Michael Wolfe

Study up. Stand up. Speak up. Pray up!

Posts Tagged ‘socialist’

Anita MonCrief: Beyond Blowing the Whistle on ACORN

Posted by americana83 on July 6, 2011

It takes courage to stand up. Especially when it was something you had grown up believing in since childhood. But for Anita it came during Obama’s campaign, when she saw first hand that “her side” was cheating to get ahead, as if law was of no concern. It started her on a journey that has led to the total severing from organizations and a political party that she believed to be helping the downtrodden and voiceless. But how many of us have been charged with denying their culture, their heritage, merely because they decided that liberty was precious and that the freedom to innovate and earn ones own way would pull more people out of poverty than billions of dollars in government redistribution programs? Did you know that by today’s standards historic leaders like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman and David Walker would be denounced? Reading their stories and works show that these were by and large God fearing men and women who laid it all on the line, NOT for a government handout, but for the chance to be a person- an individual, to have the simple rights laid out in the Declaration of Independence: Life – to live free, Liberty – to own themselves and their time, and the pursuit of happiness, the right to have the chance to buy a house, pursue a career, make a life for themselves! I’m sure these are ranks she would deny, but having heard Anita teaching, preaching and pleading for people to wake up and clean up our system and defend their freedoms, her spirit definitely puts her among these leaders.

It seems that there is a reason the progressives, typically headed by the Democratic party, have worked so hard to target the Black community is that Blacks in America are the least removed from the abject abuses of a state run amok, and were thus most capable of blowing the whistle on progressive intrusions on the liberties of all. The passionate spirit as in David Walker‘s Appeal had to be squelched. So the progressives, the communists, everyone in America with a desire for a totalitarian welfare state, targeted the Black community. Whether it was spiritual destroyers such as Rev Wright and Black Liberation Theology, or political destroyers, or the cultural usurpers, it was part of a push to make Black synonymous with progressive. Further, even president Obama, in his book Dreams from my Father, denies that cultural identity is a personal choice, denigrating a lady he calls Joyce because she refused to identify with political activities she didn’t want to identify with. Modern progressivism has some common ideological foundations with the slavery system.

#1. Man is an animal. Frederick Douglass hated being considered an animal, slaves were seen as mere animals. Today, progressives assert by and large that all men are animals, accidental byproducts of an unguided “process” called evolution. Evolved animals have no unalienable rights, because they have no creator. The slaver’s denial of black personhood is just as false as the “modern” progressive’s denial of personhood, of unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.

#2. Slaves have no right to private property. Slave owners owned everything used or possessed by the slave. Progressives likewise believe that private property, outside their own, is evil, that it stands in the way of “equality” and “progress.” They believe that it is okay to deny property rights for “the greater good.”

#3. Slaves had no right to the fruits of their labor. Some slavers were “generous” and sometimes let their slaves keep a pittance of the income from any extra work they did above and beyond the things assigned to them by their master. The master enjoyed the fruits of the labor of the slave, believing that the rewards of the slave’s labor rightfully belonged to him, the master. Progressives today revile private wealth, again with the exception of their own, which the super rich amongst the progressives sometimes shift to tax-exempt foundations like the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, or the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. They support “progressive income taxes” and believe that private wealth actually belongs to their government. They also support redistributing this wealth to people who did not earn it, but who none the less feel entitled to receive it.

#4. Slaves had no parental rights. The master owned any children brought into this world, and could separate families, sell children, or do whatever they wanted with any member of the family. Today, progressives fight against parental rights at every step, whether its the right of parental consent for abortions, mandated sex education in schools, and many other areas where the state usurps or attempts usurp the parent’s rights.

#5. Slaves had no right to pursue education. Educated slaves were dangerous to the slavers’ power structure. A slave that could read and write could learn and become independent and start longing for more freedom. The state of the public schools as the federal government has taken ever more authority over them should show how much progressives like the NEA value true education, preferring that students learn to feel good about themselves, exercise, use condoms, and that its cool for Heather to have two mommies.

#6. Slaves had no right to religion, namely Christianity. Slaves were only permitted snippets of the Bible, proof texts for embracing a life of servitude and slavery. A full knowledge of the liberty in Christ, that God is no respecter of persons, that all are one in Christ Jesus, was extremely dangerous, the slave might end up thinking that they too were created “in the image of God” and that they too were human.  They might be inspired by the accounts of captives set free in the Bible. Today, the progressive is at war with “fundamentalist Christianity.” From the contents of David Walker’s Appeal, it is clear that a concise and face value understanding of the scriptures predates the label “fundamentalist,” and that such truth preached without compromise threatens tyrants and progressives. And so we have the war against God. God must be kicked out of every public square, the 10 commandments removed and repealed (so to speak, the folly of man who think they can revoke divine law), and any religious critique of the culture or government must be silenced. Of course they also have their counterfeit religion, led by people like Jim Wallace and Dr. James Cone, who preach a collectivist gospel that is so much like communism, the Communists are willing to partner with such churches as Trinity United Church of Christ to spread communism among the Black community! Even today, we can see how slavery can sneak up on a people in the words of scripture.

Of course the chief difference between the two ideologies is that of private ownership. Under slavery, individuals owned other individuals. Under progressivism, the individual is “owned” by the state. The state has right to his person, his children, his property, his wages.

One other difference is that the slavers embraced a distorted creation account, somehow factoring that Black persons were not people. They had to cringe when the 3/5th’s compromise identified slaves as “3/5ths of all other PERSONS.” Progressives embrace the hypothesis set up by Charles Darwin that man is an animal with no creator, the byproduct of some unknown accidental process spanning billions of years. Thus many have no problem with things such as abortion, euthanasia, and early progressives like George Bernard Shaw had no problem with committing genocide on those who could not “justify their existence.” They have no problem lying to prove their case, and they are doing just that when they pose as the defenders of the rights of minorities. And that’s the kicker, they don’t even believe individuals have unalienable rights. They seek to accumulate wealth and power while suppressing a people, giving them only collective identities and enough pottage in exchange for the chance to legislate away the very freedoms fought for so fiercely by people like Tubman and Walker. They prattle away, claiming that those fighting for individual liberty are using race as a wedge, when these progressive leaders are the  very ones driving the wedge. Because they know this truth: United We Stand, but divided we will fall.

God bless those who are willing to stand up.

Quotes on Faith, Freedom and Tyranny

 

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.  -Frederick Douglass

I didn’t know I was a slave until I found out I couldn’t do the things I wanted. -Frederick Douglass

One and God make a majority. -Frederick Douglass

I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other. -Harriet Tubman

I would fight for my liberty so long as my strength lasted, and if the time came for me to go, the Lord would let them take me.  -Harriet Tubman

If I could have convinced more slaves that they were slaves, I could have freed thousands more.  -Harriet Tubman

We must and shall be free I say, in spite of you. You may do your best to keep us in wretchedness and misery, to enrich you and your children, but God will deliver us from under you. And wo, wo, will be to you if we have to obtain our freedom by fighting. Throw away your fears and prejudices then, and enlighten us and treat us like men, and we will like you more than we do now hate you; you are not astonished at my saying we hate you, for if we are men we cannot but hate you, while you are treating us like dogs. – David Walker (the Appeal)

Should tyrants take it into their heads to emancipate any of you, remember that your freedom is your natural right. You are men, as well as they, and instead of returning thanks to them for your freedom, return it to the Holy Ghost, who is our rightful owner. If they do not want to part with your labours, which have enriched them, let them keep you, and my word for it, that God Almighty, will break their strong band. – David Walker (the Appeal)

PDF of the appeal here: http://www.jpanafrican.com/ebooks/eBook%20David%20Walker%27s%20Appeal.pdf

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What to look for in a presidential candidate, or any candidate for any office.

Posted by americana83 on June 10, 2011

I’ve been accused of looking for a “perfect” candidate. However, I am merely looking for someone who will actually move us in the right direction. The “right direction” can roughtly be broken down in to 10 areas, many of which are somewhat interlinked, but still worth noting separately:

Budget reduction: Does a candidate actually specify things which he would work to have cut. “streamlining” or “eliminating waste” sounds really good, but ANY candidate should be doing that, and in light of the massive federal budget, this only ever amounts to a few drops in the bucket, and it almost never gets done.

Redacting Green agenda: Does a candidate seek to curtail carbon emissions? If so, they are uninformed about global warming and are a serious threat to economic and personal liberty.

End Abortion: Often sidelined as a “social issue,” abortion actually should actually be at the center of the fight for constitutional rights. The Declaration of Independence cited the unalienable right of Life first, and that is proper, because without life, you can neither exercise liberty or pursue happiness. Abortion was forced on an entire county by an activist Supreme Court in direct violation of the Bill of Rights: No personal shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty or property without due process of law. Congress could remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the matter and return the issue of abortion to the states. A candidate that encourages that and/or which works to remove federal funds from paying for ANY abortion would be helping to move this issue forward.

Reducing the Size of government: Does a candidate have an agenda that involves cutting the size of government in some concrete way, such as reigning in the EPA, eliminating the federal department of education, eliminating federal entitlement programs (like free cell phones), vetoing any budget that includes any money to enact ObamaCare/signing any legislation that repeals ObamaCare? Any candidate can, and probably will talk about “big government” and how bad it is, but do they back up this talk with a plan for action? No candidate who supports laws banning so-called raw milk or Edison’s light bulb can be said to be concerned about the size of government- unless their concern is that it’s too SMALL!

Educational choice: Is the candidate committed to getting the federal government out of education? Eliminating the federal department of Education, eliminating grants? Education has declined in quality in America as the federal government has taken it over more and more.

Debt reduction and the Federal Reserve: Will the candidate veto any budget that includes debt ceiling increases, or deficit spending? Will he work to pare down the executive branch of the government of which he is head? Will he support a sound money program that seeks to restore proper money, the kind of money we had when America was a creditor and not a debtor nation? The kind of money we had when the dollar became the “world reserve” currency?

Health Care freedom: Is the candidate committed to protecting the rights of doctors to own hospitals (as ObamaCare bans)? Is he committed to pulling the government out of healthcare? Will he promote a plan that opts this and future generations out of mandated programs (paying medicare and Social security taxes, etc, while providing means to protect those who were forced under penalty of law to invest in these programs?

Gun rights:Is the candidate committed to supporting the right to bear arms along with the other rights in the constitution? Does he support gun grabs, registration, waiting periods, or so-called assault weapons bans? If he does, then he does not support the second amendment. It should be noted that Adolph Hilter supported full gun registration in National Socialist (NAZI) Germany. Only a dictator fears an armed populace.

Illegal Immigration: Does the candidate endorse “comprehensive immigration reform” or “guest worker programs to legalize those here illegally” or any form of amnesty? If so, then he does not oppose illegal immigration. It should be noted, that if a candidate supported and promoted serious reforms like those mentioned above, that illegal immigration would be greatly deterred. A president that cuts off federal money to cities in general will also go a long way in undermining so called “Sanctuary cities” because they will be forced to rely entirely on tax money extorted from their own people to pay for illegal aliens. A president that refuses to get in the way of a state that is actively seeking to solve its own illegal immigration problem would get a positive rating on this, and it could create an environment where other states would be willing to enforce the laws without getting sued by a government that refuses to protect them from an invasion. Radical Chicano groups support the idea of seizing the southwest US by mass immigration.

Foreign Affairs: Is a candidate dedicated to pursuing America’s interests? Will they oppose using any federal tax dollars for foreign aid? Will they remove America from harmful progressive international treaties? Will they work towards removing us from the UN and from supporting it with our tax dollars and troops? Will they speak out against and oppose Kyoto and other treaties designed to strangle American businesses? Will they speak out against and oppose any and all treaties that would harm our second amendment rights, or any other rights? Will they speak out against “climate debt” or other globalist scams designed to redistribute wealth and induce guilt because of success. Is the candidate willing to go to war on behalf of the UN? Is the candidate willing to go to war without having a congressional declaration of war? If the answer is yes, then the candidate has no respect for the separation of powers or the danger of “entangled alliances” like the UN which pit our interests against the interests of socialists and other kinds of dictators.

Constitutional fidelity: the above tenants basically embody this one, and all would move America towards a limited government like that in line with what the founders intended.

All of these tentants rely on one more thing, and this will determine their honesty even if they profess adamant support for any or all of the preceding items:

Time Frame: When does a candidate intend to start taking concrete steps towards the above goals? Within 10 years? 15? Any candidate that does not pledge to take steps in his first term of office is in fact pledging to do nothing. Some glitzy “waste reductions” and speeches and more and more promises will mean nothing. Passing a budget that starts to reduce spending “by 2016″ or some future date is committed to doing nothing now. Unfortunately, by passing the ball to a future year, the candidate has no responsibility to work on it now. Further, he could get replaced and his promised future reforms overturned. I don’t care if a candidate pledges to cut the budget by 25% by 2020, I care what they do NOW to accomplish these goals. Talking about future actions and making promises that extend to future congresses or presidencies is just foolish. They can no more guarantee their reelection than they can promise a sunny day on July 4th this year. (At least so long as we maintain free and fair elections).

I will not endorse a candidate who is not moving forward on these agenda items in some tangible way. Where do candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich fall on these issues? It should be fairly obvious by now that they intend either to continue the status quo, or continue to drag us farther from these goals. Do not endorse a candidate just because “they are electable.”  It doesn’t matter how electable they are if they indulge in the status quo or take us even farther down the road to serfdom.

Posted in Barack Obama, communism, culture, deception, Election, Election 2012, health care, Immigration, news, Obama, Ohio, politics, Presidential, taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Newt Gingrich: Progressive Internationalistst.

Posted by americana83 on May 25, 2011

Update: Having recently finished reading the politics of the third wave, I can summarize all but the last chapter of the book like this: Change is always resisted, We are on the verge of a massive change in civilization to the third wave, family, government, economics, everything is second wave (free market, constitutions, man-woman marriage, energy etc) and must be changed to avoid the bloodshed and chaos that typically ensues with a revolution. The final chapter presents that our government and constitution must be changed, or fundamentally transformed. The Tofflers believe hijacking the republican party is the best way to do this.

Its been a hard month for Newt. From attacking Paul Ryan to defending variant forms of health care mandates, Newt has been showing openly than ever his progressive side. Or has he? Newt has been an advocate of the “third wave,” a progressive post-constitutional movement. According to the New American Magazine:

In 1994, Gingrich described himself as “a conservative futurist.” He said that those who were trying to define him should look no further than The Third Wave, a 1980 book written by Alvin Toffler. The book describes our society as entering a post-industrial phase in which abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, and divorce are perfectly normal, even virtuous. Toffler penned a letter to America’s “founding parents,” in which he said: “The system of government you fashioned, including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented — a democracy for the 21st century.” He went on to describe our constitutional system as one that “served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”

In short, the man who has been running around trying to put out all the fires caused by his unexpected candid speech, has not been acting out of character. In fact, since 1990 he has been a member of the progressive Council on Foreign Relations, a powerful think tank dedicated to a post-national future where America surrenders its identity as a sovereign nation to the internal progressives behind the United Nations, which itself was founded in part by American traitor/Soviet Communist Alger Hiss.

The Mises Institute sums up the third wave like this: “If their (Alvin Toffler’s and Heidi Toffler’s) predictions are banal, and their social theory unfounded and simplistic, their recommendations for political change are more than a little sinister. Although constantly calling for decentralization, they also complain that we are “politically primitive and undeveloped” at the “transnational level.” Decisions must be transferred “up” from the nation-state (p. 100). Translating the Tofflers’ Third Wave argot into English, this is a call for global government. Not surprisingly, those who oppose Nafta are prisoners of the outmoded Second Wave. This is in reference to the progressive book to which Gingrich authored a forward: Creating A New Civilization: The Politics Of The Third Wave.

Creating a New Civilization: The politics of the third wave

Of course, this “Third Wave” goes way beyond government structures and economic theory. In fact, Third Wave philosophy may explain Gingrich’s personal morals and outlook on family values in general:

Today, once more, egos are breaking like eggshells against the wall. Now, however, the guilt is associated with the frac- ture of the family rather than the economy. As millions of men and women clamber out of the strewn wreckage of their marriages they, too, suffer agonies of self-blame. And once more, much of the guilt is misplaced. When a tiny minority is involved, the crack-up of their families may reflect individual failures. But when divorce, separation, and other forms of familial disaster overtake millions at once in many countries, it is absurd to think the causes are purely personal. The fracture of the family today is, in fact, part of the general crisis of industrialism—the crack-up of all the institutions spawned by the Second Wave. It is part of the ground-clearing for a new Third Wave socio-sphere. – Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave p. 208.

Toffler, in this book Newt once called required reading, goes on in the pages immediately following the above quote, to suggest that the only way to preserve the traditional family is to destroy modern technology and reintroduce poverty! But wait, there’s more. He also implies that contraceptives are the source of a woman’s freedom. It also goes on to praise the formation of new kinds of “families” saying that such things as homosexual couples, and “couples of various numbers, joint spouse sharing and other such things should be welcomed as a celebration of diversity and normalized! Does this sound like a book any genuine conservative would recommend?

But that’s not all. In the chapter titles “the invisible wedge,” Toffler places a very low value on maintaining a home and the raising of children: “The man took responsibility for the historically more advanced form of work; the woman was left behind to take care of the older, more backward form of work. He moved, as it were, into the future; she remained in the past.”

Let me me ask you, would any conservative endorse the idea that raising children is “backward” or a relic of the past? At every point progressive Newt must be challenged and confronted with his record of betraying conservatives. He is, like one man suggested “an embarrassment” to the party.

Required Reading:

A great summary of Newt’s record, followed by a top-notch detailed analysis:

An interesting study on the historical “third wave”

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Van Jones!

Posted by americana83 on April 11, 2011

We in the liberty community would like to say “thank you” to Van Jones. As part of my special “thank you” project, I would like to announce contest. The winners will have a part in my little surprise, an effort to help publicize what Van Jones hates most: the truth. The weapon: Satire.

Photo Contest:

Some suggestions:

Glenn Beck photo.

Please submit a mock of a photo shopped glenn beck that is so over-the-top it shows more lunacy in the mock-liberal than it does anything in Beck.

Van Jones photo.

Please submit an original satirical photo to Americana83@yahoo.com. It can be either hand-drawn or Photoshopped. Socialist or “greenthemed photos/images a plus.

Tea Party photo.

Please submit an un-retouched photo from a tea party or 9/12 group or other liberty event that would make anyone calling the tea party racist look really really stupid.

In the spirit of the person of honor, there will be no financial remuneration. I reserve the right to use or not use any picture for any reason.

All entries are due by Monday the 25th.

Winners will be announced on May Day (May 1st) in a blaze of glory!

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Sherrod Brown, YOU LIE!

Posted by americana83 on October 4, 2010

I am responding to Sherrod Brown’s letter in today’s edition of the USA Today blasting the tea party.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-04-column04_ST1_N.htm

I am ashamed this man is “representing” me in the senate… Lie after lie spills from his mouth as he seeks to bolster the image of progressivism. He neglects in his brief “history lesson” to mention that progressives helped elevate eugenics to public policy, that the last remaining klansman in federal office, Byrd died in office only this year, that his party fought against both abolition and ending Jim Crow. He neglects to mention that progressives elevated Margaret Sanger’s RACIST eugenics project planned parenthood, which has decimated the Black population, which was actually far short of  her original intent. Progressive ideologies have wrought nearly insurmountable debts and deficits. I also don’t understand why he doesn’t thank the progressive elements in the Republican party (also known as RINOS) who not only defended progressive federal departments from the “Contract with America,” but exploded their size and budgets! And the worst elements to take place under the Bush presidency (bailouts and spending) were pages torn right from the progressive democrat’s playbook.

The mass movement of the tea party (and not the pseudo cons trying to co opt it ) wants to restore freedom and roll back the bogus “consumer” protections that will only serve to raise costs and reduce competition, EXACTLY like the so called health care reform, which we also want to repeal.

Sherrod Brown, it is you who does not like America. It is you who is mortgaging our future to build your “progressive” “working class paradise.” Like every other attempt at doing such a thing, whether in the USSR or in some South American countries, it will ultimately fail economically, and it will fail utterly at each of the promises it makes. Social Security? Medicare? Amtrak? Which of the extra-Constitutional big government elements do you want to point to that has actually come in under budget, and is not either hemorrhaging money or full of IOUs?

Sherrod Brown, you don’t fear big government because your at the helm of it. You don’t fear it because you haven’t heard the voice of LEGAL immigrants tell of the terrors of an absolutist states of all stripes. You must never have actually went to a tea party or a 9/12 meeting or even a JBS meeting. You have no clue from your position of prestige and power what us “little people” are thinking.

Sherrod Brown, you have no concept of separation of powers, states rights, or ANY constitutional law whatsoever, at least as far as your words and actions portray. If you do know, what a shameful and deceitful thing to knowingly violate the oath of office to “uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” Surely you know that not all enemies of freedom are external, and surely you know that not all of them fight with swords and bombs. Some fight with pens and some with congressional votes, railing against freedom and voting to surrender and turn over things that they have NO RIGHT to turn over or surrender or EVEN TOUCH!

Your leader has talked of the right side of history. You my friend, are coming down on the wrong side of history. You and your comrades are working to dismantle the safeguards our founders put in place to prevent Americans from being subjects again, to prevent our substance from being consumed and distributed by those who think they are so much wiser than us, so much more enlightened, so much more charitable. Indeed, there has never been a more noble band of thieves, for how easy it is to be charitable with the treasures and livelihoods of others! You should be reminded such thievery and schemes only work so long as there are other people from which to transfer wealth from.

So you keep fighting to build up ever more power for you and your comrades. Just don’t expect those of us to sit idly by and let your attempts to micromanage our lives go unchallenged. We will fight you on the battle field of ideas. We will advance freedom while you cling bitterly to your progressive schemes and hold your sham town halls. We will fight to give people the right to pursue happiness, without having some bureaucrat come along and STEAL that which they neither labored for nor deserve to give to those who neither toil nor deserve, in exchange for their votes bought with stolen goods. Sherrod you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. Neither can you lift people up by keeping them in government dependence. I urge you to look into the life story of Starr Parker.

Sherrod Brown, it was people like you who weaned Americans off that spirit of rugged individualism; people like YOU that coddled and pushed and prodded to get them to take government subsidies. In short it is people like YOU who destroyed one of those things which made America exceptional, which made us so resilient as a people! All this while your ideological ancestors in the early 1900s worked to transform churches that preached individual salvation in Christ to a collective “social justice” salvation, and still others taught the founding fathers were rich elitists, that America was a democracy, not a republic, that the Constitution needs to change.

Sherrod Brown, you are ignorant of what the John Birch Society is. It was founded to help bolster the attack against what was then a growing threat of communism. Have you read the Communist press? Did you see the One Nation Working Together Rally’s list of sponsors, who all signed on to support “the change we voted for?” A veritable Who’s Who of openly communist organizations signed on as sponsors! And this is 2010! And they are standing with you and the president! And you say that we do not like America? Who was it that used fear of economic destruction to force “stimulus” on us? Who was it that used fear of “greedy doctors” hacking off extra body parts in pursuit of that “most evil thing of all,” profit? And the Communists and Socialists were there, cheering you on. Yes, Mr Brown, a person like you MUST hate and destroy groups like the John Birch Society and the Tea Party, they stand for everything you abhor: freedom, limited government, constitutional law; and fight everything you love: Unconstitutional entitlement programs and departments; and illegal laws that violate our Constitutional rights. You’re barbed attacks may well be self-defeating, as the Tea Party and 9/12 Projects and the Birch Society are working tirelessly (you might say community organizing if that makes it more understandable) to activate and educate voters in Ohio and across the country on Constitutional principles and that our unalienable rights are not granted from the government, but bestowed upon us by our Creator. Your attempt to deceitfully and ignorantly slander the JBS doesn’t have anything to do with the Constitution Party Candidate, Robert Owens, who stands poised to upend the status quo in Ohio does it? The JBS, tea party and the 9/12 movement share far too much common ground to be set against each other. Ohio will continue to organize, and it will continue to be to your detriment.

You, Sherrod Brown are a political heir to Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, the political figureheads who first helped to bring about “redistributive change” as a matter of federal policy. It was those figures whose domestic policy so arrogantly and deliberately stepped beyond the protective bounds of the Constitution, and politically beat into submission those who resisted (as the Supreme Court at the time did so valiantly until subdued). If left unchecked, Sherrod Brown, it is “proud progressives” like you and Mary Jo Kilroy who will preside over the demise of the Republic known as the United States of America. And that will definitely be the “wrong side of history.”

I hope you continue to cast your misguided stones, Mr Brown, for you are living in one of the largest glass houses in Ohio.

Michael Wolfe
Americana83.com

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

None Dare Call It Socialist: HR3590 “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”

Posted by americana83 on April 7, 2010

Are the claims of socialism new? Have government intrusions into medicine been opposed before Obama tried them? Does it matter whether Obama scoffs at those who call his plan “socialist?”

First, I will say that this bill does not create “single payer” government run healthcare. However, it does pave the way by extending current government “care” systems (and their under-reimbursement of health care providers), subsidizing insurance using tax payers’ money, and enacting a whole list of mandates on insurance companies, individuals, and employers. These mandates will increase the cost of insurance, possibility to the point of unsustainability, paving the way for the government to “save the day” by stepping in and seizing outright control of the entire medical industry. This, coupled with the push to legalize millions of illegal aliens, many of which would then qualify for coverage and the decreasing incentive for people to study to become doctors will combine to create the one thing everyone said would never come: health-care rationing.

Recently, the APHA (the American Public Health Association) made the following assertions about the recently rammed, bribed, blackmailed, forced through Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) and its subsequent reconciliation (and college loan take over) package:

Not only will the law extend health insurance coverage to an additional 32 million uninsured Americans, provide subsidies to help individuals purchase health insurance, prevent insurance companies from discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions and strengthen the Medicare program, it will also provide billions of dollars of funding for public health and prevention when it is fully implemented. In fact, the new Prevention and Public Health Fund created by the law will provide $500 million for prevention, wellness and public health activities beginning this year.

Lets look at some of these elements individually:

extend health insurance coverage to an additional 32 million uninsured Americans.

Since this number seems to fluctuate, that is not so much the issue, however this bill will force those who do not want insurance, typically the young and the healthy to purchase a product they neither want nor need. If you make $13 per hour and live in Ohio, the government already deducts about 25% of your pay (not counting sales taxes, gasoline taxes and other non-payroll taxes). 1 out of every 4 hours you work, you are working on behalf of the government. Now they are telling you how to spend your hard earned money, whether you want to or not. Sure the penalties are fairly small right now, but remember, the Federal Income Tax started out as a paltry 1% tax! My how big and hungry the tax beast has grown, and the more you feed it, the hungrier it becomes! (oh, and the whole “federal government forcing you to buy something” is UNCONSTITUTIONAL).

But wait, there’s more:

…provide subsidies to help individuals purchase health insurance…

More of your tax dollars are going for NEW entitlement programs! (Never mind that current ones are unsustainable in their funding levels!). Charity has its place, and it is the VOLUNTARY donations from people who WANT to help to organizations that do more than just give out free goodies. Self proclaimed communist Van Jones’ railing demand of “give them the wealth!” can almost be heard echoing through the pages of this bill. Just like other government social programs, the costs associated with this will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimates and will help much less than the vaunted 32 million uninsured.

And now, we make insurance more expensive with this, causing more people to need to rely on Big Brother to help them:

prevent insurance companies from discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions and strengthen the Medicare program

While this sounds nice, it will raise the cost of everyone’s insurance. They can’t be charged more than everyone else, so the costs are spread to everyone. Again this is not charity. This is taking more money from hard working men and women.

it will also provide billions of dollars of funding for public health and prevention when it is fully implemented. In fact, the new Prevention and Public Health Fund created by the law will provide $500 million for prevention, wellness and public health activities beginning this year.

I do not want the government spending my money on condoms and telling me what to eat or how to exercise. Most areas already have local public libraries and charitable organizations that offer health information. It is about control. As the government foots more and more of the bills for health insurance/health care, it will demand more and more control and say in how and what individuals eat, when they exercise, and just about every field that is touched by health.

Also, with the president and other people who are part of the problem complaining about the deficit, where is this 500 million dollars going to come from? Well, the 10% tanning tax for starters. Then, in the spirit of promoting better insurance plan offerings (sarcasm), ObamaCare gives us a 40% tax on the best health insurance plans, with a few years delay for unions, who’s members generally have good plans and who might otherwise revolt against the leaders of their international unions.

Now lets look some bitter pills scattered throughout this bill (this is just a small sample of all the things hidden throughout the bill’s 2409 pages + 900 (amendment).

Full bill text: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text

SEC. 3308. REDUCING PART D PREMIUM SUBSIDY FOR
14             HIGH-INCOME BENEFICIARIES.
15     (a) INCOME-RELATED INCREASE IN PART D PRE-
16 MIUM.—

The title for this section actually says it all. It doesn’t matter that you’ve paid the same amount into the system as everyone else, now you get to pay more. More spreading wealth around, just like Obama promised.

Section 4201:

(B) ACTIVITIES- Activities within the plan may focus on (but not be limited to)

(i) creating healthier school environments, including increasing healthy food options, physical activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle, emotional wellness, and prevention curricula, and activities to prevent chronic diseases;

Ok, our schools are already failing academically, now we are supposed to sacrifice more class time so kids can run and jump around? More time telling them how wonderful they are (building up their self esteem/emotional wellness), and more telling them how to eat and what to eat? Every time federal control over the public schools increases, the quality of the education declines. Soon parents won’t have to take responsibility for anything, the state will raise their kids from cradle to graduation. Oh, and the federal constitution does NOT give the federal government authority over education, that is a right reserved to the states, respectively  or the people.

(ii) creating the infrastructure to support active living and access to nutritious foods in a safe environment;

(iii) developing and promoting programs targeting a variety of age levels to increase access to nutrition, physical activity and smoking cessation, improve social and emotional wellness, enhance safety in a community, or address any other chronic disease priority area identified by the grantee;

(iv) assessing and implementing worksite wellness programming and incentives;

(v) working to highlight healthy options at restaurants and other food venues;

(vi) prioritizing strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, including social, economic, and geographic determinants of health; and

What does this mean? It sounds like an opportunity to spread more wealth around, that is until the feds run out of our wealth to spread around…

(vii) addressing special populations needs, including all age groups and individuals with disabilities, and individuals in both urban and rural areas.

I would encourage anyone interested in the realities of socialism and how it has come to the point where the federal government feels it has the authority (it doesn’t) to mandate individuals to purchase insurance to borrow, buy or check out the book: None Dare Call It Treason by John A. Stormer. It recounts the heartbreaking saga of betrayal of the nation’s most cherished ideals and laws in the 20th century.

Here are a couple of very relevant exerts from this book published way back in 1964:

Magruder’s high school text, American Government, as mentioned earlier uses nearly every classical propaganda trick to confuse students into accepting socialism. Consider this non-sequitur under the heading, Medical Service Under Our System of Free Enterprise:

In a democracy we believe in evolutionary methods rather than the revolutionary methods of a dictatorship; and under our system of free enterprise, competition improves the standard of service and tends to reduce the cost. Therefore, instead of jumping right into socialized medicine, why not have the Government support projects such as the following. (pg 670).

If free enterprise medicine works so well, and Magruder acknowledges that it does, why consider socialized medine at all, either immediately or by the backdoor approach Magruder recommends. He advocates approaching socialized medicine through such steps as federal aid for training doctors, federal funds for hospital construction, and government payment of hospital costs for lengthy illnesses.(pg 110).

Then, on page 169, Stormer quotes approvingly this statement:

Compulsory social insurance is in its essence undemocratic and it cannot prevent or remove poverty. The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems, which are held to be not only impractical, but a menace to their rights, welfare, and their liberty. Compulsory sickness insurance for workers is based on the theory that they are unable to look after their own interests and the state must use its authority and wisdom and assume the relation of parent and guardian.

and this one:

I want to tell you socialists that I have studied your philosophy…I have heard your orators… I have kept close watch upon your doctrines for 30 years and know how you think and what you propose. I know too what you have up your sleeve. Economically, you are unsound; socially, you are wrong; industrially, you are an impossibility.

Since the publishing of this book, the American welfare state has grown exponentially. Step by step creeping socialism has consumed the private sector, followed surely by expanding government, increasing taxes, and a continuing reduction of the realm of freedom. President Obama, with his incessant push for this healthcare bill, has accomplished the greatest harm to our constitutional republic since FDR first got people hooked on government cheese using the New Deal. Every elected official who voted for this healthcare bill has joined previous public officials who have violated their oath of office for the sake of expanding government power and subverting the constitution.

The answers to my introductory questions: No, Yes, NO! It doesn’t matter what Obama calls himself, what his policies are called, or even who suggested them first. They still have the same deadly affect on our freedoms, our way of life, and the long-term viability of the American experiment. Obama does not offer “hope” for America, Obama doesn’t offer anything new, just the same tired old socialist ideas that Americans have been fighting since Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax became law.

Oh, and one more link: the Communist Party USA’s magazine, people’s world, just offered their praise of Obama’s health care bill.

President Obama’s new health-care law is a “historic victory” that can lead to socialized medicine and “single-payer” health-care legislation, boasted Juan Lopez, chairman of the Communist Party USA in Northern California.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

“Meet the Candidates” Factcheck: Ohio15th.blogspot.com

Posted by americana83 on March 17, 2010

Just today ohio6win stumbled across the article I wrote about the recent Meet the Candidates Night. I say stumbled across because she apparently did not even bother to read the article in her haste to decry both Stivers and myself and got some pretty basic facts wrong.

http://ohio15th.blogspot.com/

* While Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy was in Washington, DC, there were some people that showed up at her local office with signs. A majority of the demonstrators supported health care reform, while the other side could be characterized as the pro-higher insurance premium/status quo group. I know that those that who were in favor of health care reform were actual supporters of Kilroy’s. Those on the pro-higher insurance premiums, tea baggers, and pro-GOP, looked like they all escaped out of the Franklin Co. GOP office or the local country club. The anti-health care reform group stance can be summed up by the comment made by a woman from the affluent suburb of Upper Arlington (Dispatch):

Perhaps ohio6win should have looked at the facts before condemning this group as “escaping out of the Franklin Co. GOP office. Some of these same people were recently protesting in front of the GOP’s building in Columbus over recent episodes involving GOP slight of hand to displace tea party candidates and pave the way for establishment cronies to return to office. In fact, this author was among them.

And then, we have the following error filled assumptions that show the ohio15th author (ohio6win) didn’t even read my article about the “Meet the candidates” night.

****** Republican candidate for Congress, Steve Stivers, a former lobbyist, attended a recent “meet the candidates” forum sponsored by an extreme right winger, Michael Wolfe. Here are some excerpts from Wolfe’s Platform page:

First, the Candidate’s night was hosted by the The Hilliard/Galloway and Union County 9/12 Projects. While I was at the event, it does not automatically mean that both Stivers and I harmonize on ideology. In fact, there are some who question how committed Stivers is to conservative and constitutional principles, including this author.

“Hate speech” laws criminalize religious speech, and penalize those who hold traditional moral values.

(Is Stivers against laws that protect various minorities?)

This tactic involves deceit and bypasses the issue altogether. How ohio6win  jumps from “traditional moral values” to minorities is a mystery, since the focus is clearly on sexuality, and they have ignored this author’s many articles condemning racism, but then progressives never let facts get in the way of a good tirade. And here it continues:

“Hate speech” laws silence those who would speak out against certain sexual practices for health concerns.
(Does Stivers agree with this????)

Does ohio6win believe that ALL sexual behaviors and practices should NEVER be questioned? I would make the assumption that Stivers would disagree with my assertions on this matter, given his ambiguities on the question asked at the candidates’ night on “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

No government health-care.

(Does Stivers support Wolfe’s proposal to end Medicare, the SCHIP health care for children, and Medicaid?)

Does ohio6win know that these programs are unsustainable and bankrupt, and that I have no issue with individual states passing whatever programs they will, or that I support private charities that care for the poor and homeless and needy.

Despite these bizarre statements form Michael Wolfe, some of us wonder if Stivers himself believes in Wolfe’s “platform.” Has Stivers gone over to the far right extremists side of the political landscape? You can see more information on Stivers here. By the way, check out the pictures here and you’ll wonder if Wolfe and Stivers have gone off the deep end. Why did Stivers align himself with this obvious extremist?posted by ohio06win at 8:20 AM

First, Stivers has not aligned himself with this author, nor has he endorsed my platform. Obvious extremist? That I can live with. I am not ashamed of what I stand for, nor am I afraid to call for the phasing out of bankrupt, unconstitutional programs best left to private charities and to the individual states as their constitutions allow. Oh, and please do check out the pictures. A lot of hard work went into them, and I encourage anyone who wants to use them at their next tea party or rally, feel free. I stand behind the contents and message of each of these posters, and am not afraid to say that President Barack Obama is Communist/Socialist. Check out the exert from his book Dreams from my father about 3/4 of the way down this article. Also this article about Obama’s home church of 20 plus years. Also, check out WorldNetDaily’s article about Obama’s new spiritual mentor. And how about my article about the praise the Communist Party, USA has lavished upon Obama and his agenda.

Bizarre? OK, but remember, this is coming from a person who believes that the wives of politicians should not be allowed to exercise their 1st amendment rights in a March 15th post on her sister blog, and who substitutes crude names and distortions for facts and figures. As bizarre as my beliefs may seem to one who is firmly entrenched in the progressive mentality, it is not bizarre to those who uphold the concept of a Constitutional republic based on the beliefs and values that made this nation what she is today. Perhaps I should be flattered. I’ve joined the ranks of people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and others who have been lied about and called names.

As for a post that is currently only showing up on google search from her stubborn liberal blog about “smart people,” it just happens that she admits that everyone she agrees with is smart, as are those who support them, whereas, all of her opponents are stupid, as are those who support them. As a college graduate, I am proud to say by God’s grace I saw through the fog that surrounded Obama. However, a college degree does not mean one is any more capable of picking good candidates, and her personal disdain for those who disagree with her is very evident in the tone of this and many of her other articles. I have never studied a candidate more thoroughly, and have decided to never support another candidate merely because they are “the lesser of two evils.” As for the article she quotes approvingly about what kind of “conservatism” is respectable, I will not take my advice from what “acceptable conservatism is from someone who doesn’t believe the wives of judges deserve constitutional rights. I’ll bet the “Republicans” in this list would also earn her unwavering support for their commitment to abandoning the precepts of conservatism to embrace the change no conservative could be honest with themselves and believe in… As for the Buckley-type “conservatism” she apparently approves of, check this article out.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Lets talk about race.

Posted by americana83 on February 19, 2010

Its easy to talk about racists, to throw that toxic label onto your opponents when they don’t agree with you. The left loves to call conservatives racist, and talk about how Hitler was a right winger. Lets look at some of those enlightened folks on the left, and see what they say, when they likely haven’t had, or taken, time to carefully consider statements.

Chris Matthews: “For an hour I forgot he was black.

Joe Biden: “clean and articulate

Harry Reid: “light skinned and no negro dialect

How many conservatives do you know who go around saying those kind of things? The media would never stop talking about them. Obama appealed relentlessly to the race guilt of modern liberals by saying things of himself such as  “He doesn’t look like the other presidents on the dollar bills.” and “Skinny black man with a funny name. By and large, it is liberals who have worked to keep race at the forefront of politics, especially since the run up to the 2008 elections. the incessant drumbeat of the “historic election.”

Now what about the favorite posterboy of “right wing racism,” Adolf Hitler. Was he really “right wing” in the sense that American leftists imply?

Consider the following:

Did hitler promote a limited government and separation of powers?

Did Hitler believe in the right to keep and bear arms?

Did Hitler believe in Religious liberty?

Did Hitler believe in Freedom of the press?

Did Hitler promote economic freedom and private property?

No! Hitler promoted a totalitarian government (which makes sense once you consider Nazi is short for National Socialist German Worker’s Party). He boasted of the fact that under him Germany, for the first time had full gun registration. He persecuted the Jews and muzzled the churches. Opposition newspapers operating openly in Nazi Germany- ha! The claim that Hitler is “right wing” in the American sense is absurd. In fact, the swastikas that scared poor Nanci Pelosi present at tea parties had a “slash” through them, like the no smoking sign. They were part of a protest against totalitarian government, like the kind of government both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had.

Now I pose another question, who has been using race as a bludgeon? Does anyone remember how the Obama Justice Department mysteriously dropped the charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers who were parading around with a weapon making threatening racist comments in front of a polling place? Have you ever heard such racist statements as “credit to your race” or “articulate and clean” or “hey I forgot he was black for an hour” or “he appealed because he was light skinned and had no negro dialect?” In case you think the New Black Panthers are sincere in their claims of non violence/intimidation, check out their Nationalist Manifesto, which really echos Hitler’s racial supremacy delusions (and empty rejection of Communists) and rails against white people and makes the claim that Black people have no place in America. As to their claim of not “actively campaigning” for Obama, check out the cover of their magazine here.

The progressives have tried to make it about skin so as to avoid the war of ideologies. Hitler spun the economic woes of Germany as a tale of the Jewish people gone wild, and the paradigm was skewed towards the euphoria of eloquent speeches and initially a few drops of “it’s their fault” racism which grew to become the consuming passion of Hitler’s tyranny. Today ignorant and evil men attempt to use race to divide us. To keep we the people at perpetual war with each other, even after the election that was supposed to usher in a post-racial era.

To the Christian, the Bible says God hath made of one blood all nations of man and that God is no respecter of persons. To the American, our Constitution was written to fulfill the testament of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with Inalienable Rights. The corruptions introduced as politicians tried to patch up the slavery issue without addressing the root sin were not the fault or original intent of the founders. Thomas Jefferson trembled when he thought of slavery and the justice of God.

To the liberal I ask: will you stop making this about race? Of the many people I’ve talked to and met with, I have yet to hear someone opposing these unconstitutional and immoral policies because the man pushing for them is black. To those few that do*, their ignorance will consume them,  for at the very least, racism is contrary to the principles of freedom and individualism, not to mention a crime against God.

Conservatism is an ideology, not a party. Not all republicans are conservative, and not all conservatives are republicans. And one of the greatest myths of modern politics, not all conservatives are white! The man the media portrayed as being a “racist threat” to Obama, was in fact, a black man joining in a rally to stand up for second amendment rights! Check out these others who boldly proclaim a conservative message of freedom and limited government or take a principled stand against the policies of Barack Obama:

Apostle Claver, of RagingElephants.org

Alicia Healy, 2010 Candidate for Ohio Senate

Lloyd Marcus, Tea Party Express and Anthem

Star Parker, 2008 Values Voter Summit

Pastor Manning (probably one of Obama’ most outspoken critics).

Those who continue to promote the myths that the Tea Parties are about race, or health care protesters are bigots, or that conservatism itself somehow breeds racism are either ignorant of the movements and should have done more research, or have malicious intent and are hoping to keep brother fighting brother while the rights of all of us, black and white and in-between.

United we stand, divided we fall. Reject the sparks of race war the media and “mainstream” media are trying to ignite.

Together, we shall overcome!

And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
(Acts 17:26)

But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
(1 Samuel 16:7)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
(John 3:16-17)

* the only group I have found that claims to be conservative is the council of conservative citizens, which somehow mixes the putrid collectivist ideology of race superiority/separatism  with claims of individualism and freedom. At least the New Black Panthers make no such claims and embrace a wholly collectivist ideology.  See my complete refutation of their “statement of principles” here.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Nullification: The states as Constitutional Defenders

Posted by americana83 on January 6, 2010

What power do the states have to stop the onslaught of unconstitutional measures being handed down by the “progressive” majority? The answer lies in the 10th amendment:

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.

The federal government is exercising powers that do not belong to it. The authority to force citizens to purchase insurance, to decree that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and writing laws to “regulate” it does not exist at the federal level. The clear list of enumerated powers do not give these incredible powers to the federal government.

Since these powers are unconstitutional, the federal government does not have authority to force the states to enforce these illegal acts. A state by exercising its 1oth amendment rights, can reject enforcing these laws and decrees. There is no room in the constitution for decrees. Proper and legal legislation is written by congress, not by an executive agency like the EPA. Further, legal legislation does not extend government powers beyond those written into the Constitution. The founding fathers made it difficult to expand government on purpose, because they experience first hand the abuses of a government with near unlimited power.

By expanding the powers of government without constitutional authority, the present and previous administrations have practically destroyed the defenses that have protected us from naked tyranny. Only by rebuilding the walls of states’ rights can we start to turn back the tide of tyranny before the elections later this year. Because the laws are illegal, the states can ignore unfunded mandates, forcing their citizens to pay health care taxes or buy insurance, or forcing their residents to buy carbon credits or pay carbon taxes (assuming the “Cap and Tax” Bill makes it through the senate.

In addition, the 9th Amendment says this:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The founding fathers, having intimate knowledge of the abuses of the power of the government to compel its subjects to purchase goods and services, intentionally declined to give the federal government such a power. It is absurd to think that they would have ever authored a document granting such immense powers to the federal government. If they had wanted such powers in federal hands, they never would have rebelled.

Therefore, it makes reasonable sense for the states to step in to protect the constitutional rights of their citizens, the 9th amendment giving added ammunition to the use of the individual states as bulwarks against an unruly expanding government that seeks to reinterpret (distort) the Constitution to deny even the enumerated rights of the people (such as the distortion that the 2nd amendment is a “collective” right even as the other rights, such as freedom of speech, are seen [rightly and literally so] as individual rights).

Constitution-minded state governments in conjunction with constitution minded individuals and congressman are the perfect remedy for bureaucrats run amok.

Originally published on TheJeffersonDemocrat.com

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

And the pursuit…

Posted by americana83 on December 20, 2009

There are those who insist healthcare is a right. Is it? What is a right? The proper definition from Webster’s 1828 is this:

5. Just claim; legal title; ownership; the legal power of exclusive possession and enjoyment. In hereditary monarchies, a right to the throne vests in the heir on the decease of the king. A deed vests the right of possession in the purchaser of land. Right and possession are very different things. We often have occasion to demand and sue for rights not in possession.

According to the Declaration of independence, there were 3 rights recognized as descending to us from God: The rights to: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, every man has the right to life and liberty, and to pursue that which will bring them happiness. It is very important to note that the founders did not recognize a right to happiness, but a right to the ability to pursue happiness.

For example, it might make one happy to possess the house of their neighbor, but they do not have the right to take their neighbor’s house for their own. However, they do have the right to offer of their own possessions (typically money) to their neighbor in order to purchase the house from them. Likewise, the neighbor has the right to refuse any such offer.

It is on this premise that a free market operates: men and groups of men (companies) compete for things that bring some form of material happiness through trading, purchasing, leasing, borrowing, etc. Such a system preserves the right to seek happiness both of the people providing goods or services and those seeking those goods or services.

However, there are those who seek to make specific goods and services a right. Federal mandates forced banks and financial institutions to loan money to people who had no business buying the houses they were seeking. Why? Because, in a properly operating free market, they could not afford the loans, and had no title or claim to the money the government mandated they be given.

Healthcare is comprised of goods and services provided by people. I have no right to demand that another person sacrifice life or limb or wealth to meet my needs. Likewise, when a government deems goods and services “rights” they are in fact mandating that “happiness” is itself a right. The inherent contradiction is this: the person who gains “free” or reduced goods and services may be happy, but the one being forced to give them up suffers loss. It is comparable to the previous example of a man coveting his neighbor’s house. Is it right that the government step in and force the neighbor to give up his house, regardless of the price offered? Further, not only does the government has no right to force the neighbor to give up his house, it has no right to spend money trusted to them by the taxpayers to do such a thing.

A government mandate that healthcare is a right, sets a dangerous precedent. What if the government then decrees that a job is a right? As surely as healthcare being a right would give the government (unconstitutional) authority to control the medical system, declaring that a job is a right would then give government unprecedented control of what was once a free market.

Indeed, the “Consumer Credit Protection Act of 2009 would grant the president unconstitutional powers to bailout any company he deems worthy, setting the state for dramatic government control. Also troubling are bills which would use tax payer money to pay or augment the wages of private sector workers!

Health care as a right deprives professionals of the right to exchange their services on a free market. It also subverts those who, out of their own personal desire and adherence to Christ’s teachings, would freely offer the fruits of their labor to those in need. Charity is not the duty of the government or the state, but the right of the people to engage in as they pursue happiness.

Progressives can demonize the profit (the right of people to exchange goods and services in a manner that both deem reasonable) motive as much as they want, but the truth is that the promise of profit is what drives many to innovate. People work tirelessly and researchers innovate and capitalists invest capital in hopes of getting a return that exceeds their expenses. Government bureaucrats can call profits “obscene” or “excessive” all day long, however if there was no profit, there would be no jobs, no innovation. If there had been no profit, there would have been no model T. If there had been no profit, we wouldn’t have computers, any number of products. Medicines, advanced medical technologies, and so on.

People who go into the medical field, have the right to seek whatever compensation they deem fit for their services, subject to the willingness of the public to pay for them. Not everybody is seeking profit as the primary motive, and are ready and willing to sacrifice profits for the ability to help those who cannot help themselves. When you force someone to give of their goods or abilities against their will, it is theft. Governments are not exempt from the 10 commandments, as they are headed by men and women. Theft, lying, coveting, lust, fornication and every manner of immorality runs amok in the highest levels of the states and countries. They must never be allowed to be “above the law” as far as offenses against the laws of the land go. Justice must be blind, and it must be granted for peasant and king alike.

The federal government’s role in the whole process is to ensure that the market remains free, patents are issued for the protection of inventions, and to provide redress for grievances which are referred from state and local courts.

Published first on thejeffersondemocrat.com

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 208 other followers