, the Conservative Action Project. Here is the information, which really speaks for itself:
Aside from constitutional questions about Sen. Ben Nelson's deal with Democrats on behalf of Nebraskans, conservatives are eyeing the bill's individual mandate the requirement that every American citizen must
purchase health insurance. "Mandating that individuals must obtain health insurance, and imposing any
penalty, civil or criminal, on any private citizen for not purchasing health insurance is not authorized by any provision of the U.S. Constitution," says The Conservative Action Project, a group of prominent conservative activists. "As such, [the bill] is unconstitutional, and should not survive a court challenge on that issue." Supporters of the Democrats' health care bill have incorrectly contended that the individual mandate is authorized by the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, or the Taxing and Spending Clause, the Conservative Action Project said. But since the federal government has limited jurisdiction having only
enumerated powers, unless a specific provision of the Constitution empowers a particular law, then that law is unconstitutional. There is no authorization for the individual mandate, the group said. The Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, does not apply to the health care bill, "because there is no interstate commerce when private citizens do not purchase health insurance," The Conservative Action Project said. The Commerce Clause covers only those matters where citizens engage in voluntary economic activity. "Government can only regulate economic action; it cannot coerce action on the part of private citizens who do not wish to participate in commerce," the conservative group said. Nor is the bill's individual mandate authorized under the General Welfare Clause, which applies only to congressional spending. "It applies to money going out from the government; it does not confer or concern any government power to take in money, such as would happen with the individual mandate. Therefore the mandate is outside the scope of the General Welfare Clause." And finally, the Conservative Action Project says the individual mandate is  not authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause or Income Tax. The
Constitution only allows certain types of taxation from the federal government, and the health care bill does fall in those categories. As for the argument that the health care bill's individual mandate can be compared to laws requiring auto insurance an argument President Obama has made such arguments are invalid:
"Only state governments can require people to get car insurance," the Conservative Action Project said. "While the federal government is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the states have a general police power. The police power enables state governments to pass laws for public safety and public health. The federal government has no general police power, and therefore could not require car insurance."
Moreover, states require auto insurance only as a condition for those people who voluntarily choose to drive on the public roads. "If a person chooses to use public transportation, or use a bicycle instead of a car, or operate a car only on their own property, they are not required to have car insurance, and cannot be penalized for lacking insurance."

'Where in the Constitution...?"
In recent months, CNSNews.com has asked various members of Congress where specifically the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate. Many had no idea. (CNSNews.com) Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would not say what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance--as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do. Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that "nobody questions" Congress' authority for such an action.

CNSNews.com: "Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?"
Sen. Leahy: "We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?"
CNSNews.com: "I'm asking--"
Sen. Leahy: "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there's no question there's authority. Nobody questions that."
When CNSNews.com again attempted to ask which provision of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to force Americans to purchase health insurance, Leahy compared the mandate to the government's ability to set speed limits on interstate highways--before turning and walking away.
CNSNews.com: "But where, I mean, which"
Sen. Leahy: "Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway?
CNSNews.com: "The states do that."
Sen. Leahy: "No. The federal government does that on federal highways."
Prior to 1995, the federal government mandated a speed limit of 55 miles an hour on all four-lane highways. The limit was repealed in 1995 and the authority to set speed limits reverted back to the states. Technically, the law that established the 55 mile-an-hour limit--the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act of 1974--withheld federal highway funds from states that did not comply with it. The law rested on the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and Congress' authority to dole out federal tax revenue. Someone who does not buy health insurance, critics have argued, is not by that ommission engaged in interstate commerce and thus there is no act of interstate commerce for Congress to regulate in this situation. All versions of the health care bill currently being considered in Congress mandate that individuals buy heatlh insurance. Americans who don't would be subject to a financial penalty.

Attorney David Rivkin Jr., who worked in the Justice Department under both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said that Sen. Leahy's response about the constitutional authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance "is wrong."

"None of Congress' enumerated powers support an individual purchase mandate," said Rivkin. "We have made this case in considerable detail in our recent articles in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service, an entity that is usually deferential to Congress' prerogatives and prone to take an expansive view of congressional powers, when asked by the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about the constitutionality of individual purchase mandates could only say that this is a 'novel question.'"

"This mandate can only be based upon a view that Congress can exercise general police powers, a view profoundly at odds with the Framers' vision of the federal government as one of limited and enumerated powers," he said. "If the federal government can mandate an individual insurance purchase mandate, it can also mandate an unlimited array of other mandates and prescriptions, including the mandate to buy health club memberships or even to purchase a given quantity of fruits and vegetables."

"This state of affairs would completely warp our constitutional fabric, vitiate any autonomous role for the states and eviscerate individual liberty," said Rivkin. "It is profoundly un-American." This is not the first time Congress has considered forcing Americans to buy health insurance. In 193-94, an individual mandate was a key component of then-President Bill Clinton's health care reform proposal. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said in a 1994 report that for federal government to order Americans to buy health insurance would be "unprecedented," adding that the government had "never required" Americans to purchase anything. "A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action," CBO found."The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a
condition of lawful residence in the United States," said the CBO report. "An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government."

Although Sen. Leahy said that "nobody" questions that Congress has the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee did question whether Congress had that authority when the health-care bill was being debated in their committee. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) tried to offer an amendment that would expedite judicial review of the bill were it enacted, but Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D.-Mont.) ruled that Hatch's amendment was out of order.
(CNSNews.com)

When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the "Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform," that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:

CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"
Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter.
Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."
"You can put this on the record," said Elshami. "That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."
Later on Thursday, CNSNews.com followed up on the question, e-mailing written queries for the speaker to her Spokesman Elshami."Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force
Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?" CNSNews.com asked the speaker's office. "If it is the Speaker's belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?" CNSNews.com asked. "If so, what is that limit?" Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the  Speaker's office entitled, "Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: 'Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.'" The press release states
that Congress has "broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production." The release further states: "On the shared responsibility requirement in the
House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation. There is no constitutional problem with these provisions."

That is the end of the piece I obtained from CNSNews.com. I didn't write this report myself, but I found it so honestly astounding and frankly terrifying that I felt it needed to be passed along.

While you can buy votes in Congress (something that once would have shocked even the worst of them), you can't buy them from We The People. This arrogance... this hubris demonstrated by what has got to be the most corrupt government this country has ever known, is not only an embarrasment, it's dangerous. Because while they are waving this smelly (and very expensive) bottle of snake oil under our tortured nose, our enemies are working, and very hard. It doesn't pull our president home from vacation (heck, it didn't
warrant a response for three days!), but it is war, and it is real. If you understand that the Cold War was in fact World War Three, then what we have now, that doesn't interrupt Mister Obama's golf game, is World War Four. Sorry to say (because I try to see the best in everybody), but Mister Obama would react quicker to losing his socialist takeover of the government than he did to someone trying to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day.