How do Democrats and Republicans stand on abortion issues?
Abortion has been a partisan issue. The vast majority of Democrats are pro-choice and this position is reflected in the 2008 Democratic platform document. The 2008 Republican platform contains a strong endorsement of the pro-life position and advocates legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Most Congressional votes on the abortion issue follow this partisan pattern.
There is no point in talking to you. Like I said you would support obama even if he burned the constitution and smoked the ashes. Your entire life is based on lies and I could talk to you till I'm blue in the face and you still wouldn't get it. My point is all this lying crap you are vomiting adds up and this country is now smelling it. We the people are going to throw all your buddies out of congress and the senate and when we do we are going impeach your communist leader and put his ass behind bars where he belongs. So enjoy it while you can because it will be short lived.
Obama’s Tripling of the National Debt in Pictures Posted August 28th, 2009 at 3.04pm in Entitlements.
This Tuesday the White House released their Mid-Session Review admitting they made a $2 trillion miscalculation in the size of the federal deficit that President Barack Obama’s borrow and spend policies would inflict on our nation. Heritage senior policy analyst Brian Riedl details the carnage: While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the “stimulus” was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession. The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001. In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama’s budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019. The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush. The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.
Thank you all for standing up. We all have to stand up to ignorant Communist liberals. whether or not they intend to destroy American liberty and freedom or not they are still doing it. We must all open our eyes to there deception and band against them if we wish to keep this nation free. So take the pledge with us
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
"There is no point in talking to you. Like I said you would support obama even if he burned the constitution and smoked the ashes."
Phil, I have no idea why you can't have a rational discussion and resort to making up lies again. I would not support Obama if he did that. Although I imagine there were many that would have supported Bush if he did.
"Your entire life is based on lies"
Phil, you're the one here making up lies. I am countering what you say with verifiable facts.
"and I could talk to you till I'm blue in the face and you still wouldn't get it."
No, you don't get it. You are making up things and repeatedly changing the subject when you get called on it with facts.
I would like to have a rational fact-based discussion here. So please just point out anything you think is incorrect and I'd be glad to address it.
"We the people are going to throw all your buddies out of congress and the senate and when we do we are going impeach your communist leader and put his ass behind bars where he belongs."
See there, this is more of your fantasy future crap. We the People are going to do no such thing.
Please try to base the discussion in factual reality. Ok?
June 16, 2004 Defending the Reagan Deficits by Brian M. Riedl Critics of President Reagan’s budget deficits should answer one simple question: Would you trade the collapse of communism, your smaller tax burden, some of your income -- and possibly your job -- in exchange for eliminating that $2.1 trillion in added debt?
Coverage of President Reagan’s legacy has been generally fair, with one exception. Many say, “Reagan masterfully won the cold war … but those budget deficits.” Or “America needed Reagan’s infectious optimism … but those budget deficits.”
Not all debt is bad. Mortgage debt and student loan debt are worthy investments. No one criticizes President Franklin Roosevelt for the massive debt that financed World War II. Yet the commentators criticizing President Reagan for the $2.1 trillion in added debt (all numbers are in today’s dollars) ignore how that debt won the Cold War, lowered the tax burden, and ignited the largest economic boom in American history.
Those who denounce the Reagan deficits should answer the following questions:
Would you bring back the Soviet empire? President Reagan spent $3 trillion on defense, well above the $2.2 trillion baseline. What did that extra $800 billion buy? The end of the Cold War -- saving, perhaps, a billion lives from nuclear extinction.
No less than former Soviet Union Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh has been quoted crediting President Reagan’s defense buildup for the accelerated collapse of the Soviet Union. The fragile communist economy, already stretched thin by substantial defense spending, could not keep up with America’s defense buildup. The possibility of American missile defense, and President Reagan’s powerful rhetoric, further persuaded the Soviets they could not win the Cold War, and induced the reforms that culminated in the collapse of the Soviet empire -- without America firing a single shot. It was the best $800 billion investment America ever made.
Would you raise the top income-tax rate back to 70 percent? Commentators also blame the 1980s deficits on President Reagan’s insistence on reducing taxes in 1981. Yet President Reagan inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. Excessively high tax rates were discouraging work and investment and therefore damaging the economy while raising little revenue. President Reagan removed barriers to entrepreneurship by reducing tax rates, cutting red tape, and stabilizing the economy, thereby encouraging risk takers. The centerpiece of this policy was a radical series of across-the-board tax cuts that lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, and eventually to 28 percent. (It stands at 35 percent today.)
This tax relief unleashed a 20-year surge of entrepreneurship, as the U.S. economy tripled in size. The lasting impact of these policies can be seen in successive presidents, who ratified Reaganomics by refusing to even consider raising taxes back to their 1970s levels. Thus, America continues to benefit from lower tax rates.
Would you trade 2.8 million jobs? Before the Reagan tax relief, the unemployment rate averaged 7.7 percent. Since the tax cuts, it has averaged 5.8 percent -- a difference that translates into 2.8 million jobs per year.
Would you trade $15,000 of your annual income? In the two decades before the Reagan tax relief, the average household’s annual disposable income increased $13,000. In the 20 years following Reagan’s tax cuts, these incomes surged $28,000.
Would you trade the stock market boom? In the two decades before the Reagan tax relief, the S&P 500 increased 120 percent. In the 20 years following Reagan’s tax cuts, the market jumped 575 percent.
And don’t forget the 12 percent inflation rate and 21 percent interest rates that Reaganomics slew.
The Reagan tax cuts replaced the deepest recession since the Great Depression with the largest 20-year boom in American history. Tax revenues actually grew faster in the low-tax 1980s than in the high-tax 1970s, and rising incomes meant the share of taxes paid by the wealthy actually increased throughout the 1980s. Millions of people who had entered the 1980s in the lowest income quintile surged to the highest income quintile by 1990.
All a coincidence? As Reagan would say, “there you go again.”
Sure, President Reagan would have preferred to minimize the deficits by eliminating wasteful spending. However, the only way to persuade a Democratic Congress to accept a defense buildup and pro-growth tax cuts was to agree to their domestic spending demands.
Ironically, the 1980s budget deficits made the 1990s surpluses possible. The budget was balanced by surging tax revenues from a booming, low-tax economy and defense savings brought on by the end of the Cold War.
To paraphrase a classic President Reagan line: Are you better off today than you were in 1980?
Brian Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Distributed nationally on the Knight-Ridder Tribune wire
Faith? By what measure do you consider yourself worthy of talking about faith jomama we have already established earlier you know nothing about the subject. I feel sorry for you joemama because you have no idea where your headed or what awaits you when you die.
Mathue 10:33 "33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."
I told you. You'd better stop because your going to get yourself into a hell of a lot of trouble. I pray you get saved soon. if you don't God will strip your very spirit from your soul. Yes there is a difference.
Your spirit is the vary breath of God. Its the part of you that makes you self aware and is responsible for every positive and good thing within you.
Your soul is who you choose to be. Its every belief you choose to follow from the day you take your first breath.
When you go to hell your spirit is stripped from your soul and all thats left is agony and despair. The fire and brimstone you feel is a product of finely knowing the truth and also knowing that you will never be with God. Just a cold, dark, agonizing half life because you are no longer self aware.
This is the last time I'm going to warn you. Talk about politics if you want but don't tempt God to smite you because he will. I'm not saying these things to attack you. I'm saying this out of true concern for your well being.
The Senate Health Bill: Federal Micromanagement of Health Insurance
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) giant new health care bill contains the same provisions as the other House and Senate bills to establish Federal micromanagement of all private health insurance.
Like the others, the Reid bill would subject all private health insurance — whether purchased from an insurance company by employer groups or individuals, or provided through an employer or union self-insured plan — to detailed Federal regulation.
These so called “insurance reform” provisions amount to a de facto nationalization of health insurance and they would produce that effect regardless of whether or not Congress creates another, new government-run health insurance plan.
Benefit Control. Of particular concern to patients should be that the detailed benefits in their health insurance coverage will soon be determined by the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. Last week, Americans got a foretaste of what Federal health benefit regulation means when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation for breast cancer screening (mammography) for women aged 40 to 50 from “B” (recommended) to “C” (not recommended).
Normally, such recommendations would not create controversy as, until now, they have been merely suggestions to guide providers and health plans in making their own decisions for their patients or members. But under the proposed legislation they would take on the force of law, since the legislation will require all plans — starting in 2011 in the Reid bill — to provide coverage (with no patient co-pays) for, “items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force.”
Thus, a decision by a, heretofore, obscure HHS Task Force to recommend a specific medical service would in the future carry the force of law, and would impose additional costs on insurers and employer health plans. Conversely, any decision by the Task Force to issue a “C” or “D” rating (not recommended) — as it did last week in the case of breast cancer screening — will be henceforth viewed by insurers and employers as a justification for discontinuing coverage.
Cost Impact. Over time the more specific HHS gets in its benefit requirements — driving up the cost of coverage — the greater the incentive will be for insurers and employers to control those escalating costs by not covering anything that they aren’t absolutely required to cover by federal law.
The eventual result will be that the only medical care paid for through private health insurance will be the specific, items and services required by federal regulations promulgated by HHS. At that point, Congress will have effectively nationalized the entire American health insurance system under the supervision of the Secretary of HHS — regardless of whether or not it also sets up yet another government health insurance program in the process.
Criminalizing Health-Care Freedom Obamacare supporters would use the brute force of criminal law for social engineering.
By Walsh & von Spakovsky
The “reformers” in the White House and the House of Representatives have made all too plain their vision of the federal government’s power to coerce individual Americans to make the “right” health-care choices. The highly partisan bill the House just passed includes severe penalties for individuals who do not purchase insurance approved by the federal government. By neatly tucking these penalties into the IRS code, the so-called reformers have brought them under the tax-enforcement power of the federal government.
The Congressional Budget Office stated on October 29 that the House bill would generate $167 billion in revenue from “penalty payments.” Individual Americans are expected to pay $33 billion of these penalties, with employers paying the rest. Former member of Congress and Heritage Foundation fellow Ernest Istook has concluded that for this revenue goal to be met, 8 to 14 million individual Americans will have to be fined over the next ten years, quite an incentive for federal bureaucrats.
Who will be included among those subject to civil and criminal penalties if this provision becomes law? For starters, any family of four whose combined income in 2016 is above $102,100 ($88,200 in today’s dollars) and that chooses to pay all its medical expenses out of pocket rather than pay the $15,000 a year that the CBO says will be the lowest-priced insurance option for families. Also any healthy twentysomething in a city with high costs of living who chooses to take the risk of going uninsured. And by outlawing the popular high-deductible plans that are currently among the lowest-cost health-insurance solutions, the new law would only increase the number of Americans on the rolls of those who cannot afford insurance. The CBO itself estimates that at least 18 million Americans will still be uninsured in 2016.
The fact that the penalties for noncompliance are enforceable by criminal prosecution is a chilling abuse of the prosecutorial power, which Columbia law professor Herbert Wechsler pointed out 50 years ago is the greatest power that any government uses against its citizens. Using it to enforce one particular notion of appropriate insurance coverage is nothing less than a tyrannical assertion of raw government power over the private lives and economic rights of individual Americans.
How would the penalties work? As a starting point, taxpaying Americans who do not satisfy the law’s insurance requirement would be penalized on their federal income-tax returns. Their tax burden would be increased by the lesser of (a) the amount the government decides they should pay for government-mandated health coverage or (b) 2.5 percent of their adjusted income above a filing threshold. An otherwise law-abiding American who fails to pay this “tax penalty” could be criminally prosecuted and sentenced to a year in prison if the feds deem his refusal to be a misdemeanor.
Worse, if the feds decide the refusal is felonious, the culprit may spend five years in federal prison and be fined up to $250,000. You could end up in a cell in Leavenworth even if you have paid all your family’s medical bills yourself.
By transforming a refusal or failure to comply with a government mandate into a federal tax violation, the “progressives” are using the brute force of criminal law to engage in social engineering. This represents an oppressive, absolutist view of government power.
What does President Obama think of the criminalization of Americans’ economic choices? He trivialized the issue when he told ABC’s Sunlen Miller he didn’t think the question of the appropriateness of possible jail time is the “biggest question” the House and Senate are facing right now.
We beg to differ.
The idea of imprisoning or fining Americans who don’t knuckle under to an unprecedented government mandate to purchase a particular insurance product should outrage anyone who believes in the exceptional promises and opportunities afforded by our basic American freedoms. The idea isn’t progressive but highly regressive, the equivalent of reinstituting debtors’ prisons, a punishment Americans eliminated 160 years ago.
Of course, the prospect of winding up in prison for failing to maintain government-mandated insurance may be of no personal concern to the president or members of Congress. They each receive a Cadillac version of health-care coverage funded by those same American taxpayers who, in the reformers’ vision, will be federal criminals if they have the audacity to make their own decisions about medical insurance.
If the public’s objections to this provision grow loud enough, we will undoubtedly be told that criminal prosecution will be used only against really bad actors. But that same reasoning was used to justify the law that sent inventor and entrepreneur Krister Evertson to federal prison for nearly two years. Evertson testified in July at a bipartisan House hearing investigating the overcriminalization of conduct in America.
In May 2004, FBI agents driving a black Suburban and wearing SWAT gear ran Evertson off the road near his mother’s home in Wasilla, Alaska. When Evertson was face down on the pavement with automatic weapons trained on him, an FBI agent told him he was being arrested because he hadn’t put a federally mandated sticker on a UPS package.
A jury in federal court in Alaska acquitted Evertson, but the feds weren’t finished. They reached into their bag of over 4,500 federal crimes and found another ridiculous crime they could use to prosecute him: supposedly “abandoning” hazardous waste (actually storing, in appropriate containers, valuable materials he was using for the clean-fuel technology he was developing). A second jury convicted him, and he spent 21 months in an Oregon federal prison.
Many of the Americans who will surely ignore the government health-insurance mandate may not wind up in prison. But if noncompliance becomes too widespread, any one of us could become the example the feds prosecute to make sure the iron hand of the new Washington is clearly visible to other potential “criminals.”
This is Chicago-style hardball, backed by the full power and resources of the U.S. government. It illustrates both Obamacare supporters’ view of the appropriate uses of governmental power and the lengths to which they are willing to go to force us to do what they believe is best. It is a view unbefitting a free people.
Unless this paternalistic juggernaut is stopped, Americans will lose some of their most fundamental freedoms, and the power of the federal government to impose novel requirements in every facet of our personal lives will have become virtually unlimited.
—Brian W. Walsh is senior legal research fellow, and Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow and manager of the Civil Justice Reform Initiative, at the Heritage Foundation.
Phil you paste from another right wing blog that you don't bother to source "Defending the Reagan Deficits".
I love how how you were so concerned about the current deficit saving the economy but then don't care when Reagan ran up the deficit. Too funny!
"Faith? By what measure do you consider yourself worthy of talking about faith jomama we have already established earlier you know nothing about the subject."
So when did I bring up faith Phil? What we've established before is that you know nothing on the subject and have no idea what awaits you when you die.
Why are you trying to take this into your deluded religious crap again.
You keep trying to act self righteous and use god when it's inappropriate and he will strip you of your soul and send you to hell without your dinner. I'm not going to warn you of your sinful ways again.
Your fantasy world will get your whipped by satan for eternity. Also if you continue to read ridiculous sites like the Heritage Foundation you're likely to believe anything and satan will punish you for that to.
FACT: You can keep your current insurance if you like it. So your article's minimum cost is completely ridiculous.
FACT: "Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time."
Lets' repeat that...
"Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time."
"Section 501 of the House health care reform bill provides that an individual must be "covered by acceptable coverage at all times." "Acceptable coverage" includes "qualified health benefits plan coverage," "grandfathered health insurance coverage," "Medicare," "Medicaid," coverage provided to members of the armed forces and their dependents, "coverage under the veteran's health care program," people who receive health care "through the Indian Health Service," or other coverage deemed acceptable by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If a person does not have acceptable health care coverage, Section 501 imposes a tax on that person "not to exceed the applicable national average premium"
DECEMBER 18, 2009 Unconstitutional Mandate Attacked from the Left
The Left is starting to recognize some of the perils of health care legislation that would create a whole new way for government to control its citizens.
Democracy for America (run by Howard Dean’s brother) is now warning its left-wing allies, “The bill doesn’t actually “cover” 30-million more Americans – instead it makes them criminals if they don’t buy insurance.”
How true. Projections are that 8-million to 14-million Americans would pay billions of dollars for failing to buy insurance under the House bill.
To Democracy for America, this is wrong, but only because a government-run “public option” insurance plan is out of the Senate version of the bill. However, restoring a public option doesn’t fix the wrongness of having government dictate how you must spend your money.
As The Heritage Foundation’s legal scholars have documented, such an individual mandate violates the U.S. Constitution by exceeding the limited and enumerated powers of the federal government.
Taxes are unpopular but people understand why they exist. Health care bills also want to dictate how we must spend our money. Whether you think you want it or need it or can afford it, you must buy health insurance.
But the proposed legislation promises to make that insurance more expensive than ever to buy. “Under the House and Senate bills, taxpayers are going to pay more for health insurance,” concludes Dennis Smith, who formerly administered the federal Medicaid program.
It’s a triple whammy. Pay higher taxes for health care reform. Pay higher premiums for health care coverage. And lose more of your personal freedom.
NOVEMBER 19, 2009 The Senate Health Bill: Medicaid and CLASS Act Provisions
The 2074 page Reid Health Bill (H.R. 3590) generally follows the Senate Finance and HELP versions on Medicaid and in the creation of a new health care program, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act.
Curiously, in the short term (2010-2013), the Reid bill helps fewer people gain coverage than the Senate Finance bill. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates 2 million will lose Medicaid/SCHIP coverage each year in this period compared to current law. But, by 2019, Medicaid/SCHIP enrollment will increase by 15 million, accounting for nearly half of all individuals who will gain coverage.
More Welfare. The Reid bill expands Medicaid eligibility for people below 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), significantly changing it to a pure income based federal entitlement. It also raises, then lowers, the federal matching rates for different populations and states. In a provision aimed at Louisiana, the Reid bill provides a special “disaster recovery” match rate for states that have had a major disaster declared (Section 2006). CBO estimates that state spending under the Medicaid provisions will still increase by $25 billion.
Of course, there are millions of persons at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level who get private health insurance. The Reid bill would, based on all previous experience, guarantee a further crowding out of private health care coverage.
States will be alarmed at the aggressive encroachment of federal authority over the management of the Medicaid program. The provisions of Section 2801, Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) are clearly intended to increase federal officials’ direct control over the program. In addition, states will become vulnerable to federal lawsuits by individuals under the expanded definition of medical assistance provided in Section 2304. This will likely be used to overturn recent federal court decisions won by states that limit private lawsuits against them.
The Reid bill will allow legal immigrants who have been prohibited from receiving public benefits, including Medicaid, for 5 years from the date of entry into the U.S. to become eligible for the new federal subsidies. Curiously, this raises an equity issue that has been overlooked: there would be 60 million U.S. citizens excluded from the new, generous federal subsidies. Instead of receiving the new subsidies, the Reid bill would create a rigid, two-tiered system of health care. Individuals at the lowest income levels would be forced into Medicaid, while individuals at higher income levels will qualify for generous subsidies worth more than Medicaid on a per capita spending basis. The Reid bill further promotes this class- based inequity by allowing non-citizens to secure the federal subsidies while lower income Americans cannot.
A New Program. Despite concern and criticism that the CLASS Act is not fiscally sound over the long term, it has been included as a budget gimmick. The federal government will collect revenues for 5 years before paying out any benefits. This allows the Reid bill to offset the cost of the Senate bill by $72 billion over 10 years. The CLASS Act would create a new federal program for long-term care insurance to compete against private insurance. Individuals who have paid into the program for 5 years who experience limitations in their activities of daily living will become eligible for cash benefits. These limitations do not meet the current disability test which opens the program to abuse.
Obamacare is not a good fit for women First Lady Michelle Obama’s video on health care reform raises important issues about female patients who are falling through the cracks of the U.S. health care system. It’s not a perfect system, but Nina Owcharenko explains that ObamaCare would take women and the rest of the country in the wrong direction. Having to depend on politicians or faceless bureaucrats to make decisions about their care doesn’t empower women or improve their health care situations. Plus, the Obama health reform agenda isn’t what women want. A majority of female respondents told the Independent Women’s Forum in a recent survey that they don’t think government-run health care is best for them or their families.
Health bill will hit Medicare Advantage Despite claims that Medicare beneficiaries won't see any cut in benefits, the legislation in Congress would do just that. Medicare Advantage, used by nearly one in four seniors on Medicare, is a system of private plans that beneficiaries can use to receive additional services. While private plans in Medicare Advantage get more payments than traditional Medicare, those payments mean more benefits covered for seniors. The Congressional Budget Office director contradicted the White House by testifying that Medicare benefits will be cut, meaning seniors will have fewer private options for their health care needs. If lawmakers are going to secure any "savings" in Medicare, they should go back into making the program sustainable.
Congress dismisses transparency promises This past summer, hundreds of thousands of Americans attended town hall meetings and demanded their representatives be more upfront about the health care legislation being crafted to overhaul one-sixth of the U.S. economy. But Congress continues to operate in a shroud of ambiguity. Members of the Senate Finance Committee even defeated an amendment that would have required Congress to post the actual bill online for at least 72 hours before voting on it. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) went as far to say actual bills use arcane language that ordinary Americans wouldn’t understand. Regardless, the public has a right to have time (at least five days) to read the bills before they're voted on. That’s what President Obama campaigned on and he should hold Congress to keep that promise.
Two major reforms conservatives support America's health care system is one-sixth of the entire economy -- larger than Britain's. Restructuring something that large and complex in one massive bill rammed through Congress is a fool's errand. We must incrementally reform health care in stages, by letting the 50 states act as laboratories for solutions. Two major reforms already have broad support and can move us forward: 1) Give states more freedom from federal rules to experiment with reform measures, like medical malpractice reform and allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. 2) Fix the tax treatment of health insurance in a budget-neutral way so that people can buy it outside of their workplace. That way, you would no longer lose your coverage if you change or lose your job.
Two major reforms conservatives support America's health care system is one-sixth of the entire economy -- larger than Britain's. Restructuring something that large and complex in one massive bill rammed through Congress is a fool's errand. We must incrementally reform health care in stages, by letting the 50 states act as laboratories for solutions. Two major reforms already have broad support and can move us forward: 1) Give states more freedom from federal rules to experiment with reform measures, like medical malpractice reform and allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. 2) Fix the tax treatment of health insurance in a budget-neutral way so that people can buy it outside of their workplace. That way, you would no longer lose your coverage if you change or lose your job.
Wow Phil, you can't think for yourself at all without heritage.org telling you what to think.
"Having to depend on politicians or faceless bureaucrats to make decisions about their care doesn’t empower women or improve their health care situations."
FACT: Politicians and federal bureaucrats won't be making decisions about their care.
It's insurance Phil. Just like Medicare your doctors still make the decisions.
Fix our current federal health deficit first While the United States does have a huge deficit problem we can't afford not to fix, the Obama administration is focusing on the wrong aspect in trying to create a new federal health program. Congress needs to address the spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- programs that have existed for decades -- that are primed to explode. Long-term excess costs for Social Security and Medicare alone are $43 trillion. When added to the national debt, that is about $184,000 for every man, woman and child in America. We should focus on reforming the federal health programs so that they'll be sustainable for generations to come.
En Español: Don't shortchange Hispanics Israel Ortega, senior media associate and Spanish newspaper columnist, discusses why Obamacare shortchanges Hispanics in America and why it’s a wrongheaded approach to effectively provide health insurance for those who need it. True health reform will put the individual -- and not the government -- behind the steering wheel.
Israel Ortega, columnista y asociado de prensa para la Fundación Heritage habla acerca en como el plan del Presidente no le conviene a la comunidad hispana. Una verdadera reforma nos pondrÃa detrás del volante para decidir por si mismos que plan mas nos conviene -- no el gobierno.
Millions will lose their private coverage The White House's assertion that you'll be able to keep your health insurance if you like it is wrong. With incentives like employer mandates and a public plan, companies will find it easier to pay a tax or fine and dump their employees out of their existing private coverage and onto a public plan or other alternatives. Moreover, under current legislation, the government would have the authority to determine the benefit packages that Americans get, from medical treatments and procedures to drugs and devices. At the end of the day, Americans will get what the government decides they can receive in terms of health benefits.
Congressmen opted out of public option Contrary to the White House's video, member of Congress in the House Ways and Means Committee already have exempted themselves from a government-run health plan with the defeat of an amendment by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV). The amendment, which would have required members of Congress to enroll in the newly created public health insurance plan, failed with 21 Democrats voting no. Here's the truth behind the entirely private coverage options offered to Congress and government employees through the successful Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
Special-needs patients face fewer choices Since many Americans with special needs, or their caretakers, use Medicare Advantage plans as a way to pay for their higher medical costs, they have every right to be concerned about the reduced funding congressional leadership is proposing to pay for its massive health care legislation. Dennis Smith, who worked tirelessly to improve options for disabled Americans when he was at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, notes that H.R. 3200 would reduce reimbursement for Medicare Advantage plans, resulting in fewer health insurance plans tailored to those with disabilities being available. That would mean fewer choices for people with special needs, not more as the White House claims.
Obama's plan will hurt small businesses Proposed solutions to pay for a new public health care program have included taxing the wealthy. In reality, this will impact thousands of small business owners who are creating the jobs and wages for most Americans. These taxes will hurt small businesses by keeping them from expanding and adding new jobs. It will hurt workers by stagnating wage growth or even eliminating jobs. New research from Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis reveals these new taxes could mean 400,000 employees could lose their job each year. Spending and new taxes will not be the way to bend the health care cost-curve downward. It will only exacerbate the problems businesses already face.
88 million will see their coverage disappear Despite claims from the White House that it’s “disinformation,” the Lewin Group — a health econometrics firm that has been cited by think tanks and lawmakers across the ideological spectrum -- forecasts more than 88 million Americans could see their current employer-based health coverage disappear under the House drafted bill that includes a new public plan. Part of the shift would be the result of employers making the economic decision to drop their current plans in response to financial incentives built into the bill.
Plus, a health plan modeled after Medicare won’t necessarily be more efficient. American taxpayers could end up subsidizing a health plan that would have an unfair advantage in the marketplace, driving many insurers out of the marketplace and limiting patients’ choices.
Medicaid has a long history of rationing The creation of a publicly run health insurance option is no laughing matter. Government-run health care programs like Medicaid have a history of low-quality care. By reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, Americans on these programs have a harder time finding a doctor who will accept them as a patient, thus rationing their access to care. The White House might accuse insurers of rationing care, but research shows patients with Medicaid and SCHIP end up in emergency rooms more often than the privately insured and even the uninsured.
Wow look -> Satisfaction with Medicare is higher than private insurance (which rations your care).
"Consider some results obtained by the same Kaiser tracking poll. When asked how much they trust various health care players "to put your interests above their own," respondents rank doctors (78 percent trust "a lot" or "some") and nurses (74 percent) at the top of the list.
Among those insured through Medicare, however, "the Medicare program" (68 percent) scores nearly as high. Among those with private insurance, "your health insurance company" earns much less trust (48 percent).
Perhaps that result is just about perceptions of corporate interests and not about patient experience?"
Honestly joemama you aren't worth my time. I've presented facts that have been fact checked but you don't care. You have your one agenda that aligns with obama and you will not consider anything else whether it is true or not. So why would I want to try to convince you when I know no matter what I say you wont listen. All you do is take partial facts from radical left wing pinheads like yourself and twist them around to suet your cause which is the same as obamas.
But like it or not this country is seeing what he is. A radical left wing socialist who wants to force us to give the government as much money as he can unconstitutionally steel from us. You can throw as many tantrums as you want. There still on there way out of office.
@Phil Yous said "Honestly joemama you aren't worth my time. I've presented facts that have been fact checked but you don't care."
No Phil, you have posted articles from right wing fear mongering blogs that you refuse to source. What you said i have debunked time and again with actual facts.
"You have your one agenda that aligns with obama and you will not consider anything else whether it is true or not."
No Phil, I am interested in the the facts which are easy enough to find. You have one agenda which aligns against Obama and you will not consider anything else.
I've asked you to point out a single thing I said that was false and you were incapable of doing it. I have proved what you claim is false time and again.
You won't listen to reason to matter how plain in front of your face it is. You just keep posting lies from radical right wing fear mongering pinheads like yourself.
While I post verifiable facts from credible sources (which I link to instead of plagiarizing).
But like it or not this country is seeing you people for what they are. Radical right wing un-christianlike fascists who want to deny the weakest among us from having access to decent healthcare.
You can cry and whine and act like a baby all you want but your fantasy world isn't going to become real.
Oh and hey Phil. The offer is still open to debate actual facts. If you have anything else you'd like debunked or think something I've posted is incorrect please feel free to point it out specifically.
Let me remind you pinhead we live in a free country and I can post what ever the hell I want. I'm not plagiarizing anything. I have listed my sources you are just not intelligent enough to read them. If anybody else wants to know where I'm quoting my sources from it is The heritage foundation there website is: http://www.heritage.org/ although it probably won't be good enough for pinheads like joemama.
That's comedy gold, right there. Phil cited heritage.org. The punchline couldn't have been better. Next, he'll provide scientific research from Fox News and biographical information from Wikipedia.
However, Phil has a point. We live in a free country, so Phil can be as clueless as he wants to be and can post plenty of junk anywhere he wants. He's not plagiarizing. I call it regurgitation. Oh, and it's "their" not "there". That just added the exclamation mark to the punchline.
Let me remind you pinhead that plagiarizing is wrong.
You keep posting crap and not citing the source. There's one example after another up there. You don't put anything in quotes and you don't link to the original article.
Most 3rd graders learn about this but maybe you didn't make it that far. You are taking full articles from other sites and posting them as if they are your own thoughts if you don't link to the original article but I guess dumbasses like you never learned this simple idea.
If you're going to copy/paste articles from radical right wing blogs then at least link tot he original article.
This is the first time you even linked to the site. And most 3rd graders would tell you that's not even an acceptable way to do it. That's like writing a paper and citing your source as "the library". Link to the article.
@ Bob "However, Phil has a point. We live in a free country, so Phil can be as clueless as he wants to be and can post plenty of junk anywhere he wants. He's not plagiarizing. I call it regurgitation."
I work on public facing websites all the time and the common requirement is if you are going to copy and article from somewhere else you need to make it clear that you did not write the article and link to the original.
I think Phil was just trying to hide that he gets all his info fed to him from a radical right wing blog.
jomama and bob LOL You guys are the original pinheads. you see folks; This is what ignorant liberals do. They are presented with facts, it threatens them, and there only defense is to mock it. Tell me from the beginning of this blog who have been the two main misfits in the bunch. Mostly everyone else has loved the cartoon and agrees with it. It seems they are running out of friends LOL. So go ahead mock The heritage foundation. If your only defense is to mock it you have a very week argument. You still have yet to prove anything they said to be wrong. So please continue. Keep acting like a couple of laughing hyenas. it shows us all your real agendas and level of intelligence.
So Everyone why don't we take a look at the righters at The Heritage Foundation. After all if these too pinheads don't like them they have to be doing something right.
Robert Alt Senior Legal Fellow and Deputy Director, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies E-mail Robert Alt
areas of expertise: constitutional law, civil rights law, election law, separation of powers, antiterrorism law, and the law of war
view all papers by Robert Alt
summary: Robert Alt is a Senior Legal Fellow and Deputy Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Alt has written and lectured extensively on issues of constitutional law, with particular emphasis on civil rights law, election law, separation of powers, antiterrorism law, and the law of war. He also has extensive first-hand experience in scrutinizing the legal implications of the War on Terror after spending five months in Iraq in 2004. During this time, he observed and wrote about the shift to the Transitional Administrative Law and the transfer of governmental control.
Prior to joining Heritage for a second time in 2008, Alt taught national security law, criminal law, and legislation at Case Western University School of Law in Cleveland. He first served at Heritage as Deputy Congressional Liaison from 1997 to 1999.
In addition to his Heritage duties, Alt is also a Fellow in Legal and International Affairs at the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University in Ohio, where he has taught constitutional law and political parties and interest groups.
Alt has testified before Congress on the legality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program and proposed revisions to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and before the Federal Election Commission concerning issues of constitutional and administrative law.
He has published articles in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, The Daily Standard, The San Diego Union -Tribune and is a regular contributor to National Review Online, where he has published more than 60 articles. He also has provided commentary on CNN, Fox News, and on numerous syndicated radio programs.
Alt graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 2002, after which he clerked for Judge Alice Batchelder on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. In 1998, he also received a bachelor's degree in political science and philosophy from Azusa Pacific University in California.
William W. Beach Director, Center for Data Analysis E-mail William W. Beach
areas of expertise: Economic analysis, Social Security, and Tax Reform
view all papers by William W. Beach
summary: As Director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, William Beach is the think tank's chief "number cruncher": He oversees Heritage's original statistical research on taxes, Social Security, crime, education, trade and a host of other issues, ensuring it's both rigorous in its technical scholarship and produced in time to help inform the public debate over the issue.
Under Beach's leadership, Heritage has acquired one of the largest privately-held public-policy databases in the United States, as well as a variety of peer-reviewed analytical models. Together, these acquisitions allow the center to produce some of the most sophisticated calculations done anywhere in the world.
In addition to acquiring analytical models, Beach helps build them. He was instrumental in developing the state-of-the-art econometric models Heritage uses to estimate in detail how proposed tax changes will likely affect individuals, families, and various business sectors-as well as the overall national economy. Indeed, the center has become the leading proponent of dynamic scoring, which shows how much federal revenues change when the U.S. economy reacts to a tax increase or a tax cut.
Under Beach's direction, the center has progressed to the point that it regularly competes with the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Joint Committee on Taxation, or any other government agency when it comes to "scoring" potential costs and benefits of legislation. Indeed, federal lawmakers often ask the center to analyze legislation they have drafted, knowing they can get a reliable estimate more quickly from the CDA than from any Capitol Hill agency.
Prior to joining Heritage in 1995, Beach held a variety of posts in the public, private and academic sectors. He served as a litigation economist with two Kansas City, Mo., law firms-Campbell & Bysfield and Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas – where he specialized in analyzing how anti-trust legal remedies would alter product pricing and availability. Later, as an economist for Missouri's Office of Budget and Planning, he designed and managed the state's econometric model and advised the governor on revenue and economic issues. After a stint in the corporate headquarters of Sprint United Inc., Beach moved to the Washington, D.C., area to serve as president of the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University.
A graduate of Washburn University in Topeka, Kan., Beach also holds a master's degree in history and economics from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Beach also is a visiting fellow at the University of Buckingham in Great Britain.
Robert A. Book, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow in Health Economics, Center for Data Analysis E-mail Robert A. Book, Ph.D.
areas of expertise: Health Economics
view all papers by Robert A. Book, Ph.D.
summary: Robert A. Book is a Senior Research Fellow in Health Economics at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis.
Before joining Heritage in December 2008, Book taught economics courses adapted to the needs of senior military officers and civilian national security professionals at the National Defense University 's Industrial College of the Armed Forces. While there as an Assistant Professor, he annually served on a faculty team that led a group of 16 students through an in-depth, five-month study of the health care industry.
Book also has taught economics and mathematics courses at George Mason University, Loyola University in Chicago and the University of Chicago. He also worked as a Senior Associate for The Lewin Group, a health care policy research and consulting firm in Falls Church, Va. While there, he conducted a detailed study of the cost structure of the specialty pharmacy industry in the wake of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act.
At Lewin, he also analyzed the growth of diagnostic imaging and cost changes resulting from improved technology; forecasted effects of Medicare payment changes on the long-term, acute care, and rehabilitation hospital industries; analyzed costs in pharmacy and physician practices; and studied the impact of medication therapy management by pharmacists.
In 2002, Book earned a doctorate in economics and an MBA from the University of Chicago for his thesis on "Public Research Funding and Private Innovation: The Case of the Pharmaceutical Industry." He also has a master's in computational and applied mathematics from Rice University, and bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history from Duke University.
An Eagle Scout, Book serves as Scoutmaster for Troop 1818 in Fairfax, Va.
Ted R. Bromund Margaret Thatcher Senior Research Fellow, The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom E-mail Ted R. Bromund
areas of expertise: International Affairs, International Security
view all papers by Ted R. Bromund
summary: Dr. Ted R. Bromund was born in Wooster, Ohio. He received his BA from Grinnell College in Iowa in 1991, and his Ph.D. from Yale University in 1999, where he was advised by Prof. Paul Kennedy, for a thesis on the first British application to the EEC. From 1999 to 2008, he was the Associate Director of International Security Studies at Yale, which emphasizes teaching and research in international, diplomatic, and strategic history, and grand strategy. In that capacity, he was responsible for event planning and organization, report and grant writing, fundraising, and fellowship programs.
He was also a Lecturer in History, and, from 2004, a Lecturer in International Affairs, with responsibility for designing, administering, and teaching the core security studies curriculum in Yale's International Relations MA program. He spoke regularly to campus, alumni, and other audiences on historical and contemporary topics, has published articles and reviews in a variety of scholarly journals, and is a regular commentator on current affairs in Commentary and the Yorkshire Post (UK). Bromund is also the author of the book chapter, "A Just War: Tony Blair and the End of Saddam's Iraq," in The Blair Legacy: Politics, Policy, Governance, and Foreign Affairs (2009).
Peter Brookes Senior Fellow, National Security Affairs and Chung Ju-Yung Fellow for Policy Studies, Asian Studies Center E-mail Peter Brookes
areas of expertise: Foreign Policy, National Security, Asia, Russia, Middle East, Intelligence, Terrorism, Cyberwarfare and Missile Defense
view all papers by Peter Brookes
summary: As a Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs and the Chung-Ju Yung Fellow for Policy Studies, Peter Brookes develops and communicates The Heritage Foundation's stance on foreign policy and national security affairs through media appearances, research, published articles, congressional testimony and speaking engagements.
He is also in his second term as a congressionally-appointed member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission and served on the advisory committee of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism in 2008. Brookes is also an Adjunct Professor at the National Defense University .
Since joining Heritage in 2002, Brookes has become a major presence in print media with more than 300 published articles in at least 50 newspapers, journals and magazines. He is a columnist for the nation's fifth largest newspaper, the New York Post . His column also runs in several other domestic and foreign newspapers, and on numerous news and opinion Web sites.
He is also a Contributing Editor for Armed Forces Journal magazine and a contributor to Townhall magazine. Brookes has been quoted by many of the world's largest newspapers and magazines. In 2005, he published A Devil's Triangle: Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction and Rogue States (Rowman & Littlefield; paperback 2007).
Brookes also is a force in electronic media as well, with at least 1,300 appearances as a commentator on TV and radio. Channels he has appeared on include ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, BBC, CBC, VOA, Al Hurra and Radio Free Asia. He has hosted major market talk radio programs, including XM satellite radio.
On Capitol Hill, Brookes has testified numerous times before both the Senate and House of Representatives as both a public official and as a private citizen. He is also a frequent public speaker around the country and the world, making more than 200 addresses in 15 countries, including participation in State Department public diplomacy speaking programs in Japan, Germany, Australia, Poland, Austria, Ukraine, Fiji and Papua New Guinea .
Peter Brookes Senior Fellow, National Security Affairs and Chung Ju-Yung Fellow for Policy Studies, Asian Studies Center E-mail Peter Brookes
areas of expertise: Foreign Policy, National Security, Asia, Russia, Middle East, Intelligence, Terrorism, Cyberwarfare and Missile Defense
Before coming to Heritage, Brookes served in the George W. Bush administration as the Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Asian and Pacific Affairs, where he was responsible for U.S. defense policy for 38 countries and five bilateral defense alliances. Prior to the Bush administration, he worked as a Professional Staff Member with the House Committee on International Relations. He also served with the CIA, the State Department at the United Nations, and in the private sector defense and intelligence industry.
Brookes is currently a doctoral candidate at Georgetown University . He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy (bachelor's degree in engineering); the Defense Language Institute (diploma in Russian); the Naval War College (diploma); and the Johns Hopkins University (master's degree in government). He has studied German and Polish.
He has traveled to more than 50 countries on five continents and has served as an international election observer in Indonesia and Cambodia . He has served in political positions at the local, state and national level, including being a drafter of the Republican National Committee's 2000 foreign policy platform at the Philadelphia convention. Brookes served as an adviser to the 2000 and 2004 Bush campaigns on foreign policy and has briefed
the 2008 presidential candidates.
Brookes' awards and honors include: Navy League of New York's Frank Knox Media Award, Joint Service Commendation Medal; Navy Commendation Medal (3 awards); Navy Achievement Medal; several naval and joint unit awards; the Defense Language Institute's Kellogg Award; the Joint Chiefs of Staff service badge; and Naval Aviation Observer wings. He also competed in wrestling and judo, winning a number of honors.
Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D. Vice President, Domestic and Economic Policy Studies, Domestic Policy E-mail Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D.
areas of expertise: Health Care, Budget, Social Security, and Urban Studies
view all papers by Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D.
summary: Stuart M. Butler has guided The Heritage Foundation's domestic policy research for more than 30 years.
As Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy Studies, Butler's steady hand has helped shape the debate on critical issues from health care and Social Security to welfare reform and tax relief.
By the 1980s, National Journal, Washington's premier magazine of politics and policy, had named him as "one of 150 individuals outside government who have the greatest influence on decision-making in Washington." Two decades later, Butler continues to be in the thick of the action.
In a recent example, he is a regular speaker on the national Fiscal Wake-Up Tour. He joined a group of nonpartisan, ideologically diverse budget realists who travel the country seeking to build public support for tackling the growing threat posed by runaway federal spending on the "Big Three" entitlement programs-Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
Featuring former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker and experts from Heritage, the Brookings Institution and the Concord Coalition, the tour has visited dozens of cities to meet with editorial boards, business leaders, academics and town hall gatherings of regular citizens. Even before the recession took hold, regional and national media--including CBS' 60 Minutes--devoted attention to the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour.
Butler joined Heritage in 1979, when it was a relatively obscure conservative think tank, as a policy analyst specializing in urban issues.
His first widely recognized policy proposal was the concept of "enterprise zones" to encourage development in blighted neighborhoods. How? By offering tax and regulatory relief to entrepreneurs who were willing to start businesses there.
Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D. Vice President, Domestic and Economic Policy Studies, Domestic Policy E-mail Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D.
areas of expertise: Health Care, Budget, Social Security, and Urban Studies
Butler introduced the idea in an early paper for Heritage. It caught the attention of then-Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY), who co-sponsored legislation implementing the concept with then-Rep. Robert Garcia, a Democrat from the South Bronx. Today, at least 70 zones exist in cities across the country.
Butler grew up in Shropshire, in the west midlands of England. The son of a mechanic who left school at age 13, he says his modest roots strongly influenced both his personal values and his approach to policy. Although he holds bachelor's degrees in physics and math, and also economics, and a doctorate in American economic history from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, Butler believes that empowering ordinary people--not experts or government officials--is the best way to solve social problems.
Butler became a U.S. citizen in 1996. In his early days as a policy analyst, he visited tenements in the South Bronx and Washington, D.C., to discuss with residents how best to address the festering problems of public housing. The encounters led him to help design such approaches as tenant ownership and school choice.
Butler's abiding passion is health care reform. He has argued for a restructured system based on consumer choice and state-led innovation. In 1989's "A National Health System for America," Butler and Heritage colleague Edmund F. Haislmaier explained how distortions in the tax code created a health care system that denies individual choice and drives up costs.
When President Clinton began his bid to federalize health care upon taking office in 1993, Butler was one of the nation's most-quoted experts on why the Clinton proposal wouldn't work. But he also consulted with lawmakers to develop an alternative reform.
At the time, liberal pundits were among those who thought the Butler approach was superior. Michael Kinsley, then editor of The New Republic, called it "the simplest, most promising, and in an important way, the most progressive idea for health care reform."
More recently, National Journal again noted Butler's influence, calling him one of Washington's 12 "key players" on health care. In the debate over President Obama's health proposals, Butler again argued for an alternative based on consumer choice and state-led efforts, not federally directed ones.
In health care as in other areas of policy, Butler has been a leading proponent of reaching across the ideological spectrum to find bipartisan ways to achieve reform. For instance, Butler and Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution authored a major article that encouraged some of the most liberal members of Congress, as well as some of the most conservative, to craft and introduce House and Senate bills to foster bold state initiatives to reduce the number of uninsured Americans.
Butler has been published in leading academic journals, including Journal of the American Medical Association and Health Affairs, and in leading newspapers, including The New York Times. He is also a member of the editorial board of Health Affairs. He has testified before Congress dozens of times, been the subject of a profile in The Washington Post, and appeared as a guest commentator on all of the major television networks.
In addition to dozens of research papers for Heritage, Butler is the author of three books: Enterprise Zones: Greenlining the Inner Cities (1981), Privatizing Federal Spending (1985) and--with Anna Kondratas--Out of the Poverty Trap (1987).
In 2002, he accepted an invitation to spend a semester as a fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics. He currently is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Graduate School.
Butler, who is married and has two children, resides in Washington, D.C.
Karen Campbell, Ph.D. Policy Analyst, Macroecomomics, Center for Data Analysis E-mail Karen Campbell, Ph.D.
areas of expertise: Macroeconomics
view all papers by Karen Campbell, Ph.D.
summary: Karen Campbell is a policy analyst in macroeconomics at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis.
In this position, Campbell will be designing and maintaining the center's several computer models of the U.S. economy. She also will participate in several projects for "Leadership for America," Heritage's 10-year national policy campaign.
Previously, Campbell was chief financial officer of the Chester, Pa.,-based ABC Lid Machine Co., and ABC Seamer Technologies Inc., where she developed the canning equipment manufacturing and co-packaging firm's accounting system, prepared financial statements and assisted in strategy development, among other responsibilities. She also was an economics instructor and research assistant at Temple University in Philadelphia.
Campbell received her doctorate degree in economics in 2008 from Temple , where her work developing a theory of entrepreneurship received an award for an outstanding dissertation. She also earned a 2004 master's degree in economics from Temple and a 2000 bachelor's degree in accounting from Houghton College in New York .
In addition, she is a certified management accountant and financial manager through the Institute of Management Accountants .
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. Deputy Director, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies E-mail James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
areas of expertise: Homeland Security, Defense, Military Affairs, Interagency ("whole of government") Operations, Counterterrorism
view all papers by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
summary: James Carafano, one of the nation's leading experts in defense and homeland security, directs Heritage's Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies.
Carafano is an accomplished historian and teacher as well as a prolific writer and researcher on a fundamental constitutional duty of the federal government: to provide for the common defense.
His research focuses on developing the national security required to secure the long-term interests of the United States -- protecting the public, providing for economic growth and preserving civil liberties.
In this capacity, Carafano is one of the principal policy experts who appear in Heritage's gripping documentary on the case for missile defense, 33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age.
In August 2009, Carafano was promoted to director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies as well as to deputy director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies.
Carafano, a 25-year veteran of the Army, manages day-to-day research and program activities of the Allison Center. He also serves as deputy to Kim R. Holmes, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies, in overseeing the centers and projects of Davis Institute, where Carafano had been assistant director since 2006.
He is a weekly columnist on national security affairs for the Washington Examiner newspapers.
Carafano's most recent book is Private Sector/Public Wars: Contracting in Combat-Iraq, Afghanistan and Future Conflicts (Praeger, 2008), a rigorous study of contractors' role on the battlefield and their impact on military effectiveness and civil society.
Carafano's current book project is a history of the modern military. He is editing a new book series, The Changing Face of War, which examines how emerging political, social, economic and cultural trends will affect the nature of armed conflict.
Carafano joined Heritage as a senior research fellow in 2003. He had been a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington policy institute dedicated to defense issues.
In his Army career, Carafano rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He served in Europe, Korea and the United States. His assignments included head speechwriter for the Army Chief of Staff, the service's highest-ranking officer. Before retiring, Carafano was executive editor of Joint Force Quarterly, the Defense Department's premiere professional military journal.
A graduate of West Point, Carafano holds a master's degree and a doctorate from Georgetown University as well as a master's degree in strategy from the U.S. Army War College.
He is a visiting professor at National Defense University and Georgetown University. He previously served as an assistant professor at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., and as director of military studies at the Army's Center of Military History. He taught at Mount Saint Mary College in New York and was a fleet professor at the U.S. Naval War College.
Carafano is the co-author with Paul Rosenzweig of Winning the Long War: Lessons from the Cold War for Defeating Terrorism and Preserving Freedom (2005). The authors, first to coin the term "the long war," argued that a successful strategy requires a balance of prudent military and security measures, continued economic growth, zealous protection of civil liberties and prevailing in the "war of ideas" against terrorist ideologies.
Carafano also co-authored a textbook, Homeland Security (McGraw-Hill), designed as a practical introduction to everyday life in the era of terrorism. The textbook addresses such key details as the roles of first responders and volunteers, family preparedness techniques and in-depth looks at weapons of mass destruction.
His other works include G.I. Ingenuity: Improvisation, Technology and Winning World War II (2006); Waltzing Into the Cold War (2002); and After D-Day (2000), a Military Book Club main selection.
As an expert on defense, intelligence and homeland security issues, Carafano has testified many times before Congress.
He is a regular guest analyst for all the major U.S. network and cable television news organizations, from ABC to FOX to MSNBC to PBS, as well as such outlets as National Public Radio, Pajamas TV, Voice of America and the History Channel. From SkyNews to Al Jazeera, he also has appeared on TV news programs originating in Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Great Britain, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Iran, Japan, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.
Carafano's op-ed columns and commentary are published widely, including the Baltimore Sun, Boston Globe, New York Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today and Washington Times in addition to the Washington Examiner.
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. Deputy Director, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies E-mail James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
areas of expertise: Homeland Security, Defense, Military Affairs, Interagency ("whole of government") Operations, Counterterrorism
He is a member of the National Academy's Board on Army Science and Technology and the Department of the Army Historical Advisory Committee. He is a senior fellow at George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute.
In 2005, Carafano received Heritage's prestigious W. Glenn and Rita Ricardo Campbell Award. The honor goes to the staff member determined to have made "an outstanding contribution to the analysis and promotion of the free society."
I could go on and on but I think I made my point. Tell me everyone. After reading these descriptions whose opinion do you think you can trust. The Heritage Foundation or pinheads jomama and bob
These descriptions were only maybe 1/10 of the experts at the heritage foundation if anyone would like to see the rest feel free to visit The Heritage Foundation on the web at
Phil you're just acting stupid now. It is well known that heritage.org is a biased radical right wing blog. As such anything you read there should be taken with a grain of salt as witnessed by the numerous times I have disproved the crap that you have posted.
If you would like anything else disproved please mention it specifically and I would be glad to fill you in on the subject.
I have repeatedly presented you with facts (which I sourced) :) and you continue with ridiculous fantasy.
This is what ignorant conservatives do. They ignore facts in favor of made up crap.
I imagine you will not take me up on my offer to disprove anything specific. Because facts threaten you and your fear mongering.
I'm going to go ahead and help you with some more of your ignorance in the meantime.
"So Everyone why don't we take a look at the righters at The Heritage Foundation."
Phil, it's spelled "writers".
"After all if these too pinheads"
The number 2 is spelled "two".
I can see that you didn't get much of an education so I'd be glad to help you out explaining any specific concerns you have about healthcare.
Phil, the credibility of a "think-tank" or any other similar organization is not determined by the number or employment-history of its writers - at least not entirely. One must also consider the content of what they write and whatever their agenda may be. Personally, where you take someone having once served under a President Bush as a good thing, I see it as a fault. The simple fact is that President Bush (both of them) were and are no better than the man currently sitting in the Oval Office.
Conservatives take great delight in bad-mouthing liberal political officials (and vice versa with the Liberals), but the fact is that Clinton gave us NAFTA and a US Army turned Global Police; Bush promised to move the nation back to a more traditionally "conservative" foreign policy (no more US troops as peacekeepers and the like). Bush did not hold to those promises, in fact under his watch NAFTA was strengthened beyond Clinton's dreams with the Security and Prosperity Pact of North America, which operates within the offices of NAFTA with little to no Congressional oversight (which is illegal). Furthermore, contrary to his promises concerning the usage of American military forces, the US Armed Forces are currently being used in at least two countries to "maintain stability" and to hunt down criminals (bin Laden and his people are independent from any national government and are therefore criminals and not targets requiring full military force), effectively using the US Armed Forces as global police on a scale far grander than anything Clinton could have ever hoped to accomplish.
Additionally, while the Democrats failed to pass the PATRIOT Act-by-another-name under Clinton's administration (there was no "War on Terror" to make people accept such an anti-American piece of "legislation)), the Republicans practically rubber-stamped that same legislation under President George W. Bush.
Phil, I have told you before - and I really wish you would take this advice, you really need to do your own research. Look at information through your OWN eyes rather than through the eyes of propagandists like the Heritage Foundation (or any Liberal alternative for that matter). Look at what people actually do, as actions speak louder than words. The Republican Party talks "freedom and low taxes" but walks the same high-tax freedom-stealing line as the Democrats. They are the SAME party, two sides of the same anti-Freedom coin. Stop drinking their Kool-Aide and wake up to reality.
jomama like you've been told before this is a blog not a thesis paper or a resume. Are you some kind of english teacher or something.
You say: "The offer is still open to debate actual facts."
Like I said you still have yet to prove anything The Heritage Foundation said to be wrong. I know you prefer bumper stickers, obama media, and left wing nutjobs like your self to EXPERIENCE and EDUCATION but I think I will stick with The Heritage Foundation thank you vary much. The same goes for you Robert G. Tell me you two how many PHD's do you have. How many presidents have you worked for. How many branches of the military have you served in. How many times have you testified before both the Senate and House of Representatives. You TWO (Does that make you happy joemama) still have nothing and as far as I'm concerned your still talking out of your ass.
Once again everybody after reading these descriptions I posted on December 19, 2009 7:30 AM whose opinion do you think you can trust. The Heritage Foundation or pinheads jomama and Robert G
Phil, in case you missed it, I was saying that I don't trust "Republican" OR "Democrat" 'experts'. And, honestly, with how the American education system works - even at the college level - any college degree, including a PhD is really just a slip of worthless paper that says you know something, regardless of whether or not you actually do. And I don't care how many presidents anyone has worked for, because I do not trust any of the presidents we have had within my lifetime (that includes Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama).
I'm not a 'party' guy, I like to think for myself and won't get my information from anyone strongly associated with a political party. Such information is generally just propaganda...and I'm sure PhD's are great at formulating propaganda.
By the way, why are so quick to resort to name-calling? I thought it was only those "nasty" liberals who resorted to low-blows when people disputed their alleged "evidence"? Well, I guess you are just more proof that the Conservatives aren't really any better. Which is why I stay firmly in the middle and am content to be a human being instead of a stinking label.
Well robert g you can Kiss Uncle Sam's ass and mine while your at it and go straight to hell. I don't give a crap what your fat socialist ass thinks. If you think me and the rest of this country are going to pay your way in life you got another think coming and that goes for you too jomama. I suggest you take a flight to Russia or france because this country will never buy your bull shit. Save your political correctness speech for your idiot in chief and get down to brass tax. You two say its so easy to prove The Heritage foundation wrong then put up or shut up. If you think your going to censer my speech with your political correctness bullshit your delusional.
Phil - You said "jomama like you've been told before this is a blog not a thesis paper or a resume. Are you some kind of english teacher or something."
I was just noticing your inability to spell simple words.
"Like I said you still have yet to prove anything The Heritage Foundation said to be wrong."
I have proved multiple things false that you pasted from Heritage already. For instance the ridiculous "buy insurance or go to jail" thing.
As I said if you have any other specific concerns that you would like me to address please list them and I will provide you with the facts.
"I know you prefer bumper stickers, obama media, and left wing nutjobs like your self to EXPERIENCE and EDUCATION"
No I prefer credible facts over radical right wing blogs.
"whose opinion do you think you can trust. The Heritage Foundation or pinheads jomama and Robert G"
Only a dumbass would trust a radical right wing blog over credible facts from reliable sources. You don't have to trust me as I back up my claims with links to factual data.
So again Phil. If you have any specific concerns or fear mongering you need debunked please list them and I'll be glad to address them with rational logic and facts.
"If you think me and the rest of this country are going to pay your way in life you got another think coming"
Nobody was asking you to pay anyone else's way Phil.
"I suggest you take a flight to Russia or france because this country will never buy your bull shit."
The majority of the people in this country would like a public option for insurance. If you don't like that I suggest you move to Antarctica because this country isn't going to put up with your shit.
"Save your political correctness speech for your idiot in chief and get down to brass tax."
What political correctness speach were you referring to?
In all the sanitized TV news reports about the House-passed health care plan, no one mentions the shocking tax penalties and maybe jail time implicit in the bill's nearly 2,000 pages.
This is what could await uninsured Americans who do not want to buy health insurance as the bill demands them to do - or else.
Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), in a letter to the House Ways and Means Committee, confirms that failure to comply with the terms of the law that the Democrats passed last weekend could put people in jail. The JCT told the committee that anyone who decides not to maintain "acceptable health insurance coverage" or, absent that, pay the individual health insurance mandate tax of about 2.5 percent of income, would be liable to large fines or prison sentences.
"This is the ultimate example of the Democrats' command-and-control style of governing - buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and should be stopped immediately," said Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, ranking Republican on the tax-writing committee.
"H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at anytime during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax," the JCT letter stated.
"Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual" under these circumstances if the government determines the taxpayer's unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the JCT explained. It gave two examples when these penalties could be applied under the U.S. tax Code:
c "Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
c Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years," the JCT letter said.
The Congressional Budget Office says the lowest-cost nongroup family plan under the House bill would cost $15,000 in 2016 - a hefty sum for millions of middle income, mostly younger Americans and families whose budgets are stretched as it is.
The Senate Finance Committee reduced the penalties for the failure to purchase health insurance, although noncompliance could still hit uninsured Americans with significant tax penalties. But that will lead to further financing problems because it creates an incentive for younger workers who would prefer paying the fine than costlier insurance premiums, shrinking the risk pool of healthier people needed to offset the costs of everyone else.
This is in response to the Wednesday letter that states there is no jail provision in the House health-care bill.
The bill says that anyone not buying the insurance will face a fine of 2.5 percent of their income (page 297) or face penalties (described in IRS Code) of up to five years in prison.
The IRS code describes the penalties as follows:
Section 7203 — misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
Section 7201 — felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years” (page 3).
It’s definitely in the bill if you take time to research it. I think people should wake up and look at what this government is doing instead of following along like a herd of sheep.
H.R. 3590: The Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans Act December 2, 2009
Individual Mandate: Beginning in 2013, individuals would be required to purchase insurance coverage equivalent to a bronze plan in the individual or small group market, or an employerprovided plan that meets certain requirements.24 Exemptions would be permitted on religious grounds and for undocumented immigrants. Individuals must attest to coverage on their tax returns, and insurers must report information on their enrollees to the IRS. An exemption from the mandate applies if the premiums for the lowest-cost plan available exceed eight percent of income (which is deemed “unaffordable” coverage) and for individuals below 100 percent of the FPL. The penalty would be $750 per adult with a maximum of three times the individual penalty per family. The mandate phases in according to the following schedule: In year 2014, $95; 2015, $350; 2016 and after, $750.25 The penalty is indexed to cost of living, not premium inflation, so that the penalty will become smaller relative to the cost of insurance over time, thereby weakening the incentive to purchase insurance. Failure to pay the penalty would not result in criminal penalties.26
H.R. 3590 is intended to expand access to health insurance, reform the health insurance market to provide additional consumer protections, and improve the health care delivery system to reduce costs and produce better outcomes. While the bill would expand insurance coverage to 94 percent of the legal population (24 million Americans would still be without coverage) and could improve the functioning of the individual and small group insurance markets, many experts question whether it will effectively control costs or reform the health-care delivery system. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the coverage provisions in the bill will cost $848 billion over 10 years (fiscal years 2010-2019). However, the major provisions in the bill would not take effect until January 1, 2014, meaning the bill uses 10 years of revenue to pay for six years of coverage. Republican staff on the Senate Budget Committee estimates that the total spending in the bill over 10 years of full implementation (FYs 2014-2023) would exceed $2.5 trillion. To pay for the expansion of insurance coverage, the bill increases taxes by $493.6 billion, and reduces Medicare spending by $464.6 billion. Specifically, the bill would cut $134.9 billion from hospitals, $120 billion from Medicare Advantage (MA), $14.6 billion from nursing homes, $42.1 billion from home health agencies, and $7.7 billion from hospices. Among the more prominent taxes, the bill includes a new 40 percent excise tax on health insurance plans that exceed $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, raising $149.1 billion over 10 years; a new Medicare payroll tax on higher-income individuals that raises $53.8 billion; a $60.4 billion tax on health insurers; a $22.2 billion tax on drug manufacturers; and a $19.3 billion tax on medical device manufacturers. H.R. 3590 mandates that all lawful residents purchase qualified insurance coverage or pay a penalty. The penalty for not having qualified health insurance would be $750, phased in over three years beginning in 2014. The bill would provide tax credits for individuals between 133 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL)—$29,330 to $88,000 for a family of four—to help them purchase
Phil, I work for a living - I DO NOT take charity and DO NOT live off of food stamps or any other Federal program. I never said that I intend to prove the Heritage Foundation is wrong, I simply stated that I PERSONALLY do not trust them and that I see them as nothing more than a source of Right-Wing propaganda (which is just as harmful to this nation as the Left-Wing variety).
Have I honestly said anything to make you think that I am a socialist? Calling Lincoln out on his unconstitutional actions is socialist? No, it is the American way to raise our voices when the government does wrong. The idea that government is 'always right' and 'never wrong' comes from unAmerican, anti-Freedom Fascism.
Personally, I oppose Obama's health-care plan. My opinion is that anything the governments gets its fingers into turns to shit really quick. Look at the VA clinics as an example of what Federal health-care will look like, it isn't a pretty picture.
Phil, honestly...why call joemama a liar? Simply post your research and let your facts speak for themselves. Perhaps joemama simply hasn't read the bill? Did you consider that? My guess is that you did not. Being an ass what you get you anywhere in a civil discussion.
So Phil your claims of "buy healthcare or go to jail" were exaggerated scare tactics.
The penalty is a tax. Willfully not paying your taxes can put you in jail as it does now.
I'm glad that you did a little more research and corrected yourself on that topic. Thank you.
If you're going to call me a liar (and misspell that word) would you please list anything specifically that you think I lied about. Accusations like that should be backed up.
Robert G, you said: "Personally, I oppose Obama's health-care plan. My opinion is that anything the governments gets its fingers into turns to shit really quick. Look at the VA clinics as an example of what Federal health-care will look like, it isn't a pretty picture.
I would disagree with you on that one. Customer satisfaction with Medicare is much higher than with private insurance. It also has less overhead. They also don't deny or drop people that have pre-existing conditions.
Also systems in other countries with some sort of government run insurance have proven to be more effective and efficient than our system.
However you can keep your current insurance if you like so opt for that there's no reason for you to be against letting other people have another option.
Joe mama is there something wrong with you? Did you really say:
"So Phil your claims of "buy healthcare or go to jail" were exaggerated scare tactics.
The penalty is a tax. Willfully not paying your taxes can put you in jail as it does now."
Do you honestly not understand what that means?
"c "Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
c Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years," the JCT letter said."
"To pay for the expansion of insurance coverage, the bill increases taxes by $493.6 billion, and reduces Medicare spending by $464.6 billion. Specifically, the bill would cut $134.9 billion from hospitals, $120 billion from Medicare Advantage (MA), $14.6 billion from nursing homes, $42.1 billion from home health agencies, and $7.7 billion from hospices."
Its a fancy way of saying buy our health care or go to jail. It also means there going to raze our taxes $493.6 billion and cut $134.9 billion from hospitals, $120 billion from Medicare Advantage (MA), $14.6 billion from nursing homes, $42.1 billion from home health agencies, and $7.7 billion from hospices."
Either way, joemama, the effect is still the same - refuse to pay for the government medical coverage or go to jail. The thing is, you keep talking like there is a real option, like the government will allow us to disregard the federal health care in favor of private care. Whatever the semantics or particulars, the health care bill in actual effect does exactly as Phil has been saying - it removes the actual option, so that any choice becomes an illusion rather than a substantial choice.
Concerning your response to my previous post:
I must admit that I am not too incredibly familiar with Medicare and was not speaking of that one program in particular, but in a more general sense in regards to federal involvement. However, I do know that Medicare is tax-payer supported and that (presumably, correct me if I am wrong) those actually on Medicare do not pay into the program at all, unless they perhaps also happen to work at the same time. In this light, of course Medicare has higher customer satisfaction as for those receiving health care through this program their "insurance" is FREE, and naturally private insurance has lower satisfaction because it is NOT FREE. This is not to say that Medicare doesn't do any good, again I'm not very familiar with success or lack thereof with this program.
As for the VA clinics, I know for a fact that you are wrong on this. My grandpa died because of poor treatment he received at a VA clinic. No, I don't have an axe to grind on this point - his diabetes and other health problems were going to catch up with him eventually anyway. I'm simply speaking from a bit of actual experience on this one. That was a few years ago, though, so perhaps things have improved in that area since then (though I doubt it).
Robert G - You said "Either way, joemama, the effect is still the same - refuse to pay for the government medical coverage or go to jail."
No the effect isn't the same at all Robert. You keep the insurance you have now, get the public option, or pay a tax.
"The thing is, you keep talking like there is a real option, like the government will allow us to disregard the federal health care in favor of private care."
Who has misinformed you that you won't be able to use private insurance? That's ridiculous. Of course you can use private insurance if you want. No part of the bill has ever suggested otherwise and it's scary that anyone actually believes that.
"Whatever the semantics or particulars, the health care bill in actual effect does exactly as Phil has been saying - it removes the actual option, so that any choice becomes an illusion rather than a substantial choice.
Again you seem to be completely misinformed on the subject. It actually gives you an additional choice. Use Medicare/Medicaid, use private insurance, or use the additional choice of the public option.
"Medicare has higher customer satisfaction as for those receiving health care through this program their "insurance" is FREE"
No, wrong. Medicare is not free. My girlfriend is on Medicare and pays a monthly premium. Find more info on Medicare premiums here: http://questions.medicare.gov/cgi-bin/medicare.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2100
So the customer satisfaction with medicare is because of the quality of the service compared to private insurance.
"As for the VA clinics, I know for a fact that you are wrong on this."
Wrong how? I stated that VA clinics have nothing to do with this because even if you use the public option you still will be going to the same hospitals you do now. The only thing that changes is who reimburses the hospital as with Medicare.
"My grandpa died because of poor treatment he received at a VA clinic."
Sorry about your Grandpa. I've know people who have died because of the poor treatment they've received at public hospitals.
Regardless it isn't relevant because as I said, even if you use the public option you will still be going to the same hospitals you do now.
This is a very child like and simplistic propaganda piece made by people who where both afraid of the "red menace" and had an agenda of their own. Why do you think they mention people promoting "class warfare" 1st in their list of considerations to "beware" of. Is perhaps because they ARE the small but elite class that would have the masses happily swallow the simple fairy tale of america. The evolution of this country's wealth is sadly not so simple and rosey as this cute little cartoon would like it's viewers to believe. It was in fact built upon the backs of the unwilling, oppressed and disenfranchised masses who where told whatever they needed to be told (or kept in line through the lash) to keep them from looking behind the curtain and actually thinking critically about whose making the rules and why. This is easy to do with people who can only think about survival from day to day. The idea that because we are the most materialistic country, it therefore follows, that we are the best country is obviously absurd to any one who has left it and returned. And as the current economic situation of the U.S. elucidates, it's a painfully false idea as well. All nationalists of any country need do is TRAVEL with an open mind to see that no ONE country has it figured out. They all, or at least most of them, have something valuable to offer by way of concepts and ideas and equally, things to avoid by way of prejudice and antiquated dogmas. An intelligent country, like an intelligent individual, will thoughtfully integrate into their own system what works and more importantly THROW OUT what doesn't. This is how such systems are refined. And this is why the U.S is like an old sick dog who was once the alpha but is slowly losing it's ability to lead anyone on anything as it can no longer honestly lead by example. Blind adherence is a fools game that always causes suffering for those unable to meet reality as IT IS not as they wish it to be. When one has the courage to step out of their myopic world and truly look around with out letting fear influence their what they see. That rare person will be rewarded with with a much more hopeful view of humanity's potential to work together on a global level and rise to meet the challenges that face us ALL. Remember, what you do and how you live YOUR life affects people for better or worse thousands of mile away. As you would have them consider YOU in their decisions follow the golden rule and act in likewise fashion. You are not an island.
Who has misinformed you that you won't be able to use private insurance? That's ridiculous. Of course you can use private insurance if you want. No part of the bill has ever suggested otherwise and it's scary that anyone actually believes that.
My point was that you can't have JUST the private insurance, either way I still have to pay - in some form or other - for a public "option" that I don't want. If you can't "not" have the "public option" then it is NOT an "option" but rather a forced mandate.
No, wrong. Medicare is not free. My girlfriend is on Medicare and pays a monthly premium
Well, as I said, I wasn't familiar with Medicare. Thank you for the link, I'll look at it later when I have the time.
Sorry about your Grandpa. I've know people who have died because of the poor treatment they've received at public hospitals.
Regardless it isn't relevant because as I said, even if you use the public option you will still be going to the same hospitals you do now.
Going beyond the VA clinic example, and I should have used this before, but I actually know first-hand what government health- care is like. How? I am 25% Chippewa, which entitles me to federal health-care through the Indian Bureau. Now, the care itself - when you actually get it - isn't generally all that bad. But here's the rub, here's why I abandoned the government route to instead pay out of my own pocket. Going through the "public option" you have long waiting lists. They wont give you the care right when you need it. My parents had a hell of a time convincing them for my brother's emergency life-or-death appendix surgery a couple years back, for example. It was unquestionably necessary treatment, yet they still were reluctant to fulfill their side of things and actually fork over the cash (metaphorically speaking).
Options for eye-care, likewise, are limited. Sure, you can get to a good eye-doctor in your local clinic, but if you want those free government glasses you have to be content with the cheap garbage that will scratch the first time you clean them with your shirt...since after all...if you are using the free route you probably cannot afford actual cleaner, and they do not provide cleaning supplies for free. You have to go to the Reservation clinic to have your glasses cleaned if you want free cleaning.
When I injured my back five years ago it took nearly two months to get the Indian Bureau to approve the MRI that I needed.
No, the "public option" isn't really all that great. I'll pay out of my own pocket thank you very much. And I will personally stand for any draconian legislation requiring me to pay into YET ANOTHER system that I have no personal interest in ever actually using. I already pay into Social Security, which I don't plan to use when I 'retire' (which I doubt I'll ever be able to anyway), and I already pay into Medicare - which I don't use, and I'm sure the list is longer than that. I want to spend the money I earn the way that I want, not the way that my EMPLOYEES in Washington DC think I should. After all, the Federal Government is just a bunch of people we "hire" (elect) to carry out the business of government on the behalf of We the People...as WE are the government.
...want on a bit of a rant there. Sorry. We are nation that revolted against its mother country over taxes, and now we are much more heavily taxed then the Founding Fathers ever dreamed of. I personally, am sick of it, and I am sick of worthless lazy people getting a free ride off my and others hard work.
Such is a purely unsustainable system, and it will collapse. The more we add to it, the more catastrophic that collapse will be.
To Robert - You said "My point was that you can't have JUST the private insurance, either way I still have to pay - in some form or other - for a public "option" that I don't want. If you can't "not" have the "public option" then it is NOT an "option" but rather a forced mandate."
Again I don't think you understand. If you keep your private insurance you will NOT have the public option. If you want the public option then you pay the premium for it. If you want private insurance you pay the premium to private insurance.
"Going beyond the VA clinic example, and I should have used this before, but I actually know first-hand what government health- care is like. How? I am 25% Chippewa, which entitles me to federal health-care through the Indian Bureau."
Robert, I agree that veterans and Indians should be treated well but again your examples aren't relevant.
You are talking about a separate medical system. With the public option, as with medicare, you will go to the same doctors and hospitals that you would with private insurance. Therefore the waiting times will be identical, the care will be identical.
If you use the public option you are simply using a different type of insurance to pay for your treatment. Your not going to a separate facility or doctor.
Are you following now? Your posts are making me wonder how much of the population has the wrong idea on what we are talking about.
"I'll pay out of my own pocket thank you very much. And I will personally stand for any draconian legislation requiring me to pay into YET ANOTHER system that I have no personal interest in ever actually using. I already pay into Social Security, which I don't plan to use when I 'retire' (which I doubt I'll ever be able to anyway), and I already pay into Medicare - which I don't use, and I'm sure the list is longer than that. I want to spend the money I earn the way that I want, not the way that my EMPLOYEES in Washington DC think I should."
Our taxes pay for all sorts of things that our citizens need. I may not ever need fire or police services but I understand the need for them. I don't have a problem helping to fund Medicare or Social Security as I believe our elderly and disabled should get the help they need.
Healthcare reform and a public option was a big platform of Obama's and he was elected in a landslide. 70% of Americans and most doctors want a public option. So if our employees in Washington are going to do what We the People want they will give us a public option.
What we really should be concerned about is our taxes funding unnecessary wars like Iraq.
Our taxes are actually much lower now than they have been often in the past. Have a look at the graph on this page... Tax rates in history
"I am sick of worthless lazy people getting a free ride off my and others hard work."
That is a completely unfair generalization. Sure some lazy people get a free ride but for the most part truly needy people get assistance.
"Such is a purely unsustainable system, and it will collapse. The more we add to it, the more catastrophic that collapse will be."
Sorry Robert that's just not true. As we've seen with other countries that have some sort of government run healthcare system they are able to provide better healthcare cheaper and make it available to all their citizens. The systems are stable.
You are talking about a separate medical system. With the public option, as with medicare, you will go to the same doctors and hospitals that you would with private insurance. Therefore the waiting times will be identical, the care will be identical.
The doctors at the Reservation clinic are, in my area anyway, volunteers from the local private clinic. If you need anything more than a regular examination, dental work, or blood-word they send you to the local private hospital. It is precisely just a different kind of insurance, granted in this case it has its own separate clinics that handle some of the basic work.
If you use the public option you are simply using a different type of insurance to pay for your treatment. Your not going to a separate facility or doctor.
The point of my statement had nothing to do about WHERE you receive care, but rather it was about the fact that when you do get it (wherever it may be at) you have a rather long wait...and I don't mean having to wait an extra half hour in the waiting room. I mean more like "Sorry sir, but your name is still a month or two down on the list" kind of waiting. Do you follow?
Our taxes pay for all sorts of things that our citizens need. I may not ever need fire or police services but I understand the need for them. I don't have a problem helping to fund Medicare or Social Security as I believe our elderly and disabled should get the help they need.
Where in the Constitution is the Federal government authorized to run any kind of health care system of any kind? They aren't so authorized, it is an illegal activity on their part. Whether such a system would be good or bad, they do not LEGALLY have the power to do it (not that that has ever stopped DC). The Federal government exists for very specific reasons, and providing health-care...social security, medicare, and at least half of the things they do now are not legal for them to do.
Here's the thing, if a State government wants to have a public health-care system then great. Their constitution might make that possible, the US Constitution does not give the Federal government the authority. And, really, this is my main reason for opposing such programs - aside from the fact that have no faith or trust in our government.
"Where in the Constitution is the Federal government authorized to run any kind of health care system of any kind? They aren't so authorized, it is an illegal activity on their part."
Robert, I agree. And that is my biggest problem with this sort of crap. Our Founders knew what they were doing when they limited the powers of the federal government. Of course they realized situations would arise requiring adjustments to the Constitution, so they provided a legal mechanism for such adjustments:the Constitutional amendment. The deliberately (and wisely) made this process somewhat difficult and tedious to prevent its abuse.
They knew, as I do, that by its very nature government is an inefficient, greedy beast with an insatiable appetite for power and treasure. They provided for us a government "of Laws, not of Men", a Constitutional Republic fundamentally resistant to usurpation by special interests.
Friends, history is pretty clear here: every time the federal government has undertaken tasks or claimed powers not granted by the Constitution it has proved itself inept. People wonder how our once-great Nation could find itself mired in its current array of predicaments, but the answer is obvious: we have allowed it to reach far beyond its Constitutional restraints.
Please understand: this isn't about "Democrats" or "Republicans". Both major parties have routinely attacked our Constitution, just from opposite sides of the ring. Republicans seem to elevate one group by demeaning the other; Democrats do the EXACT SAME THING, except they switch groups. Their purpose is the same: to circumvent the rule of Law in favor of rule by mob. Our "leaders" know that mob mentality is a malleable thing. They use it effectively to subdue and control us all. But they also know it will only work as long as they keep us divided.
There is a Force determined to destroy our free, sovereign, Constitutional Republic, and it is succeeding. I'm sure many of our legislators don't realize it, but most of them are serving this Force. I know many US citizens would disagree with me here, but I consider this to be a force of Evil and grand as any Satan has ever devised. And every time a lawmaker supports a bill contrary to our Constitution (s)he is joining forces with the Enemy of this Republic.
And that, my friends, is Treason, as defined by our Constitution.
I apologize Robert G. Apparently I misjudged you. You really do understand what is going on and next time I wont be so quick to judge you but joemama has done nothing to prove me wrong; In fact he has proved me right over and over again and my statements still stand against him. What I should have said is.
Well joemama you can Kiss Uncle Sam's ass and mine while your at it and go straight to hell. I don't give a crap what your fat socialist ass thinks. If you think me and the rest of this country are going to pay your way in life you got another think coming and that goes for you too bob. I suggest you take a flight to Russia or france because this country will never buy your bull shit. Save your political correctness speech for your idiot in chief and get down to brass tax. You two say its so easy to prove The Heritage foundation wrong then put up or shut up. If you think your going to censer my speech with your political correctness bullshit your delusional.
I would say more about the subject at hand but It seems Robert G and warren have already won the argument.
To Robert - You said "The doctors at the Reservation clinic are, in my area anyway, volunteers from the local private clinic. If you need anything more than a regular examination, dental work, or blood-word they send you to the local private hospital. It is precisely just a different kind of insurance, granted in this case it has its own separate clinics that handle some of the basic work."
As long as you understand that this is completely different than the way the public option would work. You would not go to separate clinics nor would there be volunteers. You would go to the same doctors and hospitals that you would under private insurance. So comparing it to the Indian system isn't really relevant at all.
"The point of my statement had nothing to do about WHERE you receive care, but rather it was about the fact that when you do get it (wherever it may be at) you have a rather long wait...and I don't mean having to wait an extra half hour in the waiting room. I mean more like "Sorry sir, but your name is still a month or two down on the list" kind of waiting. Do you follow?"
I follow but you don't seem to be yet. Since with the public option you would be using the same doctors and hospitals the wait wouldn't be any longer or shorter than with private insurance. Just as the wait with Medicare isn't any longer or shorter than with private insurance. Are you getting this?
"Where in the Constitution is the Federal government authorized to run any kind of health care system of any kind? They aren't so authorized, it is an illegal activity on their part."
Healthcare easily falls under General Welfare. What is not provided in the Constitution is preemptive wars in countries that are not threatening us like Iraq. Also maintaining bases in foreign countries is not in the Constitution. Yet somehow much of America doesn't blink an eye at these illegal actions.
Phil: That you perceive this as an argument is indicative of the problem we are all facing, and one we need to face together. By focusing on our differences rather than our commonalities, by name-calling and such, we only serve that Force intent upon the destruction of our Republic.
Speaking only for myself, I agree with much of what you have posted here. I also often agree with the substance of Rush Limbaugh's statements. However, I see Limbaugh as part of the problem: he serves to keep us divided, calling each other names, off chasing wild geese of 'diversity' while ignoring our common interests. We who love Liberty have a common Enemy, call it what you will. As long as we remain divided and fighting one another, our Enemy will prevail. If we value being right over being Free, Freedom will evade us all.
Anyone who imagines government to be capable of benevolence, or efficiency, or reason, or justice... in short, anyone who expects government to create viable solutions... has not been paying attention. And this is not just OUR government, it is simply the nature of government to nourish the evil inclinations of those in positions of power.
I believe most citizens of this Nation value Liberty as much as I do. However by keeping us divided, the Powers That Be are able to convince the masses that "the other side" (dems, repubs, whatever) will abuse their Liberties if left unrestrained. Both sides accuse the other of "fear mongering"... well, guess what? Both sides are right! And as long as we can be manipulated into fearing each other, the Force of Evil we should rightly fear will simply feed the flames and watch us self-destruct.
I implore you all: whatever 'side' you support, please seek and support open dialog among We, The People. There will always be those who allow their anger and frustration to overrule their judgment. We must all endure pointless taunts and personal attacks targeting everything from our religion to our spelling and grammar. This is inevitable, but try not to take it personally or let it move you off-point. Such mean-spirited attacks are unworthy of a response because, face it: every last one of us harbors a streak of, for lack of a better term, asshole. It is the task of each of us to gain control of our own streak and learn to rein it in. Until we do this we are condemned to speak through it, creating an environment in which productive dialog is impossible.
And that is exactly what the Enemies of Liberty want us to do.
Warren - You said "They knew, as I do, that by its very nature government is an inefficient, greedy beast with an insatiable appetite for power and treasure. They provided for us a government "of Laws, not of Men", a Constitutional Republic fundamentally resistant to usurpation by special interests."
Warren federal governments have actually been proven to be more efficient and effective in the healthcare area than privately run systems.
The only reason we are having any trouble getting reform passed is precisely because our government is so prone to usurpation by special interests and lobbyists. With health insurance companies trying to protect their greedy ways.
"There is a Force determined to destroy our free, sovereign, Constitutional Republic"
What force exactly is trying to destroy our freedom and sovereignty?
This seem like some odd vague fear that you threw out there.
Phil - You said "joemama has done nothing to prove me wrong"
I've proven you wrong many times in this thread already. I've also offered several times to have you make a list of anything else specifically you'd like me to debunk and you don't seem to want to take me up on it.
"Well joemama you can Kiss Uncle Sam's ass and mine while your at it and go straight to hell."
That's awfully childish of you but I guess that's all you have left. How about you kiss his ass and go to hell instead.
"I don't give a crap what your fat socialist ass thinks. If you think me and the rest of this country are going to pay your way in life you got another think coming"
Phil I'm in damn good shape, make a hefty salary, and am not a socialist. I never asked for anyone to pay my way. This is just more childishness from you.
I guess if you don't have an argument you just resort to making up crap.
"I suggest you take a flight to Russia or france because this country will never buy your bull shit."
I suggest you take a flight to Antarctica because this country isn't buying your bull shit.
"Save your political correctness speech for your idiot in chief and get down to brass tax."
We got rid of the idiot in chief in the last election. Also please tell me what political correctness speech you are referring to. It looks like you just felt like throwing out that term for no reason.
"You two say its so easy to prove The Heritage foundation wrong then put up or shut up."
Already put it up.
"If you think your going to censer my speech with your political correctness bullshit your delusional."
Nobody was trying to censor (<- note spelling) you Phil and there was no political correctness. Why do you insist on making up things?
That's awfully childish of you but I guess that's all you have left. How about you kiss his ass and go to hell instead.
Agreed, I despise the Right-Wings childish anti-liberal/socialist attacks just as much as I hate the Left-Wings attacks against the 'Right' (not accusing you of making such attacks, as I have not seen resort to such childishness).
We got rid of the idiot in chief in the last election. Also please tell me what political correctness speech you are referring to. It looks like you just felt like throwing out that term for no reason.
Agreed, except for you seeming implication that our new president is any better. We simply replaced one idiot for another. I see the same trend towards some form or other of tyranny from Obama that I saw from Bush.
I guess maybe I have let my rage get the better of me at times but its only because I love this grate nation and I see it going 100 miles an hour off a cliff. I suppose I deserve that Warren and Robert G but I did apologize to you. Your right we must get united again. Like the old saying goes: "United we stand divided we fall". The question is united behind what? We are at a paradox. If we become a communist nation arguments like this will no longer be possible at least not with out the gestapo police breaking our door down and forgetting us in jail or worse. Friends we must unite behind the constitution first and foremost. Without our constitution we are Russia. We must find candidates who understand that and will protect it with there life's. We must go before the supreme court and abolish all the laws in our country that are unconstitutional. That is where we must start. We must restore constitutional law in order to preserve freedom and liberty. If we don't all our efforts are futile no matter how great our efforts are.
Phil wrote, in part: "The question is united behind what?"
That's a good question Phil, and one for which there is an answer, though sadly many of our citizens won't accept it. Some folks reject it out of hand, but I hope they'll follow my reasoning to its conclusion. Whatever anyone's religious beliefs, there is logic to my thinking here:
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 chronicles 7 14
King James Version
For the moment please consider this in its historical context, and the Old Testament of the Bible as a history of the Children of Israel, nothing more. Consider God to be anything you wish, or nothing at all; for my explanation here God could be entirely imaginary. I only ask that you believe there is a Force for Good (Creation), and a Force for Evil (Destruction). For many of us this is self evident; for others, perhaps not.
Throughout the Old Testament there were periods of time during which the Jews were strongly united under one God, the Creator of all things. They believed their leaders were Divinely directed, and they had faith God would protect them. During these periods they prospered and their most powerful enemies fell before them.
But there were times when their faith wained, and with it, their UNITY. During these times they suffered defeat and hardships, until they restored their faith in their God and RE-UNITED under Him.
My point is this: a stronger unity can be built behind the Force of Good than the Force of Evil. This is pretty basic; the masses are generally happier during periods of creation and plenty than during destruction and famine.
We individuals can choose to serve either Force - that is entirely up to each of us. But if we wish to be happy and productive it behooves us to UNITE behind the Force for Good.
To anyone who has a problem with the "God" thing, I've known a number of Patriots who were agnostic or atheists. They simply believed in the benefits and value of precious Liberty, so much so that they were willing to defend it with their lives.
Here I will say to one and all, I am a Christian, though I don't claim to be very good at it. I am NOT an evangelist; your beliefs, or lack of them, is entirely your business. I know this: if you can find peace within yourself sufficient to you, conflicting ideas represent opportunities to learn and grow.
I also know there are elements of pure Evil in every human being, including (and perhaps especially) me. No matter what you may believe or how strongly we may disagree, you are not my enemy. But the Enemy resides in each of us; it is my task to defeat it within myself. For that reason I am a work in progress and if you're making progress you are too.
For too many years, I imagined I had arrived and had, if not the answers to everything, at least the right questions. Now I know I had neither, and now I am once again teachable. Still terribly opinionated, mind you. Changing my mind is almost as hard as passing an amendment to the Constitution, but it can be done. This is because I've learned to value and respect opinions even diametrically opposed to my own.
Phil - You said "only because I love this grate nation and I see it going 100 miles an hour off a cliff."
Yet you give no example of how it's going off a cliff.
"We are at a paradox. If we become a communist nation arguments like this will no longer be possible at least not with out the gestapo police breaking our door down and forgetting us in jail or worse."
Yet there's no danger of us becoming a communist nation and no indication that there's to be any gestapo stopping us from discussing things. That would be fear mongering.
I do admit that Bush's wire tapping program was pretty scary though.
Warren you said "My point is this: a stronger unity can be built behind the Force of Good than the Force of Evil. This is pretty basic; the masses are generally happier during periods of creation and plenty than during destruction and famine."
I agree, we should all get behind the force for good and make sure all our citizens have access to healthcare instead of the forces of evil and destruction that start unnecessary wars like Iraq that kill hundreds of thousands of people.
NO one stepped up when the last administration was routinely depriving Americans of their rights. They let fear be an excuse to foresake all the hard-fought battles and toil of our founders without hardly a whimper. They allowed an American administration to literally trigger and continue a war for completely bogus reasons. They turned their back on Christian values in a hundred ways, but especially when they supported unmitigated greed on Wall Street instead of supporting every day Americans. They continue to invoke "isms" when they're talking about the health and well-being of the American people. That hardly seems like a Christian perspective to me. I've stopped considering labels like "liberal" and "conservative." I make decisions based on what I truly believe Christ would do. That takes so much ideology and bluster out of the political discussion and reduces everything to its least common denominator.
@joemama: Excellent! We have a point of agreement upon which a real discussion might be built. It is both natural and expected we will disagree at times regarding ways & means of achieving these and other goals, but such disagreement won't define either of us as idiots, communists, fascists or whatever.
Regarding universal healthcare vs. the Iraq War: these are two distinct issues so I'll take the liberty of separating them, at least for the moment. If you see a connection I've overlooked please enlighten me.
On the war, I couldn't agree more. Many believe GW Bush lied to get us involved there, others claim he was simply operating on the best intelligence available, which happened to be flawed. My position is this: it doesn't matter now. We're there and we shouldn't be, and this particular error was initiated on his watch. This fact provides one more reason for me to dislike Bush. But Bush is gone now, and has done all the major damage he's likely to do.
Now we have Obama who, IIRC, promised during his campaign to get us out of Iraq... yep, right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk ... in which he said, "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." That was in Oct. '07 and I can't help but notice, not only are our troops still there, but he's done a number of other things 'first'. This fact provides me one more reason to dislike Obama, and yet more evidence that anyone still comparing Bush and Obama to justify the misdeeds of either is urinating in his own beer.
Now, to universal healthcare: Joemama, I expect we'll have a few major differences here but I won't take them personally; hope you don't either. As I see it, the "free enterprise" approach to healthcare hasn't failed; the problem is, we haven't been taking that approach. Our health care industry is regulated to hell and back, in ways Madison, et al. would never have imagined. Most people probably see this as a good thing, but who do they think defines the regulations?
If you think it's some benevolent government bureaucracy you are sadly mistaken. It is the AMA, pharmaceutical manufacturers, insurance companies, etc. The big guys can buy what they want... Congressmen, Senators, research hospitals... even Presidents.
Can you imagine the reaction of the AMA if all medication was suddenly deregulated? If we could once again diagnose our own ailments, visit the local apothecary and get whatever WE decided we needed without a prescription?
How about the insurance companies, if they had to compete with one another across State lines? Or Big Pharma, if we could all order our meds from Canada (or anyplace else we could find them at a better price)? Does anyone honestly believe these restrictions are examples of our Benevolent Federal Government protecting us from some evil boogyman?
If so, I have one question: who the hell can we count on to protect us from the Federal Government?
The answer to that question is simple: we have only ourselves. And my friend, that is as it should be. We must be allowed the Liberty to succeed or to fail, purely by virtue of our own wits, industry & resources.
Laws designed to protect us from our own folly invariably restrain our most able instructor, error. I see it as fundamental in a free society that by law you be protected from MY folly, within reasonable limits. I fail to see how it is either society's responsibility, or right, to protect me from myself.
I'm looking forward to any reasoned responses, and please don't worry about your honest thoughts offending me. I'm no longer young and my time becomes more valuable to me each day. My time here is well-spent if it helps me understand how others think. This sometimes expands my own thinking, which IMO is the only valid purpose of such discussions.
If I wanted a pointless row I'd get a TV and watch Rush Limbaugh or Nancy Pelosi or Professional Wrestling. I like to think my mind is a bit more developed than that, and I hope yours is too.
As to spelling, grammar & usage: yes Joemama, it sort of jumps out at me too, but I've learned to (mostly) overlook it. I make my share of errors but fortunately my spell checker catches most of them. Also I have a number of (otherwise) very bright friends who persist in "texting" messages, I presume from their phones, and probably while driving. They tend to rely heavily on their software to complete their words, and obviously don't proof their posts before hitting 'send'.
Also, I have found one's formal education level to be an extremely unreliable gauge of intelligence, or the validity of one's perceptions. I've learned much over the years from people who were functionally illiterate, thus learning that to discount one's thoughts on such a basis is nothing but another form of bigotry.
If you had taken the time to read, you would see that I haven't been merely "against" this cartoon. Initially, my reaction to this cartoon was that it made a lot of sense. It speaks truth. It remains relevant.
But then, I saw different people each arguing completely different points, yet using the cartoon to back up their viewpoint. That's when I realized the cartoon is nothing more than a Rorschach Test. People will see what they want to see, understand the lesson they want to understand, and use the cartoon the way they want to use the cartoon.
Some said the flag was backwards in the video. I instantly defended this, saying that there could be any number of reasons this was so without being unpatriotic. I thought perhaps someone was looking at a flying flag from the other side.
So, I watched the video again. This time, I saw the flag was hanging on the wall vertically. I didn't think much of it. It looked "right". So, I did some research. It turns out it isn't hanging the right way, when hanging a flag vertically. So, those complaining about the flag were right.
I disagree that this was done intentionally, though. I think it was just an oversight by some cartoonists who were just hired to draw some frames.
In any case, this was the bulk of my part of the discussion. I learned some new things about hanging flags vertically. I admitted that I was initially wrong.
Yet, in the midst of all of this, you started turning the video into something anti-Obama. Again, this was the outcome of your Rorschach Test. It says more about you than it says about the video. I'm not saying your viewpoint is wrong. Your viewpoint is your viewpoint. You have a right to have your viewpoint. You have a right to believe in what you believe. You likely have some very good reasons to believe what you do.
Where I had a problem was how you started becoming condescending, rude, and started acting like nobody else had a right to believe in anything else but what you believe in. This is an oxymoron. It makes you a hypocrite.
If you truly believe in freedom, you would welcome others who disagree with you... rather than believing the world would be better off without people who disagree with you. If everyone thought exactly like you... while it may be great for YOUR viewpoint... it would eliminate the diversity which makes America so great. We have a good balance of many diametrically opposed viewpoints. We had this when our country was born and we still have it today.
I think the real threat to America will be when everyone completely agrees with one ideology. THAT is something to fear. If everyone got along, that is great. But getting along does not mean agreeing.
You seem to point at everyone who disagrees with you and label them a "liberal". I think that's a weak argument. It isn't an argument at all. It's just giving up. It's being too afraid to speak the truth and open yourself up.
If two children are arguing on a playground and one just says, "You're a poo-poo head!"... you know there will be no learning going on... no growth... no changing of minds... just mindless labeling and name-calling. Sure, your feelings are probably hurt because someone who disagreed with you a long time ago made you cry, or made you afraid, and perhaps now whenever anyone disagrees with you, you become afraid or sad and your only method of communication is calling someone a "liberal" and quoting your favorite website material.
That's your prerogative. However, a liberal... or a conservative... or someone who is somewhere in-between... would ALL agree that you're just being petty. You're arguing just to hear yourself argue. You aren't really contributing anything useful to a discussion. I haven't seen you do much more than regurgitate information found on other websites. I've already read that information. I've already heard that viewpoint. I disagree. If you want to change my mind, you'd need to give me another point of view... your point of view... which will help me to see things in another light. Until you do, you're only making your viewpoint look "hateful" to me.
You seem to automatically want to put me into some sort of bucket, because that's likely what you do when you're afraid of someone. Put them in a bucket with a label like "liberal" so you can keep them safely at bay to protect yourself. The reality is, I voted for Bush. I agreed with us going into Iraq. I still think it was something that is necessary.
At the same time, I do see a lot of our liberties being taken away from us by each successive administration. I saw Bush taking away a bunch of our rights, under the guise of protection. Now, I see Obama taking some rights away, under the guise of protecting the planet.
I use to think global warming was hogwash. Then, I really believed in it. Now, I'm on the fence. I DO believe what we are doing IS having a negative affect on the Earth... however, I ALSO believe that the Earth can handle itself and doesn't need our help. We do the same thing with our bodies. We use stuff that makes us sick... then we take drugs to fix our ailments... and those drugs cause more problems still. I think we need to stop micro-managing everything to death.
So, before you just start stuffing me into a convenient label, how about you just relax and focus on the issues at hand. This isn't about you. This isn't about me. It's about the present and the future. A present and a future that will go on whether or not you or I exist. The only role we should be playing is trying to come up with a solution, not just pointing fingers at each other and blaming the other for the problem.
Who cares WHY we are in the situation we are in. Who cares WHO is to blame? Coming to these conclusions solves nothing. It just wastes time. It clogs the Internet with websites and conspiracy theories that only serve to distract everyone and entertain the masses.
Some things that you see as a problem, I don't. Some things I see as a problem, you don't. So, rather than focusing on issues that we don't agree are problems... how about we work together on the problems we both agree on. Then, we can find some common ground on the issues we disagree with. I think the best mediation is when both people are equally unhappy, because if both sides are fully happy, something devious has likely happened.
Bob and jomama I just want you both to know I will no longer be reading your posts. Your socialist communist views are a waste of time and have no place in any productive society. In fact they are self destructive to a productive society which I know is your goal.
It's sad to see you go, Phil. Nonetheless, everyone knew you'd eventually run away. I told you how much you and I have in common and you responded by saying that I have "socialist communist views". The Rorschach Test has clearly turned your finger around and pointed it at yourself. It is clear to everyone here, now, that you are a socialist communist that seeks to manipulate people into a single viewpoint by making all other viewpoints look hateful. By doing so, you can convince the world that there is only one way to be, which is the heart of socialist communist views.
You started off by bashing Christians, then you bashed anyone who voted for Bush, finally you bashed anyone who voted for Obama. You systematically made sure to bash anyone who essentially took part in the system, one way or the other. In other words, you don't want people to play a role at all. You want everyone to just sit on their thumbs and let the socialists take over.
Thank you for showing your true colors, Phil, and Merry Christmas to you.
You think that things are bad now. Just wait until Obama finish's his four years, and at the rate he is going the country will be bankrupt. He is absolutely the worst president that we have ever had. I think that the worst thing that congress did was give the under 21 year olds the right to vote as they are the ones that put him in.
You got that right. The big problem with the world are the people under 21. They shouldn't have the same rights as those over 21 because they are too stupid to vote.
It is also fairly apparent that people over 70 are so out of touch with the new way of the world that they are equally as dumb, if not worse. Perhaps there should be age-caps on voting. Maybe 21-70.
Also, if you can't speak English very well, perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Maybe a simpler solution is an IQ test with every ballot. If your IQ doesn't register high enough, your vote just doesn't count.
The whole hanging-chad problem in Florida should disqualify all residents of Florida, just for safe measure.
After all, when our forefathers designed a system based on votes, clearly they only intended intelligent people to vote, right? They planned an elite system of only specialized people who could understand English, were of a certain age range, and of an acceptable intelligence. Just because a 20-year-old can live apart from his parents, marry, have children, and fight for our freedoms in the military doesn't mean they are clever enough to have a say in how their freedoms are modified by those 2 years older than them.
Skipper27, I wonder if the misspelling of "finishes" would disqualify your vote. You might want to be careful. Don't want the IQ-Auditors knocking on your door late at night.
@Phil You think we don't live in a police state already? Its already here, and they only need one more big excuse to make it obvious as hell to everyone. Look at what happened to the "Militia Movement" in the 90's. They were simply trying to follow their legal duty as citizens (legally any male from about 17-45 or so is "militia" - by Federal law). What happened to them? For one, the media demonized them, associated the likes of Timothy McVeigh with the militia even though he only went to one Militia meeting, and that group didn't invite him back according to the research I have done. Second, a lot of prominent figures within that movement were jailed over bogus charges and a couple people seemed to have simply dropped off the face of the earth.
Time to face reality, people, we are not living in the Constitutional Republic founded by our Fore Fathers. No, we are living under a neo-Marxist/Fascist tyranny. The Republic created more than two hundred years ago was never intended to garrison its troops in foreign lands, nor to even maintain a large standing army during times of peace to begin with. It was not intended to provide 'social programs' of any kind, it was not meant to have any say whatever in education or in how we live our lives nor the particulars of how we operate our businesses. It was not intended to send public money (the treasury) overseas as "foreign aid" nor to give it out as charity in the form of "social security" or "medicare/medicaid" or "welfare". It was not intended to be controlled by the banker elites or the corporate fat-cats or the lobbyists and special interest groups. Or government was intended to represent the American people abroad, to provide for the common defense and posterity.
Our government, as it stands now, is exactly the opposite of what we were meant to have. They tell us we have a democracy and that is what we now have. But this is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about democracy: "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. The US Constitution was written to protect from both the arbitrary rule of an autocrat and also from the whims of the majority. Sadly, now, we have both a president who is effectively an autocrat (with precious few limits on his power) and a majority growing increasingly in power due to our failing system.
I am convinced that we see in America now is very close to what people would have seen during the last days of Germany's Weimar Republic. Our currency is damn near worthless, inflation is running rampant, our presidents have been accumulating more and more power to themselves through various legislation - ie PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, War Powers Act, ect. - and edicts (executive orders).
Phil, you suggest going to the Supreme Court and getting them to overturn all the unconstitutional legislation. This solution has been tried and it has failed. We the People have attempt to secure a redress of grievances only to find that our very own representatives do NOT listen. The only peaceful solution left is tell virtually all currently sitting politicians that they are fired and to tell BOTH the Republican and Democrat parties to get the hell out of our government. But this solution will not work either, as our despotic government will see it as an act of aggression and will act accordingly, ie Martial Law. And that will almost certainly lead to Civil War.
Robert G I agree with everything you said. Why are you getting upset. Yes it just may come to that but we can't just throw up our hands and rase the white flag. I myself will live free or die fighting to preserve freedom.
Robert G, I believe you are essentially correct. However I expect our despotic government or its International owners will deliberately instigate a civil war. They must know such a confrontation is by now practically inevitable. By creating it themselves they will initially control what happens, where it happens and what the Press sees of it.
BTW there's a short story you might enjoy. Just Google The Window War by Mike Vanderboegh. I'd post the link but don't remember if that's allowed here.
The big eared idiot we have in there as president now needs to be sent packing. We will have to wait on that until 2012. However, we can clean house next November. Pay very close attention to how your canidates feel about America. Less government, taxes, and more illegal alien control. Vote dem or repub, just make sure they are not libs.
@daveleeander Both the Democrat and Republican parties are thoroughly corrupt, "conservative" and "liberal". Both sides have been leading this nation to destruction. As an example: under Clinton we got NAFTA, under Bush we got the "Security and Prosperity Pact of North America" which is basically 'super NAFTA'. Under Clinton we had illegal wire-tapping of citizens and under Bush we had the same, and I'm sure we still have it under Obama. There are only a very small hand-full of politicians on either side that are even remotely trustworthy, and it generally hard to tell which those are.
Liberals are not the enemy. Conservatives are not the enemy. Globalists, Socialists, and Fascists are the enemy. The thing is, they are basically all in the same group right now and they make up the majority of both major parties.
Robert G I think we all understand that the government is a mess and we all know we must do something to fix it. I think daveleeander was just trying to say we as american citizens need to wake up and start voting more responsibly. Yes there has been corruption on both sides but history has shown that liberals tend to lean more towards socialism and communism. The republican party is now paying for there corruption and there situation is now forcing them to go back to there conservative roots. Democrats don't even understand what conservative is.
@Phil Not even "conservatives" really understand what 'conservative' means anymore, and likewise neither side really understands anymore what "liberal" means.
Conservative does NOT automatically mean "pro-Freedom" and all. No, it simply means to "maintain the status quo or else to return to older traditions/customs". All Liberal means is, essentially, "pursuit of change". Historically Liberalism has actually been the driving force toward freedom and Conservatism has been the driving force in maintaining autocratic government. Things are a bit different now, just clarifying what Conservative and Liberal ACTUALLY mean.
That raises an interesting point. Let's say someone likes the way the government is and doesn't want any change. That sounds like a conservative. Then, let's say some liberals (who want change) start mucking up the works of government and change it to something the conservative no longer likes.
The conservative now wants "change"... but change to go back to the way it was. By wanting this "change", is the conservative now a liberal?
And once the liberals get what they want, and now want government to stay that way, do they become conservatives?
@Bob Going back to what used to be would still be 'conservative'. For example, if someone in the US wanted to return to being under the authority of the English Crown then that person would be a conservative. Likewise if someone wants to return to actually following the Constitution then that person is again a liberal. However, if that person wanted to not only return to following the Constitution but also wanted the Constitution amended to (as an example) place more restrictions on what the government can and cannot do then that person is both a liberal and a conservative at the same time.
As an example, in the last election both Obama and McCain wanted some form or other of health-care reform. They each had different ideas of what needed to be done but either way a call for reform of any kind whatsoever is always a Liberal position, since reform means change and change is the heart of true Liberalism. McCain wanted to keep both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan going in full swing and this was a conservative position. Similarly Obama wanted to pull our troops out of Iraq but expand the war in Afghanistan, representing a duality position that was both liberal on the one hand - pulling out of Iraq - and conservative on the other - escalating the war in Afghanistan (this would be conservative since it is the tendency of war is escalate anyway).
To answer your last question, when the Liberals get what they want and than want for things to stay the same then, yes, they do essentially become conservative. However, if those who resisted the Liberal's changes want to return to how things were before then they are also still conservative. Since, as I stated above, Conservatism is both wanting things to stay the same and the desire to return to older ways of doing things.
About that first paragraph in my previous post, this sentence: Likewise if someone wants to return to actually following the Constitution then that person is again a liberal, should actually read thusly:
Likewise if someone wants to return to actually following the Constitution then that person is again a conservative
Interesting view. I'm not 100% certain whether I fully agree with it, but it's an interesting way to view things.
I think it makes the term "conservative" too open-ended (liberal) for most conservatives.
i.e., I would imagine that many conservatives don't exactly want to go back to being under British rule. That would essentially destroy the U.S., and most conservatives are rather patriotic and will fight to the death to keep the United States sovereign.
On the other hand, there is always some period of time one could want to "go back to" and be seen as conservative, which I think unfairly paints every conservative as someone who only looks back and never forward.
You description works great provided that the United States started off conservative and became more and more liberal over time, continuously. However, I see that it has gone up and down in waves between conservatism and liberalism.
i.e., the 60's were rather liberal... Clinton's era was rather liberal... we are entering a more liberal era now... but in between, (during Bush's time) things have gotten more conservative.
So, if someone wants to return things to the way they were in a more liberal time in the past, that person is clearly more liberal. I don't think conservatives necessarily want to go so far back that we are still under British rule, however... or don't have automobiles.
The way I see conservatism and liberalism are not necessarily opposite sides of a coin. Instead, I see the two as being potentially able to co-exist, because they deal with completely different concepts.
To me, a conservative is someone who feels that we are grossly ignoring the letter of the constitution as it was written. The focus is more on writings, rather than the purpose. i.e., if the constitution says "right to bear arms" it means that there should be no restrictions whatsoever. If you want to carry a gun onto a playground, you should have the right to. As soon as exceptions are written, the rights are slowly stripped away until it is nearly impossible to ever own a gun without breaking some sort of new-age law, thus taking away our constitutional right.
To me, a liberal is someone who feels that the constitution was an initial framework meant to provide a spirit of law which can be modified to match the times. So, once everyone gets together and agrees guns should never be on a school ground, everyone high fives each other, writes the law, and guns have a new place they are outlawed.
I see and understand both sides. Both sides consider the constitution and the purpose of our founding fathers to be important, but conservatives feel that there is no need to change anything with the laws to match any "times"... whereas the liberals feel that if we don't change with the times, we will forever be stuck in the past.
I agree with both sides. The conservative in me says that we need to be really careful about changing the foundation of our system. By putting so many different restrictions on guns, we risk losing the right to bear arms altogether. Some liberals might think "why do we need guns anyway?" but that's a question that was already asked by our forefathers, was already discussed in length, and a decision was already made that it was an important right. Continuing to have the discussion repeatedly only seeks to undermine the foundation of our country.
The liberal in me also says that we can't just stick with "the old ways"... abolishing slavery... and in some cases, enforcing the idea that "all men are created equal" have only been possible by allowing change. This is why our forefathers often used vague language in the constitution... purposefully left out specific details in the constitution... and put in provisions to allow for change into the constitution.
The constitution was always meant to be a foundational document to rule all... not the one and only book of laws. Not to mention the fact that each state has its own laws and its own sovereignty to some degree, as provided in the constitution.
So, I think that some uber-conservatives misunderstand the nuances that were allowed for in the constitution, to allow our system to adjust for the times. Some uber-liberals misunderstand the fact that our constitution, and the rights it affords, is what makes our country unique. By changing things too much, we risk becoming no different than any other country, taking away our advantage.
Making an analogy, imagine a "dot com" company. The liberals would continue to make requests to change the website, making it more like Amazon.com. They'd say "hey, look... Amazon does X, so we should do X also." The conservatives would say, "Sure, Amazon does X... but they're Amazon. If we do everyone Amazon does, we'd just BE Amazon. If you want to work for Amazon, leave here and go work for Amazon instead. Don't try to change this company into Amazon, because that's not the company *I* want to work for."
The liberals do have a point. Amazon is a successful website. Following their example isn't too bad of a business decision (as long as you don't right-out plagiarize.)
The conservatives also have a point. If you change too much, you lose your identity.
I am not by any means "wishy washy". I don't just choose "both sides" because it is safe or convenient. If anything, I am a conservative in that I recognize and understand what our forefathers wrote into the constitution and wanted to allow for. Progressive change without changing progress.
So, the conservative in me says "Let's only change what makes sense... but let's also undo what made little sense to change in the first place... and let's always look to the constitution to guide us." The liberal in me says, "Let's not sit around and be afraid to re-think our laws. The U.S. Code holds our laws, not the constitution. The constitution is like our mission statement, not our operating manual.
Some of the laws Bush passed took our country further away from the Constitution. Thus, in that sense, Bush was a liberal. On the other side, Bush talked a lot of conservative talk. Obama has often been called a liberal. However, many of the changes he has been making have been bringing us closer to the constitution. In this sense, he would be conservative. However, most presidents have taken both conservative AND liberal actions to the course of our country. So, for the most part, a hard-core liberal or a hard-core conservative shouldn't be any less happy or more happy with any given president, given the evidence.
@Phil I was going off of the actual dictionary definition of the words not anyone's political views of what those words ought to mean...
The thing about returning to British rule was simply an example.
I wasn't using the terms "conservative" or "liberal" in the sense of a personal label, but rather as an issue-specific label as that is all they really can be if one were to be honest. Most people have some things they would rather not change, some things they would like to go back to, and other things they would like to see changed. Thus, most people hold both conservative and liberal views.
I think you missed the point of my previous post. Although, in a way, your statement drives right at the heart of what I was saying. Conservatism itself is not any particular view or belief, and neither is Liberalism. Instead they are general attitudes that, when treated as such, can easily and peacefully coexist.
Believing that the Constitution's proper intent and meaning is being ignored is not a conservative view, rather wanting society to return to that proper view is a conservative view. Simply believing that the Constitution is being ignored would require a different label, perhaps that of "Constitutionalist" or perhaps "Traditionalist".
Likewise believing that the Constitution is a framework that can be modified to match the times is not a liberal view, it is a reformist view. Actually wanting to change the Constitution would be Liberal.
One interesting point to consider is this: the Founding Father's were NOT conservative. The Conservatives of their day were loyal to the Crown. Conservatism is about resisting change (which CAN be a good thing at times), and so those in America during the Revolution who wanted to continue under British rule were "conservatives". On the other hand, since liberalism is all about change (not always good, but sometimes is) the Founding Fathers were Liberal, simply because they wanted to create an entirely new system of government that promoted the ideals of Freedom and Liberty.
In what I see as being part of a perfect society the attitudes of Conservatism and Liberalism would work together to keep unnecessary and/or destructive change from occurring (conservatism practiced rightly) while at the same time ensuring that those things that did need to be changed would be changed in a responsible manner (liberalism practiced rightly).
@Bob "Obama has often been called a liberal. However, many of the changes he has been making have been bringing us closer to the constitution."
Bob, I must have missed those changes. Can you give some examples?
As to what's "liberal" and what's "conservative", those terms have been stretched and abused so much I expect they mean different things to different people. In my view, the essential difference is this: a true Conservative loves personal Liberty enough to allow everyone to enjoy it, even people he fears. A true Liberal fears his fellow citizens enough to permit restraints upon his own personal Liberty in order to impose it upon others.
HAPPY NEW YEAR to you all! (Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, whatever - All my Fellow US citizens) May 2010 be the best year yet for you, and for our Free, Sovereign, Constitutional Republic!
Your points are all valid. I understand what you are saying. but I think your missing my point. Although it is helpful to know the literal definitions of Conservative and Liberal I was speaking in everyday language. Today democrats in office label themselves as liberals even though they are socialist/communists. It is because of that the everyday language translates liberal into socialist/communists. Unless obama declares himself king of the United States there will be a another election and the next president is going to be a republican or a democrat. Somebody is going to be the next president. Someone is going to fill the seats of congress and the rest of our political offices come next election. The question is do we want to keep the terds we have in office and continue down the sewer pipe or like daveleeander stated: "we can clean house next November.”
PS Just a little advice for you. Just stop reading bob and joemamas posts. They have the collective intelligence of Beavis & Butt-Head and the same love for this country as hitler. Speaking to them is like speaking to a brick wall. They are a distraction from productive and intelligent conversation and I believe they do it on purpose to create disunity. That is my advice. Take it or leave it its up to you
Your hateful comments represent what's mostly wrong with the world today. You ignore the fact that I and joemama are voters, among millions of voters. You apparently belong to a group that just wishes to "ignore" a huge set of voters. Proof that your goal is a goal of elitism. To only move the country in a direction that a minority of voters wish the country to go into, while telling your elite brethren to just ignore the majority of voters. You follow-up by lumping the other voters into some "other" group, even though they are each unique and do not necessarily agree with each other. I do not know joemama and I do not necessarily agree with joemama, and yet you lump joemama and I into a convenient group. Then, you insult our intelligences without actually knowing either of us.
When I have a civil discussion with others on here, I don't drag you into the message. I only address your specific messages. You, on the other hand, when having a civil discussion with another find the need to just insert more insults towards anyone you disagree with. It's also one thing to attack someone's ideas, but to then insult someone's intellect as a whole is the same kind of hatred that leads to racism, terrorism, and temper tantrums.
If you disagree with me that we need to pay close attention to the constitution and continue to revise our laws to bring our system closer to the original intention of the constitution, that's your prerogative. And I welcome your differing point of view. However, I would never compare you to "Beavis and Butthead" no matter how much I disagreed with your view, because I don't know you outside of your political discussions here.
I pray that one day you can let go of the systematic hatred you have for people you disagree with and that you can understand that we are all in the same boat and should learn to get along while also protecting our ways of life, not attack each other, tossing each other out of the boat until our way of life is preserved. Doing so, you'll eventually end up in a boat all alone.
Robert G This is an email I received what is your opinion?
The Fundamental Transformation of America
When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist,
People said it didn't matter.
When it was discovered that his grandparents, were strong socialists, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama,
People said it didn't matter.
When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims,
People said it didn't matter.
When he wrote in another book he authored “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
People said it didn't matter.
When he admittedly, in his book, said he chose Marxist friends and professors in college,
People said it didn't matter.
When he traveled to Pakistan, after college on an unknown national passport,
People said it didn't matter.
When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology,
People said it didn't matter.
When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator",
People said it didn't matter.
When the Palestinians in Gaza, set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign,
People said it didn't matter.
When his voting record supported gun control,
People said it didn't matter.
When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done,
People said it didn't matter.
When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Mummar Kaddafi and Hugo Chavez,
People said it didn't matter.
When it was pointed out that he was a total, newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing,
When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals,
People said it didn't matter.
When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question,
People said it didn't matter.
When he refused to wear a flag, lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry,
People said it didn't matter.
When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises,
People said it didn't matter.
When he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance,
People said it didn't matter.
When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage, anti-capitalism, anti-free markets, pro government control over everything and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition
People said it didn't matter.
When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues,
People said it didn't matter.
When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination,
People said it didn't matter.
When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him,
People said it didn't matter.
When his first act as President, literally within 5 minutes of taking office, he signed executive order #13489 that sealed his own records,
People said it didn’t matter.
When the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, and continues to spend millions in court to keep the material sealed,
People said it didn't matter.
When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character, who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home,
People said it didn't matter.
When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected,
People said it didn't matter.
When he started appointing czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communist,
People said it didn't matter.
When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this nation" into something else,
People said it didn't matter.
When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN,
People said it didn't matter.
When he appointed a cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialist,
People said it didn't matter.
When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers,
People said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar and he believes in "Explicit Consent", harvesting human organs without family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting,
People said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Kevin Jennings, an overt homosexual, and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, education network, as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers,
People said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and admires Hugo Chavez,
People said it didn't matter.
When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama's senior White House advisor and she is an avowed Socialist,
When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration,
People said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Carol Browner as global warming czar, and she is a well known socialist working on Cap and trade as the nation’s largest tax hike in history,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar, who since had to resign when this was made known,
People said it didn't matter.
When Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed, because he was a tax cheat,
People said it didn't matter.
When a Ft. Hood Muslim major Malik Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and an unborn baby, wounded 29 others, we found out he is an Advisor to Obama's Homeland Security team,
People said it didn't matter.
When as president of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia,
People said it didn't matter.
When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness,
People said it didn't matter.
When his actions concerning the middle-east seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time friend,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States ,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he upset our European allies by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops the Field Commanders said we had to have to win,
People said it didn't matter.
When he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off,
People said it didn't matter.
When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected,
People said it didn't matter.
When he forced the takeover of insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc,
People said it didn't matter.
When he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government,
People said it didn't matter.
When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control,
People said it didn't matter.
When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy resources in the United States through Cap and Trade,
People said it didn't matter.
When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State, people finally woke up........ but it was too late.
Any one of these things, in and of themselves does not really matter. But.... when you add them up one by one you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that our Obama is determined to make America over into a Marxist/Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this, do an internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ? Personally, I like happy endings.
If you are an Obama Supporter, please recognize that you have elected a president who is a socialist. There is simply no debate about these facts. But you need to seek the truth, you will be richer for it. Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. I did. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation.
Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Don't rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers for the truth. Search the internet. Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there as well, but you are smart enough to spot the fallacies.
Newspapers are a dying breed. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth? Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he is currently waging an open war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, and he has failed to refute any facts presented – because it is all true. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn't. Please, find the truth, it will set you free.
Our biggest enemy is not China , Russia , Iran ; no, our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington DC.
It would seem to me that there are a lot of missing facts from that huge list. Almost as if every fact of Obama's life and Presidency was carefully combed through and only certain facts with a common theme were cherry-picked to paint a picture that the original writer was intended to paint.
I don't give any more credibility to that cherry-picked message than I'd give to a similar message that tries to paint Obama as the perfect person.
Obama's life in its entirety (both good AND bad) as well as his actions as President (both good AND bad) without any slant or bias would need to be taken as a whole to really make an educated judgement. Anything else is just an exercise in human language.
@Phil Many of those things are cause for concern, certainly. However, not wearing a flag-pin is, to me, completely irrelevant. Not putting his hand to his heart for the National Anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance, is also irrelevant. Here is why: We are supposed to be a FREE nation, not a ritualistic "let's all love America" type of nation. The Star-Spangled Banner, while being a beautiful and moving song is far too militant to honestly be the national anthem of a traditionally anti-war nation. And the Pledge of Allegiance, as it happens, was written by a Marxist anyway. This is supposed to be a nation where petty little things like flag pins and 'paying respect' to the national anthem and such don't even matter.
In truth, all this focus on Patriotic symbols and such from the "Right" in this nation simply stinks of Fascism. Truthfully, if I were to ever run for office I will also not wear a flag-pin, neither will I put my hand to my heart for the national anthem or the pledge (I pledge allegiance to no one and nothing). I will refrain from doing these things not out of hatred for this nation, but rather out of a deep love for what this nation is REALLY supposed to be about.
That said, I'm pretty sure that Obama's reasons for doing the above were different than mine would be.
What do I think of that email though? What is the point of it? Virtually everyone willing to admit that Obama is all-bad already knows it or else is steadily coming to that conclusion just by seeing how he is doing in office now. Do we really need more anti-Obama propaganda?
I'm with wdlockaby on this one. Most of our past presidents, at least those after Lincoln, have been part of the globalist/Elite machine. (And many before him, too.)
Only Lincoln & Kennedy have stood up to them and we don't need to be reminded of what happened to them.
FDR thought Joe Stalin was just wonderful. Nixon brought in Kissinger, just as Obama has. Clinton pushed his Socialist agenda, just as LBJ did.
Bush II dictated and signed all those "executive signing authorities" that have given Obama the ability to walk over the Constitution and citizens of America today. Bush I's daddy was an associate of Hitler's. (If you doubt that, google "Prescott Bush".)
Obama was "hired" to get all those who normally don't vote off their arses to support his entitlement programs, thereby enslaving millions more. Like it or not he was "elected" on the basis of race-which should never have entered into it>
(my keyboard just stopped working properly)
Yes< Bush is just as guilty as Carter and Nixon and LJB and Clinton and FDR and and and and. They've all bought into the plan to sell out America.
Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!
Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!
Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued!
Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.
Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).
Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!
Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)
Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!) Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)
Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.
Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.
Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)
Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)
Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.) Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.
Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)
Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.
Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!) Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)
Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)
Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)
Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.
Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).
Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.
Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)
Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.) Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)
Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.) Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)
Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!
Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)
Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!) Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; & nbsp;guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')
Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)
Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.
Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)
Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)
Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)
Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)
Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)
Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.
"if I were to ever run for office I will also not wear a flag-pin, neither will I put my hand to my heart for the national anthem or the pledge (I pledge allegiance to no one and nothing). I will refrain from doing these things not out of hatred for this nation, but rather out of a deep love for what this nation is REALLY supposed to be about."
I think maybe my initial judgment about you may have been correct. You don't know what this country is about. Your statements are proof that knowledge does not equal wisdom. How can any elected official or citizen uphold, protect and defend this country it's constitution and it's people if they hold the attitude: "I pledge allegiance to no one and nothing". This attitude is the vary reason why government is out of control. We have politicians taking bribes from our own president for personal gain because they "pledge allegiance to no one and nothing" except themselves. The pledge is a commitment to the devotion to our country. Take that away and we become an every man for themselves country. That brings disunity to our country and we fall.
Phil, I love this country. I love America. However, I am not a slave to this country, I am no serf. I do not pledge allegiance to my country, though I will serve my country to the fullest of my ability.
Because, Phil, I understand what this country is REALLY about. It is not about the flag, it is not about the Constitution. The Constitution was written as a safe-guard to protect what this nation is really about. What this nation is really about is FREEDOM and LIBERTY. I am a Free Man living in what was once a Free Nation, but what is now sadly a Corporate-Fascist/Socialist State of Tyranny and Corruption.
The people in power now, it isn't that they don't pledge allegiance to anything. They are the ones who (excluding Obama) pledge allegiance to the flag with a smile in front of as many people as possible. Because what they believe in is power, that is what their hearts pledge allegiance to - power and the pursuit of power. They want to control everything, and a part of how they control everything is by making the mindless masses do things like "pledge allegiance to the flag". Do you not realize that the Founding Father's DID NOT write any kind of pledge of allegiance for this country? Don't realize the significance of that?
A real American, if he were to pledge allegiance to anything at all, would pledge allegiance to only freedom and his family. Further, proper American Patriotism is not felt towards the United States but rather to the particular State within which you live. The united States is Federation of Sovereign and Independent States, not all that different in principle from the European Union - and indeed Europe is simply following our example, after a fashion. The State in which you presently reside is YOUR NATION and that is what you should feel any patriotism for.
I do not pledge allegiance to myself, if I were to pledge allegiance to anything, it would be to Freedom and Liberty and to my wife and children (should the day come when I have a wife and children).
I love the united States, I love my adopted home state of North Dakota, I am a North Dakota Patriot; but I am neither the slave nor serf of either.
And, again, the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist to trick the masses into making the themselves the slaves of a by-then already corrupted Federal government. The whole idea of a pledge is directly contrary to the ideals of freedom and liberty that the Founding Fathers fought and bleed for, and that literally hundreds of thousands of Americans have died defending.
No, Phil, it is YOU who does not really understand what this country is actually about. Let me ask you this: To what lengths will you do to defend Freedom? If will go no further than politics and elections and courts then you truly have no idea what this nation is about. After all, this is a nation Born of Rebellion. The American Revolution could just as easily been called the "American Colonial Rebellion against the Crown". Our Fore-Fathers were willing to sacrifice life and limb in the name of Freedom, and so am I. How about you?
((not talking about anti-government activity, just generally about fighting for freedom))
Hold on … who is the "them" and who is the "us?" Sure, we all get the point of this presentation but if you think we're going in the wrong direction what do you think you can personally do about it? I'll tell you what … it's nothing! You can do nothing to change the direction this country is going … more social and community.
Oh sure, you can join a group, perhaps a tea party and rally for freedom, but will it change the direction? No. The winds of change are upon us, my friends, and individuals and groups are powerless against the winds of change.
Will we (you) lose some freedoms? You bet'cha. And again, there is absolutely nothing legal you can do about it. And if you choose individual violence, you lose. You do not have the resources or the guts to do anything that will change the winds of change.
The best you can do is live your life as best you can cause thinking you can make any change at all is folly. You (we) are S.O.L.
@ RICKHANSON: I respectfully disagree that we can do 'nothing', though I expect that is precisely what many of us will do. The really sad fact for those of us who will fight for Liberty is we won't see it in our lifetime. Many who realize this will decide it's not worth the fight for the benefit of generations as yet unborn. Our Republic is being assaulted by unprecedented Godlessness from both sides. From the Right: Unconstitutional, undeclared foreign wars glorified as "nation-building" or "exporting democracy". And the Left: unrepentant murder of the unborn, glorified as "choice". In view of this shared disregard for life NOW, who would be willing to die for the Liberty of generations a century from now?
I expect we'll be learning the answer to that question a lot sooner than most of us imagined. Truth is, I never thought I'd live to see this Nation on such a determined course to self-destruction. Can it be salvaged? I doubt it, at least in my generation, and probably not in yours either. But I believe the spark of Freedom will always exist as long as there are humans around to pass it on, and from time to time it will be coaxed into a flame. At such times, to the Glory of God, Liberty will prevail.
This cartoon, and it is a cartoon, is reflective of the times in 1948, the scarey part is how well it fits in todays governmental policies. we have lost too many freedoms and rights to these polititions and thier cheating ways.. now is the time to vote every elected politition OUT OF OFFICE, sure some of them have not participated in these thefts, but they have also done little or nothing to halt these thefts.
We must demand term limits on all polititions, in a small effort to stem the power grabs they are making.
vote "GET OUT" in this next election.. you can make a difference..so DO IT...
"the Founding Father's DID NOT write any kind of pledge of allegiance for this country"
Then lets look at the pledge regardless of who wrote it.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America"
Today the flag is a symbol of freedom and liberty projected by our constitution. Also it instills respect, confidence and pride in our country.
", and to the republic for which it stands,"
Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. Archaic figurative a community or group with a certain equality between its members.
"one nation under God,"
This statement is to remind us that as powerful as we are, any and all power we have comes from God. It reminds us we are still subject to God and if we do not put him first and conduct ourselves by his moral standards and commandments he will take what ever power we have away from us. It's to humble us and remind us there are consequences to our actions.
"indivisible,"
This word defines our unity that we must stick together as a people and a nation.
"with liberty and justice for all."
This statement defines our objective which is freedom.
You're correct "the Founding Father's DID NOT write any kind of pledge of allegiance for this country" but The Pledge Of Allegiance is a Pledge to our founding fathers objectives which are:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Regardless of who wrote it it's a summary of their objectives. We as a nation have fallen away from these principles so is it any wonder this country is falling apart.
It is you who does not understand what this country is actually about and why don't you tell all of us on the internet "To what lengths will you do to defend Freedom?" and see how that goes over for you.
RickHanson I feel sorry for you. If our founding fathers had the attitude there would not be a USA at all.
@Phil Today the flag is a symbol of freedom and liberty projected by our constitution. Also it instills respect, confidence and pride in our country.
A flag flown by a government which systematically forced tens of thousands of native peoples off their ancestral homelands just so that citizens of that nation could claim that land as their own, which conquered numerous islands from imperial Spain (initially granting independence to only one of those islands), and has become the first Global Empire - albeit in an unconventional fashion - does not represent freedom or liberty. In truth the Federal flag has become tarnished with deep and awful stains of tyranny over the past century at least. That stain of tyranny only grows worse every year. I fly the Gadsden Flag, that flag was the first flown by the Founding Fathers and more properly represents freedom and liberty.
", and to the republic for which it stands,"
This part would be fine if it were actually in line with a proper "American spirit", which it is not. As I already explained, your loyalty ought to be to your state and not to the Republic. The way the American Constitutional-Republic is SUPPOSED to work is that you are a citizen of the united States THROUGH your citizenry in your State, and any loyalty to the Republic is only to the extent that the Republic's actions are in line with what is best for your own State. As an example, at the beginning of the Civil War Robert E. Lee was asked to lead the Union Army. Lee turned down this offer, though he did so reluctantly. General Lee loved the Union, he truly and sincerely did, however he loved Virginia more and Virginia had just voted to secede (which was perfectly legal despite Lincoln's bizarre case to the contrary). Lee's patriotism and loyalty was first to his State and second to the Union. This is the nature of proper American Patriotism. Loyalty to the Republic first, and insisting on this is Fascist in my opinion.
"one nation under God,"
This argument is completely irrelevant. The fact still stands that the Founding Father's never intended for the American People to pledge allegiance to the Republic or to its Flag. They had a very good reason for this, as they knew that America would quickly become the tyranny that it has under such circumstances. If you inspire this kind of loyalty in a government then a traditionally rebellious population loses its healthy rebellious temperament, and then the national attitude which served the most strongly to keep the government in check and the People free is removed.
The united States was never meant to be indivisible. The Constitution is a contract between the several States. If one State gets to feeling that its interests are no longer being met by adherence to this contract then that State was meant to be able to leave. The Constitution makes no mention of secession whatsoever, and so then under the provisions of the Tenth Amendment it is then well within the Constitutional Authority of ANY State to break from the Union at any time and for any reason. Since the Constitution makes no mention of the issue the Federal government has absolutely zero authority in the matter. Lincoln's war to "preserve the Union" was, in fact, illegal and unConstitutional - further his war destroyed the very foundation of American Freedom and Liberty.
Regardless of who wrote it it's a summary of their objectives. We as a nation have fallen away from these principles so is it any wonder this country is falling apart.
This nation is falling apart, not because we have fallen away from these principles, but rather because we adhered to them for nearly a century. Sure, during that time we became the most powerful empire the world has ever known - but imperialism is completely contrary to the founding principles of this nation. Before we even "fell away from these principles" the United States had already become one of the most globally despotic regimes in history. We even disregarded the notion of "government by and for the People" just so that we could install "pro-America" governments in foreign nations.
The American Republic that I love is the one the Founding Fathers intended to create. An America where people are free to live their lives as they wish. Where they don't have to fear being robbed or killed by outlaws or by too-powerful police (the Founding Father's didn't like police either, and for good reason). Where people do not need worry about being forced to fight in a war that they do not wish to fight (ie no "selective service system"). A country where your vote truly counts, instead of in a country where sworn testimony before Congress that the elections are electronically rigged goes ignored. The modern America is sad and disintegrating sham, I can only hope that one day we can realize the high-minded goals of the ones who created this could-have-been-great Republic. -continued next post-
Unfortunately we have many people such as yourself who buys into the Corporate Fascist agenda, believing the lie that that agenda is actually about Freedom. We also have many people like joemama and Bob who buy into the Socialist agenda and believe it is genuinely about helping people.
What people need to realize is this:
Without real and true Freedom you can NEVER truly have these things:
1. Safety 2. Good Health Care 3. Wealth
Why? Because if you don't have Freedom:
1. Give up your freedom in exchange for safety (ie gun-control) then all that happens is you are defenseless against every-day criminals and you are also defenseless against foreign invasion and your own government (the 2nd Amendment is about defense against the tyranny of our own government more than anything)
2. You can never have good health care because despite its claims to the contrary the Government DOES NOT know what is best for you or for society in general.
3. You can never get ahead in life with the government planning the economy, planned economies ALWAYS FAIL. And the American Dollar is due to collapse any time now.
The list goes on. Without real freedom you have nothing. The Right-Wing is just as tyrannical as the Let-Wing.
And the "Pledge of Allegiance" is a tool of Tyranny for both sides. the Pledge is about nothing less than loyalty to that Fiend of all Fiends "Big Brother" (so to speak). Give that pledge if you want, but as for me - I will have Freedom.
1848 - most of Texas, half of Colorado, part of Wyoming, part of Oklahoma, Utah, Nevada, California, Arizona, New Mexico - result of the Mexican-American War
1865 - Conquest of the Confederate States of America under the guise of "preserving the Union".
1893 - Annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii
1898 - Conquest of Puerto Rico and the Philippines from the Spanish Empire (the Philippines was promised independence but the US was very slow in delivering on that promise)
Various - Native American tribes were repeatedly and forcibly removed from their own lands in order to make room for white settlers.
Additionally both Iraq and Afghanistan have been forced to have democratic governments. While a move towards freedom is always good, a democratic government is destructive to freedom. Further no nation has the moral authority to establish a new government in different nation of the behalf of that nation. If the Iraqi and Afghani peoples want Freedom they and they alone can fight to make themselves free. Freedom comes only at the cost of a people's own blood. Also, should the Iraqi or Afghani democratic governments ever adopt "anti-America" policies it is very likely, due to the general attitude of hyper-Patriotism in the modern American Empire, that these governments will be demonized by both the US government and the US media and it will again be likely that the US government will act to depose those governments or their leaders. The US governments frequent intrusion into foreign local politics bears this out as being highly probable.
Robert G you say you love this country but I'm starting to realize that you truly hate this country. I am now wondering if you are one of those Muslims that want to get rid of the constitution and replace it with Shari'a law or more so a satanist believing there should be no law at all. If we followed your philosophy this country would be ripped apart and maybe that is your goal. you preach freedom without unity. there is another word for that called anarchy. You constantly live in the past and act like you have a bleeding hart for anybody that was ever wronged. You act like we owe the world and have no right to exist as one nation. Get your head out of the past and into the present. Know our history don't live in it. Yes I know things are screwed up but like it or not economics are a reality and they don't conform to personal opinion and political philosophy. You may not like it or believe in it but it doesn't care. buying and selling has been going on on this planet since there have been people on the earth. The basic principle is:
I gather resources
I produce a product
I sell the product for more wealth then I used to create it.
I profit
I keep some for myself and use the rest to get more resources and make more product.
I sell more product
I earn enough profit to employ someone who needs a job.
He then helps me to make my product as I pay him so he can support himself and his family.
I then get more resources and sell more product.
I get much more profit keep some for myself and hire more people.
They help me make more product and I pay them so they can support their selves and their families.
They then go out into the community and buy goods and services from other businesses to support there families.
Those businesses make a profit keep some fore themselves
Those businesses then hire more people to make more product and they support their selves and their families.
Then the employees from other businesses come to my business and buy my product so I can make more profit and hire more people and they then support their families.
This scenario works and improves general quality of life for everybody. Its called capitalism and it is freedom. It is freedom of industry and there is nothing wrong or immoral about it. You earn what you keep and keep what you earn. Whether it is the owners or the employees general quality of life improves as a community. The problem is socialism for example:
I gather resources but I cant buy as much because of government sails tax and fees to pay for redistribution of wealth.
I produce a product but not as mush because I don't have many resources.
I sell the product for more wealth then I used to create it but I must pay outrages sails taxes to the government to pay for redistribution of wealth. I must raze the price that I'm selling it for.
I profit vary little because not many people can afford my product.
I keep none for myself and use the rest to get more resources make more product.
I sell more product but make little to no profit.
I earn enough profit to sustain myself and can't afford to hire anyone.
Other businesses loose profit because people have less money and cant afford there products.
in order to survive businesses are forced to lay off employes because they can't afford to pay them and taxes to pay for redistribution of wealth.
The people that are employed are called the middle class. These people now become the lower class and over time the middle class gets wiped out.
Businesses die and unemployment goes through the roof.
Government must continue paying but they cant collect enough taxes to support a socialist society.
Government raises taxes to continue redistribution of wealth closing down the few businesses that are left.
Now there are only two classes in power: the upper class in control of the government and the unemployed lower class being crushed at the bottom.
People turn to crime to survive.
Government becomes a monarch
monarch is overthrown by a more powerful Government.
Socialism doesn't work.
Anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority and doesn't work
@Phil Firstly, I don't believe I discussed economics, were you meaning to address someone else with that point?
Secondly, I am not and have never been a Muslim. In my view "Alah" is the same as the Christian "Satan".
Am I talking about disunity? No, I am not. I am talking about Freedom. As I have said, while I will not pledge allegiance to the Federal Government or to the Federal Flag, I will serve my nation to the best of my ability. However, it would seem that to you serving your nation must necessarily mean service to the Republic only, whereas I see service to the Founding Principles of this nation as being infinitely more important. Although, that is not to say that service to the Republic (ie the Federal Government) is irrelevant - it is not irrelevant - nor is it to say that such service is necessarily or always wrong. It is just that where service to the "Flag" or to the Federal Government would have you act contrary to the principles of Freedom and Liberty then service to those Principles must come first.
I apologize if you misunderstood my previous post concerning American imperialism. My intent was not displaying any kind of hate for this nation, nor was it intended to state that the uS must make amends. No, I was simply pointing out that the united States is NOT perfect and that is much more far gone then most people would ever conceive of. If one truly loves his country then he is willing to admit his beloved country's faults. A character flaw that goes ignored can never be corrected.
I look to the past only in an attempt to see how things might unfold later on, I do not live in the past. My mind is on the future, but looking to the future while ignoring history is foolhardy in the extreme. Yes, we must know our history, but we must not stop at simply knowing - we must understand what that history means for us today.
American Imperialism is at the very heart of what has become so wrong with our nation. We have busied ourselves with justifying it and imagining new names for it other than 'imperialism'. During the Mexican-American War we called it "Manifest Destiny", now we have an even more bizarre name for it "defending freedom". The problem is that one cannot defend Freedom through imperialism, the two are diametrically opposed to each other.
By the way, I do - in fact - love the Constitution. I have read it almost more times then I have read the Bible (and I have read the Bible cover-to-cover at least twice that I can remember, probably more). There are only few amendments I would like to make to the Constitution, the first would be to repeal the 16th Amendment and the second would be to further restrict the Federal government, and also I would like to amend it so as to make it more clear that the right to own firearms is an individual right and that this right is to remain unrestricted (as the Founding Father's intended it to be). I would certainly never want to get rid of the Constitution.
Finally, Phil, great job at demonstrating your talent for unfounded character attacks again.
Do you understand what Freedom really even entails? Do you really understand how absolutely necessary it is? And do you truthfully understand that the current American system is extremely toxic to our Freedom on all fronts? We are not just talking about a hand-full of political talking points, we are talking about the very heart and soul of our nation.
I can't resist a brief reply to your statement about capitalism...
It does work. Never said anything to the contrary in this discussion that I can remember. You make rather strange assumptions.
Please note that without a central government it is literally impossible to have anything other than a capitalist economy. It is only with a central government that one can have socialism. The only exception to this would be communalism, but communes only generally work on a small scale, and they don't seem to have ever worked for very long (social prejudice may be a factor in that however).
Capitalism, as you said, does work. It isn't perfect, but it works. Though, of course, no human has ever come up with a perfect anything so that capitalism is imperfect comes as no great surprise.
The pros of Capitalism: -Wealth is generated at a much greater rate and more efficiently than in other systems
-More individuals can partake of this wealth than in most other systems (barring any corruption)
-Benefits greatly from Free Enterprise, Free People pursuing their own dreams and desires (within reason of course)
-When coupled with Sound Money policies and when lacking any toxic central banking institutions (they are all toxic) quality of life for everyone gradually goes up
Cons: -Doesn't really do much to alleviate poverty, but then no economic model truly does anyway (no one has figured out how to "cure" this "societal disease" yet)
-Easily coupled with fiat currency and central banking, both of which are outgrowths of fractional-reserve banking (a natural and unhealthy development in all capitalist societies to date)
-When operating under the previously stated system of fractional-reserve banking + central banking + fiat currency the effect is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer
-Continuing from above quality of life goes down instead of up
-Wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, increasing poverty and unemployment
So, you see, Capitalism is double-edge sword. When combined with true Free Enterprise, and with minimal government intrusion the capitalist system is generally beneficial to the majority of a population. However, when combined with a Fractional-Reserve Banking model, fiat currency, and the inevitable Central Bank (nothing more than a Fraction-Reserve Banking cartel) you have make Capitalism into a very destructive system.
Capitalism can be good, it can also be bad. It is all in how much Freedom is involved in the system. Right now there is very little freedom in our economy, and current American Capitalism is destructive to society. However, if we were to move towards Socialism or Communism thing would become exponentially worse.
Phil, I encourage to stop making grand assumptions about people to simply be civil.
Phil - Pure capitalism doesn't work. That's why most nations including the US have a mix of capitalistic and socialized institutions.
For example if you ran the Police and Fire Departments under a capitalistic model they would have to charge for their services and only people that could afford it would receive their protections. If your house was on fire and you don't have money to pay the fire department they would just let it burn.
That's why we have them socialized.
It's also more profitable to dump waste into rivers than to properly dispose of it. Which is why we have socialized institutions to regulate environmental concerns, food quality, etc.
In healthcare the profit motive could actually keep you from curing people. Cured people aren't profitable but repeat customers are. So to maximize profitability it would be preferable to not cure someone and perhaps keep them coming back for medications that treat the symptoms.
You also seem to have a great misunderstanding of the business side of Socialism. Many highly socialized countries (like Denmark for example) have very successful and profitable businesses.
"I am now wondering if you are one of those Muslims that want to get rid of the constitution and replace it with Shari'a law"
Most Muslims have no interest in removing the constitution and replacing it.
@Robert G - You said "Secondly, I am not and have never been a Muslim. In my view "Alah" is the same as the Christian "Satan"."
That is ridiculous. A very rudimentary education in religious history will show you that Islam and Christianity are both based on Judaism. They are 3 branches of the same religion. Then each of those religions have branches below them.
So Allah is the same god as the Christian and Jewish god.
I find it amusing and sad at the same time that lately almost all right wing talking points are irrational fear based crap. It's as if they are just trying to throw as much fear at the wall as they can and hope some of it sticks.
It doesn't matter how much of it can easily be debunked. It seems like the rational is that enough people are gullible enough to believe it without checking and this will somehow be effective.
It's not surprising as it was effective years ago but it's much less effective on the general population now as most of them have learned their lesson after Bush.
For example Phil's right wing talking point:
When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist, People said it didn't matter.
A quick search reveals that Davis wasn't so much a communist or a mentor.
"In his memoir Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote about "Frank", a friend of his grandfather's. "Frank" told Obama that he and Stanley (Obama's maternal grandfather) both had grown up only 50 miles apart, near Wichita, although they did not meet until Hawaii. He described the way race relations were back then, including Jim Crow, and his view that there had been little progress since then. As Obama remembered, "It made me smile, thinking back on Frank and his old Black Power, dashiki self. In some ways he was as incurable as my mother, as certain in his faith, living in the same sixties time warp that Hawaii had created."[14] Obama also remembered Frank later in life when he took a job in South Chicago as a community organizer when he took some time one day and visited the areas where Frank had lived and wrote in his book, "I imagined Frank in a baggy suit and wide lapels, standing in front of the old Regal Theatre, waiting to see Duke or Ella emerge from a gig." [15] Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of Political Affairs magazine, claimed that "Frank" was Davis, and that he was a "decisive influence" in helping Obama to find his present identity as an African-American.[16] Claims that Davis was a political influence on Obama were made in the widely-disputed anti-Obama book The Obama Nation.[17] A rebuttal to The Obama Nation released by Obama's presidential campaign, titled Unfit for Publication, confirms that "Frank" was, in fact, Frank Marshall Davis, but disputes claims made about the nature of their relationship.[18]"
It's an excuse to get the Communist label out there. But even if Davis was a die hard communist their discussions were primarily about race relations.
"He warned against blacks accepting the Depression-era remedies being pushed by communists"
I'm not sure why the right thinks this is going to scare people. Perhaps it will, but only if they don't put much thought into it.
Next talking point:
"When it was discovered that his grandparents, were strong socialists, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school"
A quick search doesn't really turn up anything about his grandparents being "strong socialists" or his mother going to a socialist school. The talking point doesn't indicate why we should be afraid if it were true either. Just an excuse to get another fear label out there I suppose.
The American public school system is socialized so I guess anyone who attended public school went to a "socialist school".
When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims, People said it didn't matter.
Not sure what the point of this one is so I'm not going to even bother fact checking it. Some sort of fear based religious bigotry I suppose. We know Obama is not a muslim and it's not like we have any laws against people with muslim fathers being elected to office. Or muslims being elected. So what is going on with this one?
When he wrote in another book he authored "I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." People said it didn't matter.
"Here is the accurate and more complete quote: "Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-books.htm
Why would the right try to misinform you by distorting the quote? Seems an obvious ploy to invoke some anti-muslim bigotry. The actual quote is something all Americans should stand by to defend the freedoms of their fellow citizens.
When he admittedly said, in his book, he chose Marxist friends and professors in college, People said it didn't matter.
"They, they, they. That was the problem with people like Joyce. They talked about the richness of their multicultural heritage and it sounded real good, until you noticed that they avoided black people ...
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling conventions. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated." http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ownwords.asp
Not sure what the problem is here. I guess they got the Marxist label out there for some fear though.
When he traveled to Pakistan, after college on an unknown national passport, People said it didn't matter.
"Apparently, according to the Obama campaign, In 1981 -- the year Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University -- Obama visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia. After that visit, Obama traveled to Pakistan with a friend from college whose family was from there. The Obama campaign says Obama was in Pakistan for about three weeks, staying with his friend's family in Karachi and also visiting Hyderabad in Southern India." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html
So what's the fear here? Visiting Pakistan is somehow evil? WTF really? Why exactly?
When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate, People said it doesn't matter.
I suppose it's another way to get a misleading fear label out there.
When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology, People said it didn't matter.
Actually the preacher didn't hate America. He wanted to improve the plight of its black citizens. He is against some of America's policies. Just like the right is against some things America is doing now. That must mean the right hates America.
When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator", People said it didn't matter.
"Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine's most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006."
Sure would be nice if he was more consistently liberal. That's what the people voted for. I guess the right is thinking "liberal" is a fear word except that's obviously what the people want.
When the Palestinians in Gaza, set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign, People said it didn't matter.
WTF? Can't find anything at all substantiating this and why would it be bad in the first place. The oppressed people of Gaza can't fund raise? Even if you had some sort of Palestinian bigotry going on then what? White supremacists supported Bush. Does that make Bush something?
Damn it's tiring continuing to debunk right wing talking points. Is that the goal maybe? Tire people out with misinformation?
My favorite one is:
When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, People said it didn't matter.
A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.
"Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate." http://www.newsweek.com/id/158314
The "homosexual indoctrination" bit is the epitome of right wing scare tactics. It makes me laugh but also makes me wonder how many gullible people actually believe this crap and get all ascared.
Why do you think there's this hardcore trend for most right wing talking points being easily debunked fear mongering, labels, and misinformation? We see it with healthcare reform and everything Obama. We saw it in the Bush campaigns. Do they really think the most effective way to push their agenda is this way over reason and facts?
@Joemama, "Phil - Pure capitalism doesn't work." I beg to differ. On the federal level, the purer, the better. Very many of the problems we suffer as a Nation are rooted in government interference with the Free Market. As for police & fire departments, these are matters for the community to decide. Of course if you actually OWNED real estate in a community and didn't agree with its decision it would be your right to exclude your property from that community, but we don't privately own property in this country, AFAIK.
@RobertG, I generally agree, but I'd have to say "current American Capitalism" doesn't work because it is NOT Capitalism. At this point in our history it has become so polluted by Unconstitutional regulations it bears little resemblance to a Free Market economy.
And to all: For all its shortcomings, this Nation became the freest, most productive, most powerful and richest country in the history of civilization. It got a good jump on success by following our Founding Documents. Yet every step we have taken away from that foundation has weakened us in all respects.
The only hope for the survival of our free, sovereign, Constitutional Republic is the restoration of those Documents as the bedrock of our laws.
Warren - You said "I beg to differ. On the federal level, the purer, the better. Very many of the problems we suffer as a Nation are rooted in government interference with the Free Market."
Government interference as certainly needed and is sometimes good and sometimes bad. Without it you get things like child labor, rampant pollution, unsafe workplace practices, and unsafe products.
We used to have much of the above problems and still do to some extent. But you can certainly see them out of control in other countries that don't have as many regulations.
As for police & fire departments, these are matters for the community to decide.
Yes and communities decide on a socialized model because it makes sense. We also use the socialized model for our military, roads, post office, libraries, public schools, etc.
Joemama, I agree with you, to a point. That 'point' is clearly defined in our Constitution & Bill of Rights. The purpose of those documents is to limit the power of the federal government and protect the rights of the States, and the citizens.
Some of the tasks currently handled by the federal government are enumerated in the Constitution. Those not so enumerated cannot be legally undertaken by the federal government without an amendment to justify them.
So, if the general public and the 'powers that be' want, say, federally funded and controlled public education, they must pass a Constitutional amendment to accommodate it. Otherwise it is Unconstitutional, and therefore illegal and unenforceable in the States.
To build any sustainable structure it's a good idea to start with a sound foundation. I believe our Founding Documents form the soundest foundation for representative government ever conceived by man. But in order to function as it was designed, any construction or expansion upon it must take its design into account. Otherwise we wind up with precisely the sort of dysfunctional mess we have now.
BTW, I can't tell you how it pains me to see people who are honestly trying to save this Nation pass on such misinformation as you have previously pointed out. I get buckets of this stuff, mostly from friends on the Right. I try to take a few minutes to either validate or refute the claims, and send them my conclusions and links to relevant documentation.
One of the points I try to impress upon my misguided friends of Liberty is the damage they do to our credibility by perpetuating these lies. The TRUTH will serve us all, whereas lies only serve those who would keep us divided.
What you see as 'Right Wing Fear-mongering' is actually no such thing. Oh, it is often believed and forwarded by Right-wing reactionaries, but it was almost invariably created by people a lot smarter than that. These people are the dividers, the real Enemy of Liberty.
What few people, Left, Right or Center, seem able to grasp is, we have a common Enemy. And all that Enemy has to do is to keep us divided, seeing the enemy in one another. If our Enemy can keep this going just a little while longer we will self-destruct, and our once-free, sovereign, Constitutional Republic will be no more.
Joemama, I'm sure you and I can find many points of disagreement. But I am equally certain that is exactly what our mutual Enemy hopes we will do. It will behoove us all to concentrate on finding points of agreement and cultivating them, and saving our animosity for those intent upon our destruction.
@Phil I have very little interest in discussing Islam with you, I was simply stating my view and refuting your strange notion that I must be Muslim. And, yes, I know that Islam is loosely based off Judaism.
And concerning the faults of pure capitalism, we are in agreement. My list of pros/cons had to do more with business than with fire departments and the like.
@joemama Most left-wing talking points are also fear-based crap. The object of fear is simply different. For example, with the right-wing the object of fear is generally something along the lines of "national security" while on the left-wing it will often be something like "the environment".
The left and right are simply differing sides of the same coin. Their methods, I find, are not all that incredibly different.
@Warren - You said "Joemama, I agree with you, to a point. That 'point' is clearly defined in our Constitution & Bill of Rights. The purpose of those documents is to limit the power of the federal government and protect the rights of the States, and the citizens."
I'll agree that many unconstitutional things have been going on in recent years. For example invading a country that was not threatening us like we did with Iraq is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution. The permanent military bases we maintain in countries we aren't at war with would be another example.
"BTW, I can't tell you how it pains me to see people who are honestly trying to save this Nation pass on such misinformation as you have previously pointed out. I get buckets of this stuff, mostly from friends on the Right."
That's refreshing to hear. I welcome honest fact based debate but constantly disproving these misinformation campaigns gets ridiculous.
"What you see as 'Right Wing Fear-mongering' is actually no such thing. Oh, it is often believed and forwarded by Right-wing reactionaries, but it was almost invariably created by people a lot smarter than that. These people are the dividers, the real Enemy of Liberty."
I've often thought that myself. There's some fairly smart devious people pushing this stuff. It's like they try and throw every piece of misinformation they can up against the wall just to see what will stick. Unfortunately many people don't bother to check it and spread it on. And then people like Phil are just reduced to name calling when you prove it wrong.
Putting this stuff does disservice to their party though on some level as the more thoughtful and rational like yourself often want to distance themselves from the ridiculous.
"Joemama, I'm sure you and I can find many points of disagreement. But I am equally certain that is exactly what our mutual Enemy hopes we will do. It will behoove us all to concentrate on finding points of agreement and cultivating them, and saving our animosity for those intent upon our destruction."
Sounds good. Try this one...it seems to me that one the largest problems we have now is corporate interests polluting our government. We've had people from large food processing companies working in the FDA. We've had people from the industries we're supposed to be keeping tabs on writing the bills the regulate them. I think we've all heard about Goldman Sachs influence on the government. And of course there's the lobbyists, campaign contributions, and "corporations as people".
From and earlier post of yours you said "In my view, the essential difference is this: a true Conservative loves personal Liberty enough to allow everyone to enjoy it, even people he fears. A true Liberal fears his fellow citizens enough to permit restraints upon his own personal Liberty in order to impose it upon others."
On this one I'd have to completely disagree with you at least with modern conservatives. You have it completely backwards.
Liberals are more for personal liberty. Where most of the conservatives I talk to want to keep homosexuals from marrying, would approve of separate treatment for muslims, supported Bush's warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act and torture, are against legalizing marijuana even for medical use, are afraid of legal Latino Americans, and some would actually support the government prohibiting divorce.
Liberals don't fear their fellow citizens like that and generally fight those kind of restraints on their personal liberty.
@Robert G - You said "@Phil I have very little interest in discussing Islam with you, I was simply stating my view and refuting your strange notion that I must be Muslim. And, yes, I know that Islam is loosely based off Judaism."
Looks like you've confused something I wrote as something Phil wrote. I was merely pointing out your mistake. All 3 religions are worshiping the same god since they are simply 3 branches.
Most left-wing talking points are also fear-based crap. The object of fear is simply different. For example, with the right-wing the object of fear is generally something along the lines of "national security" while on the left-wing it will often be something like "the environment".
I'd disagree there. This thread is a good example. There are a lot of right wing fear based talking points but virtually no left wing fear points.
Certainly national security has been used to talk us into all kinds of things and many are interested in acting responsibly towards the environment but I really haven't seen anything like the "commie, marxist, socialist, kenyan, muslim, antichrist, death panel, killing grandma, euthanasia, nazi!" crazy fear tactics currently being attempted by the right.
This is the most warped outlook of Anything that I have seen in a long time.. You people are among the idiotic so-called educated that I have seen.. That is what scares me, that you people have no idea what is really happening
Lora it is spelled 'abysmal'.... sorry couldn't resist.
Bottom-line: we are where we are and we ARE going down the wrong path as defined by our founding fathers. We’ve seen the system work in a way that I’m sure would have surpassed their wildest dreams. But we are letting it slip away…
Neither party is representing the will of the people. We have allowed every whining special interest group looking to get something from the government to somehow be successful. Now it is the status quo. Imagine if we didn’t have our wealth stripped from us every payday by all of the various government agencies, how benevolent we could all be…
I would much rather give locally to organizations and people in need than give to the government to inefficiently redistribute to whoever holds out their hand. One of my co-workers disagrees. He says he’s too lazy to do that. He’d rather have the government do it. Shame on him! He’s young, maybe he will learn.
Yes, Capitalism is an ‘ISM’ and it is far from perfect, but it does correct ITSELF through market pressures and a Government will not (due to largely to apathy and election cycles). If the media spent more time investigating the abuses in the Capitalist paradigm and less in propaganda-spew, then it would correct itself that much faster. There is no system better to drive innovation, growth, and prosperity than a merit-based society. Giving to those unwilling to work hard and contribute to the ‘greater good’ does nothing but breed contempt from those willing to put it all on the line every day whether it be a laborer, a business owner, a soldier, or a politician.
We the English speaking, tax paying, law abiding citizenry of this great country need to take time out of our busy lives to fight now for what is important or be faced with the necessity of a violent revolt later when the government has usurped so much power that we no longer have any choice but to revolt. Call your representatives, write them personalized letters, call the White house, let them know you don’t agree with the policies they are presenting and let them know you are actively working on making sure they don’t get re-elected. We need them to change their perspectives or throw the bums out! They don’t serve us, the ‘silent majority, they serve the professionals who lobby them to get special favors while we go toil to pay their salaries and to pay for all the new ‘programs’. Hmmm. Good work (politicians and lobbyists) if you can get it, eh?
No one person can control the outcome of this great nation. However, this administration, in particular, promised transparency to the political process but has instead held tightly the information that is being negotiated. And why not? There is no balance of power designed by our forefathers to protect the political process. Both houses of congress (Legislature), the White House (Executive), and the Supreme Court (Judicial) are all ‘progressive’ leaning and to whom do they need to report? US! That’s who. We are in grave danger and too many of us are willing to stand by and watch.
Organize! Talk to your friends and neighbors! Share the outrage!
When your kids ask you in 20 years what you did in this time will you them I fought for their future or were you too busy?
@joemama Concerning the comment about the origin of Islam, I stand corrected. Don't know why I thought Phil said it. However, just because Islam is in some way based on Judaism does not mean they worship the same god. Allah and Yahweh are not the same, from the studying I did a few years ago Islam has rather different values in some respects. Though, as I said before I have very little interest in discussing Islam. To tell the truth, I have come to the conclusion that all of the world's major (and minor) religions are "full of it" - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism included (though not just those three).
Also, whether or not the left-wingers in this discussion have resorted to fear-based talking points is irrelevant as you have mostly been countering Phil's arguments it seems.
@Timothy - You said "Call your representatives, write them personalized letters, call the White house, let them know you don’t agree with the policies they are presenting and let them know you are actively working on making sure they don’t get re-elected."
What we need to be doing is writing our representatives and the White House telling them we do agree with the policies they are presenting and not to pay any attention to the party of "no".
This is why we elected them. So they would roll back the damage the Bush years did and get some real reform accomplished!
We are a corrupt people addicted to easy living. We didn’t work for our freedom, we inherited it, and like a lot of gifts, it generally isn’t appropriately understood or appreciated. Now that we are about to loose the last vestiges of our freedom, we whine and moan and blame everything except the real culprits, ourselves. We tolerate (there is that damnable word again) our leaders lying to us, we tolerate abuse by those elected leaders, we accept that the news media, which has a special protection built into the Constitution, is politicized and does not generally tell us the truth (so how can we decide what is right?). We accept a corrupt legal system in which power and money too frequently buy justice while a poor honest person supported by the truth is often denied justice. We accept a two-party political system over which we have virtually no control, again because of power and money.
So we can squabble and argue, we can shout and blame, we can moan and cry, but we won’t face the truth. Things are the way they are because we not only permit it, but condone it, use it, and benefit by it. What is the answer? We need to go back to the basics and reawaken our knowledge of principles, what they are, why they are, where they came from, and what those principles impose upon us in terms of action and behavior. It is, in fact, your obligation to require your friends and neighbors to behave consistent with their professed beliefs, and if those professed beliefs are in conflict with yours, there cannot be a society, there cannot be a culture, and there cannot be peace. There can be differences, differences cannot be avoided, but they must be differences in degree, not in kind. Now that is harsh, but that is the truth – you know that because that is where we are. Your government is a major culprit in bringing this about because it says you must tolerate any differences, you must accept differences that violate your principles.
This is an incomplete statement, a statement that some will find easy to challenge because of their own principles and beliefs. Assuming ideology as a motivation, it would be fun to discuss any point argued, and it would be most instructive for everyone to participate.
@American Longview - Your rant was really vague and off topic from what most people are discussing here but I'll address it anyway.
You say "Are we going to have unity between Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, etc., when there are unalterable and conflicting core differences that separate each from the other?"
Yes, of course we can have unity with people of different religious views. Why wouldn't we? The country was founded on religious freedom but we're all Americans.
"Tolerance – the magic tonic word from the sixties – tolerate what"
You posted quite a list of things that you don't want to tolerate. A lot of them illegal so they're covered. I did notice the bigotry towards homosexuals and I don't believe we should tolerate bigotry.
I notice you mentioned "immorality" as if you desire to push your own sense of morality on everyone else.
"Now that we are about to loose the last vestiges of our freedom"
How exactly are we about to lose the last vestiges of our freedom? Which freedoms specifically do you think you're losing?
"It is, in fact, your obligation to require your friends and neighbors to behave consistent with their professed beliefs, and if those professed beliefs are in conflict with yours, there cannot be a society, there cannot be a culture, and there cannot be peace."
Actually that's completely wrong. It is not your obligation to make your neighbors do anything and people with differing beliefs have always been able to form societies.
You have no right to force your neighbor to do anything unless they are breaking the law.
"There can be differences, differences cannot be avoided, but they must be differences in degree, not in kind."
This sounds like Nazi ideals.
"Your government is a major culprit in bringing this about because it says you must tolerate any differences, you must accept differences that violate your principles."
Thankfully. Your principles are for you. Other people have their own principles.
@joemama I didn't vote for these jokers we have in office now, I didn't even vote for their Republican counterparts. BOTH PARTIES are KILLING this country and getting filthy rich at YOUR EXPENSE in the process. Obama is just going to do more damage, he isn't the evil piece of crap that "Conservatives" claim, but he isn't any better than Bush was either.
That said, if you like what Obama is doing then good for you. Everyone should be able to live in the kind of nation they would like. Problem is that there are plenty of people - like myself - who don't like the kind of nation that either the Republican or Democrat parties are trying to make.
@Vicki, you wrote: "This is the most warped outlook of Anything that I have seen in a long time.. You people are among the idiotic so-called educated that I have seen.. That is what scares me, that you people have no idea what is really happening"
Hi Vicki, and welcome aboard! I hope you will elaborate on your statement above. (As a side note, I usually find the "You people" phrase amusing and use it occasionally myself, though perhaps for a different effect.)
Also, if you are including me among the "so-called educated", I am flattered, but you are mistaken. I cannot claim to have much formal education, only to be an old man who doesn't watch television, reads a lot and has been paying attention for a long time.
I am genuinely interested in other people's thoughts and that interest has helped me learn much of what I know. So please enlighten me: what, in your opinion, is really happening?
@Joemama, I enjoyed your post and typed a response to it but when I tried to send it something crashed the site and ate my response. So I'll try again. You wrote:
"I'll agree that many unconstitutional things have been going on in recent years. For example invading a country that was not threatening us like we did with Iraq is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution. The permanent military bases we maintain in countries we aren't at war with would be another example."
On this point we are in complete agreement. Further, I consider any prolonged military engagement anywhere to require a formal Declaration of War by Congress. Absent such a declaration I don't believe Constitutional justification exists for the President to commit troops. Such transgressions have become routine since President Truman began his 'police action' in Korea in 1950.
Regarding misinformation campaigns, you wrote: "I've often thought that myself. There's some fairly smart devious people pushing this stuff. It's like they try and throw every piece of misinformation they can up against the wall just to see what will stick."
I am certain you are correct here. My point is, the people creating such garbage are members of both parties, or of neither. That doesn't matter because either way they are working for our mutual Enemy. Our Enemy doesn't care which party comes out on top, so long as we keep taking this "party" crap seriously and keep fighting one another.
You wrote: "Putting this stuff does disservice to their party though on some level as the more thoughtful and rational like yourself often want to distance themselves from the ridiculous."
From my observation the core of each party has been taken over by the Enemy. The last several administrations, regardless of party, have worked to diminish our Liberty and sovereignty. I expect this will continue until our free Republic has been abandoned in favor of a World government.
@Joemama, you wrote: "Try this one...it seems to me that one the largest problems we have now is corporate interests polluting our government. We've had people from large food processing companies working in the FDA. We've had people from the industries we're supposed to be keeping tabs on writing the bills the regulate them. I think we've all heard about Goldman Sachs influence on the government. And of course there's the lobbyists, campaign contributions, and "corporations as people"."
Yet another point of agreement! I think you are absolutely correct about this. Please also consider: years ago if you were physically injured or sick, you could visit the local apothecary, request whatever medication you thought you needed, pay the druggist and leave. No prescription, nothing to sign... you were free to diagnose and treat yourself if you so desired.
We don't have that freedom today though. Instead, most medications much more potent than aspirin require a prescription. That usually means an expensive visit to the doctor. Now the laws requiring this purport to be in place to protect us from our own ignorance, but that is dishonest on the face of it. Just follow the money: our drug laws exist to enrich doctors, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, etc. This happens because Big Pharma, the insurance industry and the AMA can afford to buy a lot of Congressmen and create absurd PR programs to sell such foolishness to the public.
As a result We, The People are repeatedly and continually screwed. In addition to the expenses I mentioned, we must also fund a huge and powerful bureaucracy to control the industry. Also, There are doctors in practically every town who make a very good living doing nothing but writing scripts. I could walk from where I sit in my small Southern town at 3 AM and walk back in less than an hour with any drug I cared to buy, assuming I didn't get my throat cut in the process. So, what the hell are we paying for?
If the government really wanted to 'protect' us it would protect us from laws that claim to protect us from ourselves. Because the truth is, they never work as advertised.
Regarding my statement on the difference between a true Conservative and a true Liberal, you wrote:
"On this one I'd have to completely disagree with you at least with modern conservatives. You have it completely backwards."
Here I must note your qualification, "at least with modern conservatives", and I can understand your thinking here. However please note I said "true Conservatives"; I imagine your term "modern" would connote something else entirely. Many people today call themselves "Conservative" who are IMO nothing of the sort.
You mention homosexual marriage so I'll use this as an example. To me this is a classic non-issue, and beautifully epitomizes the Enemy's divisive tactics. So here's where I stand: I believe marriage is a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and their God. For me that's what it's always been and will always be... it's a 3-way deal.
Now please notice I didn't say between man, woman, God & government. As far as I know God never asked for the government's assistance with this, and IMO any man or woman who do ask probably deserve what they get. Historically, it is the nature of government to screw up everything it touches. So, why would otherwise sane people invite such a monstrosity into their most cherished relationship? I find this both baffling and hilarious.
The solution to this dilemma is perfectly clear to me: get government out of the marriage business. I told you what marriage is TO ME; it's none of my business what it is to anyone else. I know how MY God sees it; if YOUR God sees it as a union between a man, his ewe and the Rock of Gibraltar that is entirely your business. And in either event it is most certainly not the business of the government.
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."[h]
14 But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; 15 and if ye shall reject my statutes, and if your soul abhor mine ordinances, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant; 16 I also will do this unto you: I will appoint terror over you, even consumption and fever, that shall consume the eyes, and make the soul to pine away; and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. 17 And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be smitten before your enemies: they that hate you shall rule over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you. 18 And if ye will not yet for these things hearken unto me, then I will chastise you seven times more for your sins. 19 And I will break the pride of your power: and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass; 20 and your strength shall be spent in vain; for your land shall not yield its increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruit. 21 And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me, I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. 22 And I will send the beast of the field among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your ways shall become desolate. 23 And if by these things ye will not be reformed unto me, but will walk contrary unto me; 24 then will I also walk contrary unto you; and I will smite you, even I, seven times for your sins. 25 And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall execute the vengeance of the covenant; and ye shall be gathered together within your cities: and I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy. 26 When I break your staff of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver your bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied. 27 And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; 28 then I will walk contrary unto you in wrath; and I also will chastise you seven times for your sins. 29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. 30 And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your sun-images, and cast your dead bodies upon the bodies of your idols; and my soul shall abhor you. 31 And I will make your cities a waste, and will bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savor of your sweet odors. 32 And I will bring the land into desolation; and your enemies that dwell therein shall be astonished at it. 33 And you will I scatter among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.
34 Then shall the land enjoy its sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye are in your enemies land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy its sabbaths. 35 As long as it lieth desolate it shall have rest, even the rest which it had not in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it. 36 And as for them that are left of you, I will send a faintness into their heart in the lands of their enemies: and the sound of a driven leaf shall chase them; and they shall flee, as one fleeth from the sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth. 37 And they shall stumble one upon another, as it were before the sword, when none pursueth: and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies. 38 And ye shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up. 39 And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them. 40 And they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, in their trespass which they trespassed against me, and also that, because they walked contrary unto me, 41 I also walked contrary unto them, and brought them into the land of their enemies: if then their uncircumcised heart be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity; 42 then will I remember my covenant with Jacob; and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. 43 The land also shall be left by them, and shall enjoy its sabbaths, while it lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity; because, even because they rejected mine ordinances, and their soul abhorred my statutes. 44 And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them; for I am Jehovah their God; 45 but I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am Jehovah. 46 These are the statutes and ordinances and laws, which Jehovah made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by Moses.
I agree. That was rather random, if not a bit frightening. Whenever I see such behavior, I can only think "robot". Then, I ask if the robot might be programmed to kill. :D
On a side note, whenever I see someone post a bunch of copied and pasted text from another location, it feels rather insulting. It feels like similar behavior as Cliff Claven exhibited on Cheers. He was able to get away with it because everyone else in the bar was generally clueless or drunk. However, walk into a room full of intellectuals and start quoting books, and it's just an insult. It's another way of saying, "I think everyone else here is not motivated enough to pick up a book and read or visit a website and read, so I will 'read to you'."
Maybe I'm just too sensitive to such behavior, but it feels of poor etiquette.
Haha, as a young person, I think anyone old enough to REMEMBER this cartoon shouldn't have their opinions counted in current politics.
Offended?
What do you old farts care? You'll all be dead before I'm your age, and I will suffer the chaos and civil war you brought upon your children.
Stop being so damn stubborn and acknowledge there is more than two extremes. Carry a load on your backs while you still can. Don't be selfish and know that, hell, none of you who posted here are going to be as happy and prosperous as those cartoon W.A.S.P.s you just watched.
@ Dur: "Haha, as a young person, I think anyone old enough to REMEMBER this cartoon shouldn't have their opinions counted in current politics. Offended?"
Bwahahahahahahaaaaa! Kid, I think anyone old enough to remember this cartoon should also remember being young enough to question EVERYTHING, especially the 'wisdom' of his elders. A degree of skepticism is a healthy thing no matter how old (or young) you are. It is unwise to either accept or reject anything out of hand regardless of its source, without due consideration. IOW keep an open mind, just not so 'open' that your brains fall out. Try to imagine this: many of my generation, in our youth, thought and felt very much as you do today. Such thinking helped aggravate the issues we inherited to create the mess we have now.
You wrote: "What do you old farts care? You'll all be dead before I'm your age, and I will suffer the chaos and civil war you brought upon your children."
Hey Kid, that's "Olde Pharts" to you young whippersnappers. Let's have a little respect here! Most of us didn't get this old by being smartasses, and you probably won't either. };~) But seriously, that's a legitimate question. There are many reasons why we care, and they are probably different for each of us. I have beloved grandchildren, nieces and nephews, as well as the children of many friends to consider. I hope my generation can preserve for them the precious Liberties our predecessors left to us, and restore those lost by the past few generations. I think anyone who feels any responsibility for anything at some point hopes to leave this world a little better than (s)he found it. Personally, I hope to leave it a little freer, safer, kinder and less Evil than it is today.
But you are correct; I don't have much time. I pray you do, and that you will use a lot of it to learn history. Please try to gain wisdom from the mistakes of the past and commit your keen mind to the service of Good, not Evil.
Please know the only way to combat Evil is to realize it exists in the hearts and minds of every human being, including yourself (and me too). Know that Evil is the only real Enemy. Accept that the only battleground on which you can be assured victory over it is within yourself; until you conquer your own demons all you will produce is noise. (more to come)
@ Dur: Finally, you wrote: "Stop being so damn stubborn and acknowledge there is more than two extremes. Carry a load on your backs while you still can. Don't be selfish and know that, hell, none of you who posted here are going to be as happy and prosperous as those cartoon W.A.S.P.s you just watched."
There is considerable wisdom in your words here, but don't assume everyone with whom you disagree is being 'selfish'. Again, acknowledge your own demons and confront them first. I'm not preaching here... I have to do this every day myself and believe me, I have many to confront! I have learned until I confront and control my own Evil I cannot effectively contend with it elsewhere. I have to examine my motives for everything I do, rooting out all forms of selfishness and injustice before I proceed. Otherwise I WILL be serving Evil because that is my nature.
And last, please don't imagine that 'happiness' and 'prosperity' are synonymous. Devote yourself to either and you may find it eventually, at the expense of the other. Had I sought prosperity I'd probably be a very rich, very miserable old man today. Instead, I sought TRUTH. I'm still seeking and finding it a little at a time, every day. In my case that doesn't pay very well and keeps me hovering around the poverty level these days. But that's ok with me because I'm a happy Olde Phart. I've had 'prosperity' with many of the trimmings and yeah man, it was fun! It kept me contented for a lot of years.. but not 'happy'. That's a little part of the TRUTH it took me a long time to learn, but for me it was the first part.
God bless you, young friend, and keep smiling. At your age, if you loose your sense of humor you won't have any sense at all! (and the older you get, the more you'll need it.) };~)
Pretty soon the US of A will be just as bad as the people in all the countries we are trying to save. Fighting over every little thing we can think of....
It is unfortunate so many teachers are Liberals and taint our young minds today with their political views. (Obama songs in elementary schools last Fall)
The last administration was doing great until nancy and harry took over the congress. That is when the economy started going down hill. Look back and see for yourself. Bush could only sign the budgets the congress sent to him. He even tried several times to draw attention to the problems in Fannie Mae and Freddie mac and barnie lollie pop frank said everything was fine as he and obama were taking money from them for their campaigns. And now obama is asking for a 3.8 TRILLION DOLLAR BUDGET?? AND YOU WANT TO BLAME BUSH??? DAY
@Mary - What's a shame is too many teachers a conservative and taint their young minds with their political views.
Did you complain when kids sang songs about Bush?
@Dennis - The last administration was never going great. They started two wars that they didn't pay for and created tax cuts that weren't paid for that ran up the budget.
Bush had a lot of say in his budget. I do find the hypocrisy funny where you let Bush of the hook for his budget but then blame Obama for his. ;)
I think Obama knows what he is doing...& it is far more ambitious then most thinks...His objective was change this Nation into an Socialist Dictatorship.
Probably no politician has said one thing and did another as much as Obama!
Barrack is not about to let an good crisis go to waste! Everyone should realize, Obama has an very feasible plan to make the Democrats the ruling majority and the USA and a one party Nation! By making more & more Americans the wards of the State.
The great society programs of the Democrats has made the Black race, wards of the State while destroyed most of them as productive citizens of this Nation. Since the Social Engineering of the Democrats great Society there is no Category where blacks have improved! Aid to dependent children while on the surface seems compassion & necessary the law of unintended consequences has turned the women into breed mares and the men into roaming studs & their spawn grow up on the streets and jails supported by Crime and Welfare!
Now, for many blacks, if not most of them, the American dream consists of the next drug fix or their Welfare check, but they are the most consistent Democrat voters. They do not realize the programs & welfare has destroyed any & all initiative & chance for the American dream but has gently lead them into the ghetto & economic welfare bondage to the Democrat party!
Barrack and the Democrats already have funding for increased Welfare dependency. In addition, they have plans to give citizenship to the invading millions of Criminals and Uneducated peons! This alone with chain immigration and their breeding rate assures that they add 10,s of millions of Educated hating welfare voters for the Democrat party! Welfare voters will then far outnumber productive citizens & effectively change this Nation into an Third World Socialist Dictatorship controlled by the Democrat party!
Bill, I generally agree, but there are a few things I'd like to point out. First, this is not about Democrats vs. Republicans. Both Parties are made up of people trying to do what they think is best for this Nation. Unfortunately, the LEADERSHIP of both parties share the same goal: the subjugation and eventual enslavement of the citizens.
Second, this leadership derives its goal from its master, which is the Force of pure Evil. Call that Force anything you like or nothing at all - I call it Satan - but that doesn't matter. Anyone who can acknowledge or at least imagine that Force exists is capable of intelligent conversation.
And third, everything each of us does serves either the Force of Evil, or the Force of Good. But here's the kicker: no matter how hard we try to serve one and shun the other, we humans invariably wind up serving both.
Currently Obama is serving the Enemy, just as Bush did before him, and Clinton before him, etc. But these PEOPLE are not the Enemy, merely the Enemy's servants. We can't see the Force of Evil, only its works. Do they know they're serving the Devil? Bob, we can't answer that; it's between them and God, and the Devil.
I can tell you this with absolute certainty: the division we see among our citizens today is the work of the Devil. Even if Satan didn't create the Parties, he has incorporated them for his purpose: to keep us divided. Because as long as we can be kept squabbling over the small stuff he and his minions can get on with the business of destroying our Free, Sovereign, Constitutional Republic. Once that is accomplished we can be willingly herded into their "New World Order", ruled and enslaved by one master.
@Bill - You said "His objective was change this Nation into an Socialist Dictatorship."
That is your fantasy world but it's a bald face lie. Obama has no interest in turning the country into a socialist dictatorship.
Bush did go for dictator like powers with the Patriot Act and the removal of our freedoms. Obama is is not. I would like to see him give us back a few more of the freedoms that Bush took away though.
"Probably no politician has said one thing and did another as much as Obama!"
That's another thing you made up. If you actually check the record Obama has a pretty good record on his campaign promises so far.
"Obama has an very feasible plan to make the Democrats the ruling majority and the USA and a one party Nation! By making more & more Americans the wards of the State."
That's something else you made up with no basis in reality. Obama is not interested in having more people be wards of the state.
"The great society programs of the Democrats has made the Black race, wards of the State while destroyed most of them as productive citizens of this Nation."
That's another lie. Most black people are not wards of the state and are productive citizens. Do you just make up some fantasy world and then go around acting like it's real? Try some facts instead.
"Since the Social Engineering of the Democrats great Society there is no Category where blacks have improved!"
Actually there's many areas were they've improved. You lied again.
"Aid to dependent children while on the surface seems compassion & necessary the law of unintended consequences has turned the women into breed mares and the men into roaming studs & their spawn grow up on the streets and jails supported by Crime and Welfare!"
I see what the problem is here. You're a racist bigot. Bigots usually have mothers who are prostitutes and fathers who are rapists.
"Now, for many blacks, if not most of them, the American dream consists of the next drug fix or their Welfare check"
Definitely not most. But many people of all races use drugs. I know your primarily racist against black people but I'm going to give you some facts anyway.
Most drug offenders are white. Five times as many whites use drugs as blacks. Source.
I imagine this racism of yours is primarily why you make up these things about Obama.
"They do not realize the programs & welfare has destroyed any & all initiative & chance for the American dream but has gently lead them into the ghetto & economic welfare bondage to the Democrat party!"
They are are mostly in the democratic party because there is less racist bigots there.
"Barrack and the Democrats already have funding for increased Welfare dependency."
I tried to look up some info on your claim here but aren't finding anything. Do you have a source for this or is this something else you made up?
"In addition, they have plans to give citizenship to the invading millions of Criminals and Uneducated peons!"
Well we know that was a lie. Why do you make up so much crap? You sound like an uneducated peon.
"This alone with chain immigration and their breeding rate assures that they add 10,s of millions of Educated hating welfare voters for the Democrat party! Welfare voters will then far outnumber productive citizens & effectively change this Nation into an Third World Socialist Dictatorship controlled by the Democrat party!"
Damn maybe you're just completely insane. Considering Obama is not planning on making illegals citizens and that the illegals that are here are typically incredibly hard workers your whole premise falls down.
It's official. You made up and lied about every single thing you wrote.
2,055 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 of 2055 Newer› Newest»If anybody wants to know all the numbers that make up the national debt go to this website:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Also you seem to be pasting copied articles from right wing blogs without citing the source. That could be construed as plagiarism.
Extending the President's Tax Cuts and AMT Relief Would Cost $4.4 Trillion Through 2018
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1018
Remember that nutjob wanted them permanent?
At least stimulus spending was one thing Bush and Obama agreed was necessary to keep the economy from tanking far further than it did.
Want to get back to healthcare now?
How do Democrats and Republicans stand on abortion issues?
Abortion has been a partisan issue. The vast majority of Democrats are pro-choice and this position is reflected in the 2008 Democratic platform document. The 2008 Republican platform contains a strong endorsement of the pro-life position and advocates legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Most Congressional votes on the abortion issue follow this partisan pattern.
What's your point Phil? Just wanted to change the subject again?
There is no point in talking to you. Like I said you would support obama even if he burned the constitution and smoked the ashes. Your entire life is based on lies and I could talk to you till I'm blue in the face and you still wouldn't get it. My point is all this lying crap you are vomiting adds up and this country is now smelling it. We the people are going to throw all your buddies out of congress and the senate and when we do we are going impeach your communist leader and put his ass behind bars where he belongs. So enjoy it while you can because it will be short lived.
Obama’s Tripling of the National Debt in Pictures
Posted August 28th, 2009 at 3.04pm in Entitlements.
This Tuesday the White House released their Mid-Session Review admitting they made a $2 trillion miscalculation in the size of the federal deficit that President Barack Obama’s borrow and spend policies would inflict on our nation. Heritage senior policy analyst Brian Riedl details the carnage:
While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the “stimulus” was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession.
The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.
In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama’s budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.
The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.
The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.
Thank you all for standing up. We all have to stand up to ignorant Communist liberals. whether or not they intend to destroy American liberty and freedom or not they are still doing it. We must all open our eyes to there deception and band against them if we wish to keep this nation free. So take the pledge with us
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
"There is no point in talking to you. Like I said you would support obama even if he burned the constitution and smoked the ashes."
Phil, I have no idea why you can't have a rational discussion and resort to making up lies again. I would not support Obama if he did that. Although I imagine there were many that would have supported Bush if he did.
"Your entire life is based on lies"
Phil, you're the one here making up lies. I am countering what you say with verifiable facts.
"and I could talk to you till I'm blue in the face and you still wouldn't get it."
No, you don't get it. You are making up things and repeatedly changing the subject when you get called on it with facts.
I would like to have a rational fact-based discussion here. So please just point out anything you think is incorrect and I'd be glad to address it.
"We the people are going to throw all your buddies out of congress and the senate and when we do we are going impeach your communist leader and put his ass behind bars where he belongs."
See there, this is more of your fantasy future crap. We the People are going to do no such thing.
Please try to base the discussion in factual reality. Ok?
Oh so then you just repost your earlier posts which have already been addressed. C'mon Phil that's getting weak.
June 16, 2004
Defending the Reagan Deficits
by Brian M. Riedl
Critics of President Reagan’s budget deficits should answer one simple question: Would you trade the collapse of communism, your smaller tax burden, some of your income -- and possibly your job -- in exchange for eliminating that $2.1 trillion in added debt?
Coverage of President Reagan’s legacy has been generally fair, with one exception. Many say, “Reagan masterfully won the cold war … but those budget deficits.” Or “America needed Reagan’s infectious optimism … but those budget deficits.”
Not all debt is bad. Mortgage debt and student loan debt are worthy investments. No one criticizes President Franklin Roosevelt for the massive debt that financed World War II. Yet the commentators criticizing President Reagan for the $2.1 trillion in added debt (all numbers are in today’s dollars) ignore how that debt won the Cold War, lowered the tax burden, and ignited the largest economic boom in American history.
Those who denounce the Reagan deficits should answer the following questions:
Would you bring back the Soviet empire? President Reagan spent $3 trillion on defense, well above the $2.2 trillion baseline. What did that extra $800 billion buy? The end of the Cold War -- saving, perhaps, a billion lives from nuclear extinction.
No less than former Soviet Union Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh has been quoted crediting President Reagan’s defense buildup for the accelerated collapse of the Soviet Union. The fragile communist economy, already stretched thin by substantial defense spending, could not keep up with America’s defense buildup. The possibility of American missile defense, and President Reagan’s powerful rhetoric, further persuaded the Soviets they could not win the Cold War, and induced the reforms that culminated in the collapse of the Soviet empire -- without America firing a single shot. It was the best $800 billion investment America ever made.
Would you raise the top income-tax rate back to 70 percent? Commentators also blame the 1980s deficits on President Reagan’s insistence on reducing taxes in 1981. Yet President Reagan inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. Excessively high tax rates were discouraging work and investment and therefore damaging the economy while raising little revenue. President Reagan removed barriers to entrepreneurship by reducing tax rates, cutting red tape, and stabilizing the economy, thereby encouraging risk takers. The centerpiece of this policy was a radical series of across-the-board tax cuts that lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, and eventually to 28 percent. (It stands at 35 percent today.)
This tax relief unleashed a 20-year surge of entrepreneurship, as the U.S. economy tripled in size. The lasting impact of these policies can be seen in successive presidents, who ratified Reaganomics by refusing to even consider raising taxes back to their 1970s levels. Thus, America continues to benefit from lower tax rates.
Would you trade 2.8 million jobs? Before the Reagan tax relief, the unemployment rate averaged 7.7 percent. Since the tax cuts, it has averaged 5.8 percent -- a difference that translates into 2.8 million jobs per year.
Would you trade $15,000 of your annual income? In the two decades before the Reagan tax relief, the average household’s annual disposable income increased $13,000. In the 20 years following Reagan’s tax cuts, these incomes surged $28,000.
Would you trade the stock market boom? In the two decades before the Reagan tax relief, the S&P 500 increased 120 percent. In the 20 years following Reagan’s tax cuts, the market jumped 575 percent.
And don’t forget the 12 percent inflation rate and 21 percent interest rates that Reaganomics slew.
The Reagan tax cuts replaced the deepest recession since the Great Depression with the largest 20-year boom in American history. Tax revenues actually grew faster in the low-tax 1980s than in the high-tax 1970s, and rising incomes meant the share of taxes paid by the wealthy actually increased throughout the 1980s. Millions of people who had entered the 1980s in the lowest income quintile surged to the highest income quintile by 1990.
All a coincidence? As Reagan would say, “there you go again.”
Sure, President Reagan would have preferred to minimize the deficits by eliminating wasteful spending. However, the only way to persuade a Democratic Congress to accept a defense buildup and pro-growth tax cuts was to agree to their domestic spending demands.
Ironically, the 1980s budget deficits made the 1990s surpluses possible. The budget was balanced by surging tax revenues from a booming, low-tax economy and defense savings brought on by the end of the Cold War.
To paraphrase a classic President Reagan line: Are you better off today than you were in 1980?
Brian Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Distributed nationally on the Knight-Ridder Tribune wire
Faith? By what measure do you consider yourself worthy of talking about faith jomama we have already established earlier you know nothing about the subject. I feel sorry for you joemama because you have no idea where your headed or what awaits you when you die.
Mathue 10:33
"33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."
I told you. You'd better stop because your going to get yourself into a hell of a lot of trouble. I pray you get saved soon. if you don't God will strip your very spirit from your soul.
Yes there is a difference.
Your spirit is the vary breath of God. Its the part of you that makes you self aware and is responsible for every positive and good thing within you.
Your soul is who you choose to be. Its every belief you choose to follow from the day you take your first breath.
When you go to hell your spirit is stripped from your soul and all thats left is agony and despair. The fire and brimstone you feel is a product of finely knowing the truth and also knowing that you will never be with God. Just a cold, dark, agonizing half life because you are no longer self aware.
This is the last time I'm going to warn you. Talk about politics if you want but don't tempt God to smite you because he will. I'm not saying these things to attack you. I'm saying this out of true concern for your well being.
NOVEMBER 20, 2009
The Senate Health Bill: Federal Micromanagement of Health Insurance
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) giant new health care bill contains the same provisions as the other House and Senate bills to establish Federal micromanagement of all private health insurance.
Like the others, the Reid bill would subject all private health insurance — whether purchased from an insurance company by employer groups or individuals, or provided through an employer or union self-insured plan — to detailed Federal regulation.
These so called “insurance reform” provisions amount to a de facto nationalization of health insurance and they would produce that effect regardless of whether or not Congress creates another, new government-run health insurance plan.
Benefit Control. Of particular concern to patients should be that the detailed benefits in their health insurance coverage will soon be determined by the Federal Department of Health and Human Services. Last week, Americans got a foretaste of what Federal health benefit regulation means when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation for breast cancer screening (mammography) for women aged 40 to 50 from “B” (recommended) to “C” (not recommended).
Normally, such recommendations would not create controversy as, until now, they have been merely suggestions to guide providers and health plans in making their own decisions for their patients or members. But under the proposed legislation they would take on the force of law, since the legislation will require all plans — starting in 2011 in the Reid bill — to provide coverage (with no patient co-pays) for, “items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force.”
Thus, a decision by a, heretofore, obscure HHS Task Force to recommend a specific medical service would in the future carry the force of law, and would impose additional costs on insurers and employer health plans. Conversely, any decision by the Task Force to issue a “C” or “D” rating (not recommended) — as it did last week in the case of breast cancer screening — will be henceforth viewed by insurers and employers as a justification for discontinuing coverage.
Cost Impact. Over time the more specific HHS gets in its benefit requirements — driving up the cost of coverage — the greater the incentive will be for insurers and employers to control those escalating costs by not covering anything that they aren’t absolutely required to cover by federal law.
The eventual result will be that the only medical care paid for through private health insurance will be the specific, items and services required by federal regulations promulgated by HHS. At that point, Congress will have effectively nationalized the entire American health insurance system under the supervision of the Secretary of HHS — regardless of whether or not it also sets up yet another government health insurance program in the process.
Author: Edmund Haislmaier
Criminalizing Health-Care Freedom
Obamacare supporters would use the brute force of criminal law for social engineering.
By Walsh & von Spakovsky
The “reformers” in the White House and the House of Representatives have made all too plain their vision of the federal government’s power to coerce individual Americans to make the “right” health-care choices. The highly partisan bill the House just passed includes severe penalties for individuals who do not purchase insurance approved by the federal government. By neatly tucking these penalties into the IRS code, the so-called reformers have brought them under the tax-enforcement power of the federal government.
The Congressional Budget Office stated on October 29 that the House bill would generate $167 billion in revenue from “penalty payments.” Individual Americans are expected to pay $33 billion of these penalties, with employers paying the rest. Former member of Congress and Heritage Foundation fellow Ernest Istook has concluded that for this revenue goal to be met, 8 to 14 million individual Americans will have to be fined over the next ten years, quite an incentive for federal bureaucrats.
Who will be included among those subject to civil and criminal penalties if this provision becomes law? For starters, any family of four whose combined income in 2016 is above $102,100 ($88,200 in today’s dollars) and that chooses to pay all its medical expenses out of pocket rather than pay the $15,000 a year that the CBO says will be the lowest-priced insurance option for families. Also any healthy twentysomething in a city with high costs of living who chooses to take the risk of going uninsured. And by outlawing the popular high-deductible plans that are currently among the lowest-cost health-insurance solutions, the new law would only increase the number of Americans on the rolls of those who cannot afford insurance. The CBO itself estimates that at least 18 million Americans will still be uninsured in 2016.
The fact that the penalties for noncompliance are enforceable by criminal prosecution is a chilling abuse of the prosecutorial power, which Columbia law professor Herbert Wechsler pointed out 50 years ago is the greatest power that any government uses against its citizens. Using it to enforce one particular notion of appropriate insurance coverage is nothing less than a tyrannical assertion of raw government power over the private lives and economic rights of individual Americans.
How would the penalties work? As a starting point, taxpaying Americans who do not satisfy the law’s insurance requirement would be penalized on their federal income-tax returns. Their tax burden would be increased by the lesser of (a) the amount the government decides they should pay for government-mandated health coverage or (b) 2.5 percent of their adjusted income above a filing threshold. An otherwise law-abiding American who fails to pay this “tax penalty” could be criminally prosecuted and sentenced to a year in prison if the feds deem his refusal to be a misdemeanor.
Worse, if the feds decide the refusal is felonious, the culprit may spend five years in federal prison and be fined up to $250,000. You could end up in a cell in Leavenworth even if you have paid all your family’s medical bills yourself.
By transforming a refusal or failure to comply with a government mandate into a federal tax violation, the “progressives” are using the brute force of criminal law to engage in social engineering. This represents an oppressive, absolutist view of government power.
What does President Obama think of the criminalization of Americans’ economic choices? He trivialized the issue when he told ABC’s Sunlen Miller he didn’t think the question of the appropriateness of possible jail time is the “biggest question” the House and Senate are facing right now.
We beg to differ.
The idea of imprisoning or fining Americans who don’t knuckle under to an unprecedented government mandate to purchase a particular insurance product should outrage anyone who believes in the exceptional promises and opportunities afforded by our basic American freedoms. The idea isn’t progressive but highly regressive, the equivalent of reinstituting debtors’ prisons, a punishment Americans eliminated 160 years ago.
Of course, the prospect of winding up in prison for failing to maintain government-mandated insurance may be of no personal concern to the president or members of Congress. They each receive a Cadillac version of health-care coverage funded by those same American taxpayers who, in the reformers’ vision, will be federal criminals if they have the audacity to make their own decisions about medical insurance.
If the public’s objections to this provision grow loud enough, we will undoubtedly be told that criminal prosecution will be used only against really bad actors. But that same reasoning was used to justify the law that sent inventor and entrepreneur Krister Evertson to federal prison for nearly two years. Evertson testified in July at a bipartisan House hearing investigating the overcriminalization of conduct in America.
In May 2004, FBI agents driving a black Suburban and wearing SWAT gear ran Evertson off the road near his mother’s home in Wasilla, Alaska. When Evertson was face down on the pavement with automatic weapons trained on him, an FBI agent told him he was being arrested because he hadn’t put a federally mandated sticker on a UPS package.
A jury in federal court in Alaska acquitted Evertson, but the feds weren’t finished. They reached into their bag of over 4,500 federal crimes and found another ridiculous crime they could use to prosecute him: supposedly “abandoning” hazardous waste (actually storing, in appropriate containers, valuable materials he was using for the clean-fuel technology he was developing). A second jury convicted him, and he spent 21 months in an Oregon federal prison.
Many of the Americans who will surely ignore the government health-insurance mandate may not wind up in prison. But if noncompliance becomes too widespread, any one of us could become the example the feds prosecute to make sure the iron hand of the new Washington is clearly visible to other potential “criminals.”
This is Chicago-style hardball, backed by the full power and resources of the U.S. government. It illustrates both Obamacare supporters’ view of the appropriate uses of governmental power and the lengths to which they are willing to go to force us to do what they believe is best. It is a view unbefitting a free people.
Unless this paternalistic juggernaut is stopped, Americans will lose some of their most fundamental freedoms, and the power of the federal government to impose novel requirements in every facet of our personal lives will have become virtually unlimited.
—Brian W. Walsh is senior legal research fellow, and Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow and manager of the Civil Justice Reform Initiative, at the Heritage Foundation.
Phil you paste from another right wing blog that you don't bother to source "Defending the Reagan Deficits".
I love how how you were so concerned about the current deficit saving the economy but then don't care when Reagan ran up the deficit. Too funny!
"Faith? By what measure do you consider yourself worthy of talking about faith jomama we have already established earlier you know nothing about the subject."
So when did I bring up faith Phil? What we've established before is that you know nothing on the subject and have no idea what awaits you when you die.
Why are you trying to take this into your deluded religious crap again.
You keep trying to act self righteous and use god when it's inappropriate and he will strip you of your soul and send you to hell without your dinner. I'm not going to warn you of your sinful ways again.
Your fantasy world will get your whipped by satan for eternity. Also if you continue to read ridiculous sites like the Heritage Foundation you're likely to believe anything and satan will punish you for that to.
FACT: You can keep your current insurance if you like it. So your article's minimum cost is completely ridiculous.
FACT: "Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time."
Lets' repeat that...
"Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time."
"Section 501 of the House health care reform bill provides that an individual must be "covered by acceptable coverage at all times." "Acceptable coverage" includes "qualified health benefits plan coverage," "grandfathered health insurance coverage," "Medicare," "Medicaid," coverage provided to members of the armed forces and their dependents, "coverage under the veteran's health care program," people who receive health care "through the Indian Health Service," or other coverage deemed acceptable by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If a person does not have acceptable health care coverage, Section 501 imposes a tax on that person "not to exceed the applicable national average premium"
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/200911120022
Spreading lies is a sin Phil. I'm telling you this because I'm concerned for your hell-bent soul.
DECEMBER 18, 2009
Unconstitutional Mandate Attacked from the Left
The Left is starting to recognize some of the perils of health care legislation that would create a whole new way for government to control its citizens.
Democracy for America (run by Howard Dean’s brother) is now warning its left-wing allies, “The bill doesn’t actually “cover” 30-million more Americans – instead it makes them criminals if they don’t buy insurance.”
How true. Projections are that 8-million to 14-million Americans would pay billions of dollars for failing to buy insurance under the House bill.
To Democracy for America, this is wrong, but only because a government-run “public option” insurance plan is out of the Senate version of the bill. However, restoring a public option doesn’t fix the wrongness of having government dictate how you must spend your money.
As The Heritage Foundation’s legal scholars have documented, such an individual mandate violates the U.S. Constitution by exceeding the limited and enumerated powers of the federal government.
Taxes are unpopular but people understand why they exist. Health care bills also want to dictate how we must spend our money. Whether you think you want it or need it or can afford it, you must buy health insurance.
But the proposed legislation promises to make that insurance more expensive than ever to buy. “Under the House and Senate bills, taxpayers are going to pay more for health insurance,” concludes Dennis Smith, who formerly administered the federal Medicaid program.
It’s a triple whammy. Pay higher taxes for health care reform. Pay higher premiums for health care coverage. And lose more of your personal freedom.
Author: Ernest Istook
Also Phil, plagiarizing articles from the heritage Foundation is a sin. Please source your articles or you will go to hell.
"The Heritage Foundation’s legal scholars"
Damn, that's a funny quote. :)
It should read "the Heritage Foundations system of liars"
So much of their crap is so easily proven false. LOL.
NOVEMBER 19, 2009
The Senate Health Bill: Medicaid and CLASS Act Provisions
The 2074 page Reid Health Bill (H.R. 3590) generally follows the Senate Finance and HELP versions on Medicaid and in the creation of a new health care program, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act.
Curiously, in the short term (2010-2013), the Reid bill helps fewer people gain coverage than the Senate Finance bill. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates 2 million will lose Medicaid/SCHIP coverage each year in this period compared to current law. But, by 2019, Medicaid/SCHIP enrollment will increase by 15 million, accounting for nearly half of all individuals who will gain coverage.
More Welfare. The Reid bill expands Medicaid eligibility for people below 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), significantly changing it to a pure income based federal entitlement. It also raises, then lowers, the federal matching rates for different populations and states. In a provision aimed at Louisiana, the Reid bill provides a special “disaster recovery” match rate for states that have had a major disaster declared (Section 2006). CBO estimates that state spending under the Medicaid provisions will still increase by $25 billion.
Of course, there are millions of persons at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level who get private health insurance. The Reid bill would, based on all previous experience, guarantee a further crowding out of private health care coverage.
States will be alarmed at the aggressive encroachment of federal authority over the management of the Medicaid program. The provisions of Section 2801, Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) are clearly intended to increase federal officials’ direct control over the program. In addition, states will become vulnerable to federal lawsuits by individuals under the expanded definition of medical assistance provided in Section 2304. This will likely be used to overturn recent federal court decisions won by states that limit private lawsuits against them.
The Reid bill will allow legal immigrants who have been prohibited from receiving public benefits, including Medicaid, for 5 years from the date of entry into the U.S. to become eligible for the new federal subsidies. Curiously, this raises an equity issue that has been overlooked: there would be 60 million U.S. citizens excluded from the new, generous federal subsidies. Instead of receiving the new subsidies, the Reid bill would create a rigid, two-tiered system of health care. Individuals at the lowest income levels would be forced into Medicaid, while individuals at higher income levels will qualify for generous subsidies worth more than Medicaid on a per capita spending basis. The Reid bill further promotes this class- based inequity by allowing non-citizens to secure the federal subsidies while lower income Americans cannot.
A New Program. Despite concern and criticism that the CLASS Act is not fiscally sound over the long term, it has been included as a budget gimmick. The federal government will collect revenues for 5 years before paying out any benefits. This allows the Reid bill to offset the cost of the Senate bill by $72 billion over 10 years.
The CLASS Act would create a new federal program for long-term care insurance to compete against private insurance. Individuals who have paid into the program for 5 years who experience limitations in their activities of daily living will become eligible for cash benefits. These limitations do not meet the current disability test which opens the program to abuse.
Author: Dennis Smith
Obamacare is not a good fit for women
First Lady Michelle Obama’s video on health care reform raises important issues about female patients who are falling through the cracks of the U.S. health care system. It’s not a perfect system, but Nina Owcharenko explains that ObamaCare would take women and the rest of the country in the wrong direction. Having to depend on politicians or faceless bureaucrats to make decisions about their care doesn’t empower women or improve their health care situations. Plus, the Obama health reform agenda isn’t what women want. A majority of female respondents told the Independent Women’s Forum in a recent survey that they don’t think government-run health care is best for them or their families.
Health bill will hit Medicare Advantage
Despite claims that Medicare beneficiaries won't see any cut in benefits, the legislation in Congress would do just that. Medicare Advantage, used by nearly one in four seniors on Medicare, is a system of private plans that beneficiaries can use to receive additional services. While private plans in Medicare Advantage get more payments than traditional Medicare, those payments mean more benefits covered for seniors. The Congressional Budget Office director contradicted the White House by testifying that Medicare benefits will be cut, meaning seniors will have fewer private options for their health care needs. If lawmakers are going to secure any "savings" in Medicare, they should go back into making the program sustainable.
Congress dismisses transparency promises
This past summer, hundreds of thousands of Americans attended town hall meetings and demanded their representatives be more upfront about the health care legislation being crafted to overhaul one-sixth of the U.S. economy. But Congress continues to operate in a shroud of ambiguity. Members of the Senate Finance Committee even defeated an amendment that would have required Congress to post the actual bill online for at least 72 hours before voting on it. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) went as far to say actual bills use arcane language that ordinary Americans wouldn’t understand. Regardless, the public has a right to have time (at least five days) to read the bills before they're voted on. That’s what President Obama campaigned on and he should hold Congress to keep that promise.
Two major reforms conservatives support
America's health care system is one-sixth of the entire economy -- larger than Britain's. Restructuring something that large and complex in one massive bill rammed through Congress is a fool's errand. We must incrementally reform health care in stages, by letting the 50 states act as laboratories for solutions. Two major reforms already have broad support and can move us forward: 1) Give states more freedom from federal rules to experiment with reform measures, like medical malpractice reform and allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. 2) Fix the tax treatment of health insurance in a budget-neutral way so that people can buy it outside of their workplace. That way, you would no longer lose your coverage if you change or lose your job.
Two major reforms conservatives support
America's health care system is one-sixth of the entire economy -- larger than Britain's. Restructuring something that large and complex in one massive bill rammed through Congress is a fool's errand. We must incrementally reform health care in stages, by letting the 50 states act as laboratories for solutions. Two major reforms already have broad support and can move us forward: 1) Give states more freedom from federal rules to experiment with reform measures, like medical malpractice reform and allowing people to buy insurance across state lines. 2) Fix the tax treatment of health insurance in a budget-neutral way so that people can buy it outside of their workplace. That way, you would no longer lose your coverage if you change or lose your job.
Wow Phil, you can't think for yourself at all without heritage.org telling you what to think.
"Having to depend on politicians or faceless bureaucrats to make decisions about their care doesn’t empower women or improve their health care situations."
FACT: Politicians and federal bureaucrats won't be making decisions about their care.
It's insurance Phil. Just like Medicare your doctors still make the decisions.
Spreading lies is a sin Phil.
Fix our current federal health deficit first
While the United States does have a huge deficit problem we can't afford not to fix, the Obama administration is focusing on the wrong aspect in trying to create a new federal health program. Congress needs to address the spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- programs that have existed for decades -- that are primed to explode. Long-term excess costs for Social Security and Medicare alone are $43 trillion. When added to the national debt, that is about $184,000 for every man, woman and child in America. We should focus on reforming the federal health programs so that they'll be sustainable for generations to come.
En Español: Don't shortchange Hispanics
Israel Ortega, senior media associate and Spanish newspaper columnist, discusses why Obamacare shortchanges Hispanics in America and why it’s a wrongheaded approach to effectively provide health insurance for those who need it. True health reform will put the individual -- and not the government -- behind the steering wheel.
Israel Ortega, columnista y asociado de prensa para la Fundación Heritage habla acerca en como el plan del Presidente no le conviene a la comunidad hispana. Una verdadera reforma nos pondrÃa detrás del volante para decidir por si mismos que plan mas nos conviene -- no el gobierno.
Millions will lose their private coverage
The White House's assertion that you'll be able to keep your health insurance if you like it is wrong. With incentives like employer mandates and a public plan, companies will find it easier to pay a tax or fine and dump their employees out of their existing private coverage and onto a public plan or other alternatives. Moreover, under current legislation, the government would have the authority to determine the benefit packages that Americans get, from medical treatments and procedures to drugs and devices. At the end of the day, Americans will get what the government decides they can receive in terms of health benefits.
Congressmen opted out of public option
Contrary to the White House's video, member of Congress in the House Ways and Means Committee already have exempted themselves from a government-run health plan with the defeat of an amendment by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV). The amendment, which would have required members of Congress to enroll in the newly created public health insurance plan, failed with 21 Democrats voting no. Here's the truth behind the entirely private coverage options offered to Congress and government employees through the successful Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
Special-needs patients face fewer choices
Since many Americans with special needs, or their caretakers, use Medicare Advantage plans as a way to pay for their higher medical costs, they have every right to be concerned about the reduced funding congressional leadership is proposing to pay for its massive health care legislation. Dennis Smith, who worked tirelessly to improve options for disabled Americans when he was at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, notes that H.R. 3200 would reduce reimbursement for Medicare Advantage plans, resulting in fewer health insurance plans tailored to those with disabilities being available. That would mean fewer choices for people with special needs, not more as the White House claims.
Obama's plan will hurt small businesses
Proposed solutions to pay for a new public health care program have included taxing the wealthy. In reality, this will impact thousands of small business owners who are creating the jobs and wages for most Americans. These taxes will hurt small businesses by keeping them from expanding and adding new jobs. It will hurt workers by stagnating wage growth or even eliminating jobs. New research from Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis reveals these new taxes could mean 400,000 employees could lose their job each year. Spending and new taxes will not be the way to bend the health care cost-curve downward. It will only exacerbate the problems businesses already face.
I understand Phil. You've become completely unable to debate with me so you just spam the thread with lying Heritage.org articles.
I think that's a sin too.
88 million will see their coverage disappear
Despite claims from the White House that it’s “disinformation,” the Lewin Group — a health econometrics firm that has been cited by think tanks and lawmakers across the ideological spectrum -- forecasts more than 88 million Americans could see their current employer-based health coverage disappear under the House drafted bill that includes a new public plan. Part of the shift would be the result of employers making the economic decision to drop their current plans in response to financial incentives built into the bill.
Plus, a health plan modeled after Medicare won’t necessarily be more efficient. American taxpayers could end up subsidizing a health plan that would have an unfair advantage in the marketplace, driving many insurers out of the marketplace and limiting patients’ choices.
Medicaid has a long history of rationing
The creation of a publicly run health insurance option is no laughing matter. Government-run health care programs like Medicaid have a history of low-quality care. By reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, Americans on these programs have a harder time finding a doctor who will accept them as a patient, thus rationing their access to care. The White House might accuse insurers of rationing care, but research shows patients with Medicaid and SCHIP end up in emergency rooms more often than the privately insured and even the uninsured.
Also you continue to plagiarize without sourcing your articles.
Also a sin.
Please think about your soul.
Wow look -> Satisfaction with Medicare is higher than private insurance (which rations your care).
"Consider some results obtained by the same Kaiser tracking poll. When asked how much they trust various health care players "to put your interests above their own," respondents rank doctors (78 percent trust "a lot" or "some") and nurses (74 percent) at the top of the list.
Among those insured through Medicare, however, "the Medicare program" (68 percent) scores nearly as high. Among those with private insurance, "your health insurance company" earns much less trust (48 percent).
Perhaps that result is just about perceptions of corporate interests and not about patient experience?"
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20090629_2600.php
Honestly joemama you aren't worth my time. I've presented facts that have been fact checked but you don't care. You have your one agenda that aligns with obama and you will not consider anything else whether it is true or not. So why would I want to try to convince you when I know no matter what I say you wont listen. All you do is take partial facts from radical left wing pinheads like yourself and twist them around to suet your cause which is the same as obamas.
But like it or not this country is seeing what he is. A radical left wing socialist who wants to force us to give the government as much money as he can unconstitutionally steel from us. You can throw as many tantrums as you want. There still on there way out of office.
Honestly........You just bore me
@Phil Yous said "Honestly joemama you aren't worth my time. I've presented facts that have been fact checked but you don't care."
No Phil, you have posted articles from right wing fear mongering blogs that you refuse to source. What you said i have debunked time and again with actual facts.
"You have your one agenda that aligns with obama and you will not consider anything else whether it is true or not."
No Phil, I am interested in the the facts which are easy enough to find. You have one agenda which aligns against Obama and you will not consider anything else.
I've asked you to point out a single thing I said that was false and you were incapable of doing it. I have proved what you claim is false time and again.
You won't listen to reason to matter how plain in front of your face it is. You just keep posting lies from radical right wing fear mongering pinheads like yourself.
While I post verifiable facts from credible sources (which I link to instead of plagiarizing).
But like it or not this country is seeing you people for what they are. Radical right wing un-christianlike fascists who want to deny the weakest among us from having access to decent healthcare.
You can cry and whine and act like a baby all you want but your fantasy world isn't going to become real.
Honestly you're just an anti-American ass.
Oh and hey Phil. The offer is still open to debate actual facts. If you have anything else you'd like debunked or think something I've posted is incorrect please feel free to point it out specifically.
No more plagiarizing though.
Let me remind you pinhead we live in a free country and I can post what ever the hell I want. I'm not plagiarizing anything. I have listed my sources you are just not intelligent enough to read them. If anybody else wants to know where I'm quoting my sources from it is The heritage foundation there website is: http://www.heritage.org/ although it probably won't be good enough for pinheads like joemama.
That's comedy gold, right there. Phil cited heritage.org. The punchline couldn't have been better. Next, he'll provide scientific research from Fox News and biographical information from Wikipedia.
However, Phil has a point. We live in a free country, so Phil can be as clueless as he wants to be and can post plenty of junk anywhere he wants. He's not plagiarizing. I call it regurgitation. Oh, and it's "their" not "there". That just added the exclamation mark to the punchline.
Let me remind you pinhead that plagiarizing is wrong.
You keep posting crap and not citing the source. There's one example after another up there. You don't put anything in quotes and you don't link to the original article.
Most 3rd graders learn about this but maybe you didn't make it that far. You are taking full articles from other sites and posting them as if they are your own thoughts if you don't link to the original article but I guess dumbasses like you never learned this simple idea.
If you're going to copy/paste articles from radical right wing blogs then at least link tot he original article.
This is the first time you even linked to the site. And most 3rd graders would tell you that's not even an acceptable way to do it. That's like writing a paper and citing your source as "the library". Link to the article.
@ Bob "However, Phil has a point. We live in a free country, so Phil can be as clueless as he wants to be and can post plenty of junk anywhere he wants. He's not plagiarizing. I call it regurgitation."
I work on public facing websites all the time and the common requirement is if you are going to copy and article from somewhere else you need to make it clear that you did not write the article and link to the original.
I think Phil was just trying to hide that he gets all his info fed to him from a radical right wing blog.
Oh and Bob, I already pointed out the "there/their" difference to Phil earlier in the thread. But he did it again. :)
Patriot Act? WHAT'S THAT! What's NON-Patriotic about wanting to protect your freedoms and rights to privacy?
GESTAPO Act is more like it!
Patriot Act? WHAT'S THAT!? What's NON-Patriotic about wanting to protect your freedoms and rights to privacy?
GESTAPO Act is more like it!
jomama and bob LOL
You guys are the original pinheads. you see folks; This is what ignorant liberals do. They are presented with facts, it threatens them, and there only defense is to mock it. Tell me from the beginning of this blog who have been the two main misfits in the bunch. Mostly everyone else has loved the cartoon and agrees with it. It seems they are running out of friends LOL. So go ahead mock The heritage foundation. If your only defense is to mock it you have a very week argument. You still have yet to prove anything they said to be wrong. So please continue. Keep acting like a couple of laughing hyenas. it shows us all your real agendas and level of intelligence.
So Everyone why don't we take a look at the righters at The Heritage Foundation. After all if these too pinheads don't like them they have to be doing something right.
Robert Alt
Senior Legal Fellow and Deputy Director, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
E-mail Robert Alt
areas of expertise:
constitutional law, civil rights law, election law, separation of powers, antiterrorism law, and the law of war
view all papers by Robert Alt
summary:
Robert Alt is a Senior Legal Fellow and Deputy Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Alt has written and lectured extensively on issues of constitutional law, with particular emphasis on civil rights law, election law, separation of powers, antiterrorism law, and the law of war. He also has extensive first-hand experience in scrutinizing the legal implications of the War on Terror after spending five months in Iraq in 2004. During this time, he observed and wrote about the shift to the Transitional Administrative Law and the transfer of governmental control.
Prior to joining Heritage for a second time in 2008, Alt taught national security law, criminal law, and legislation at Case Western University School of Law in Cleveland. He first served at Heritage as Deputy Congressional Liaison from 1997 to 1999.
In addition to his Heritage duties, Alt is also a Fellow in Legal and International Affairs at the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University in Ohio, where he has taught constitutional law and political parties and interest groups.
Alt has testified before Congress on the legality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program and proposed revisions to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and before the Federal Election Commission concerning issues of constitutional and administrative law.
He has published articles in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, The Daily Standard, The San Diego Union -Tribune and is a regular contributor to National Review Online, where he has published more than 60 articles. He also has provided commentary on CNN, Fox News, and on numerous syndicated radio programs.
Alt graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 2002, after which he clerked for Judge Alice Batchelder on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. In 1998, he also received a bachelor's degree in political science and philosophy from Azusa Pacific University in California.
William W. Beach
Director, Center for Data Analysis
E-mail William W. Beach
areas of expertise:
Economic analysis, Social Security, and Tax Reform
view all papers by William W. Beach
summary:
As Director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, William Beach is the think tank's chief "number cruncher": He oversees Heritage's original statistical research on taxes, Social Security, crime, education, trade and a host of other issues, ensuring it's both rigorous in its technical scholarship and produced in time to help inform the public debate over the issue.
Under Beach's leadership, Heritage has acquired one of the largest privately-held public-policy databases in the United States, as well as a variety of peer-reviewed analytical models. Together, these acquisitions allow the center to produce some of the most sophisticated calculations done anywhere in the world.
In addition to acquiring analytical models, Beach helps build them. He was instrumental in developing the state-of-the-art econometric models Heritage uses to estimate in detail how proposed tax changes will likely affect individuals, families, and various business sectors-as well as the overall national economy. Indeed, the center has become the leading proponent of dynamic scoring, which shows how much federal revenues change when the U.S. economy reacts to a tax increase or a tax cut.
Under Beach's direction, the center has progressed to the point that it regularly competes with the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Joint Committee on Taxation, or any other government agency when it comes to "scoring" potential costs and benefits of legislation. Indeed, federal lawmakers often ask the center to analyze legislation they have drafted, knowing they can get a reliable estimate more quickly from the CDA than from any Capitol Hill agency.
Prior to joining Heritage in 1995, Beach held a variety of posts in the public, private and academic sectors. He served as a litigation economist with two Kansas City, Mo., law firms-Campbell & Bysfield and Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas – where he specialized in analyzing how anti-trust legal remedies would alter product pricing and availability. Later, as an economist for Missouri's Office of Budget and Planning, he designed and managed the state's econometric model and advised the governor on revenue and economic issues. After a stint in the corporate headquarters of Sprint United Inc., Beach moved to the Washington, D.C., area to serve as president of the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University.
A graduate of Washburn University in Topeka, Kan., Beach also holds a master's degree in history and economics from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Beach also is a visiting fellow at the University of Buckingham in Great Britain.
Robert A. Book, Ph.D.
Senior Research Fellow in Health Economics, Center for Data Analysis
E-mail Robert A. Book, Ph.D.
areas of expertise:
Health Economics
view all papers by Robert A. Book, Ph.D.
summary:
Robert A. Book is a Senior Research Fellow in Health Economics at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis.
Before joining Heritage in December 2008, Book taught economics courses adapted to the needs of senior military officers and civilian national security professionals at the National Defense University 's Industrial College of the Armed Forces. While there as an Assistant Professor, he annually served on a faculty team that led a group of 16 students through an in-depth, five-month study of the health care industry.
Book also has taught economics and mathematics courses at George Mason University, Loyola University in Chicago and the University of Chicago. He also worked as a Senior Associate for The Lewin Group, a health care policy research and consulting firm in Falls Church, Va. While there, he conducted a detailed study of the cost structure of the specialty pharmacy industry in the wake of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act.
At Lewin, he also analyzed the growth of diagnostic imaging and cost changes resulting from improved technology; forecasted effects of Medicare payment changes on the long-term, acute care, and rehabilitation hospital industries; analyzed costs in pharmacy and physician practices; and studied the impact of medication therapy management by pharmacists.
In 2002, Book earned a doctorate in economics and an MBA from the University of Chicago for his thesis on "Public Research Funding and Private Innovation: The Case of the Pharmaceutical Industry." He also has a master's in computational and applied mathematics from Rice University, and bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history from Duke University.
An Eagle Scout, Book serves as Scoutmaster for Troop 1818 in Fairfax, Va.
Ted R. Bromund
Margaret Thatcher Senior Research Fellow, The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom
E-mail Ted R. Bromund
areas of expertise:
International Affairs, International Security
view all papers by Ted R. Bromund
summary:
Dr. Ted R. Bromund was born in Wooster, Ohio. He received his BA from Grinnell College in Iowa in 1991, and his Ph.D. from Yale University in 1999, where he was advised by Prof. Paul Kennedy, for a thesis on the first British application to the EEC. From 1999 to 2008, he was the Associate Director of International Security Studies at Yale, which emphasizes teaching and research in international, diplomatic, and strategic history, and grand strategy. In that capacity, he was responsible for event planning and organization, report and grant writing, fundraising, and fellowship programs.
He was also a Lecturer in History, and, from 2004, a Lecturer in International Affairs, with responsibility for designing, administering, and teaching the core security studies curriculum in Yale's International Relations MA program. He spoke regularly to campus, alumni, and other audiences on historical and contemporary topics, has published articles and reviews in a variety of scholarly journals, and is a regular commentator on current affairs in Commentary and the Yorkshire Post (UK). Bromund is also the author of the book chapter, "A Just War: Tony Blair and the End of Saddam's Iraq," in The Blair Legacy: Politics, Policy, Governance, and Foreign Affairs (2009).
Peter Brookes
Senior Fellow, National Security Affairs and Chung Ju-Yung Fellow for Policy Studies, Asian Studies Center
E-mail Peter Brookes
areas of expertise:
Foreign Policy, National Security, Asia, Russia, Middle East, Intelligence, Terrorism, Cyberwarfare and Missile Defense
view all papers by Peter Brookes
summary:
As a Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs and the Chung-Ju Yung Fellow for Policy Studies, Peter Brookes develops and communicates The Heritage Foundation's stance on foreign policy and national security affairs through media appearances, research, published articles, congressional testimony and speaking engagements.
He is also in his second term as a congressionally-appointed member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission and served on the advisory committee of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism in 2008. Brookes is also an Adjunct Professor at the National Defense University .
Since joining Heritage in 2002, Brookes has become a major presence in print media with more than 300 published articles in at least 50 newspapers, journals and magazines. He is a columnist for the nation's fifth largest newspaper, the New York Post . His column also runs in several other domestic and foreign newspapers, and on numerous news and opinion Web sites.
He is also a Contributing Editor for Armed Forces Journal magazine and a contributor to Townhall magazine. Brookes has been quoted by many of the world's largest newspapers and magazines. In 2005, he published A Devil's Triangle: Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction and Rogue States (Rowman & Littlefield; paperback 2007).
Brookes also is a force in electronic media as well, with at least 1,300 appearances as a commentator on TV and radio. Channels he has appeared on include ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, BBC, CBC, VOA, Al Hurra and Radio Free Asia. He has hosted major market talk radio programs, including XM satellite radio.
On Capitol Hill, Brookes has testified numerous times before both the Senate and House of Representatives as both a public official and as a private citizen. He is also a frequent public speaker around the country and the world, making more than 200 addresses in 15 countries, including participation in State Department public diplomacy speaking programs in Japan, Germany, Australia, Poland, Austria, Ukraine, Fiji and Papua New Guinea .
Peter Brookes
Senior Fellow, National Security Affairs and Chung Ju-Yung Fellow for Policy Studies, Asian Studies Center
E-mail Peter Brookes
areas of expertise:
Foreign Policy, National Security, Asia, Russia, Middle East, Intelligence, Terrorism, Cyberwarfare and Missile Defense
Before coming to Heritage, Brookes served in the George W. Bush administration as the Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Asian and Pacific Affairs, where he was responsible for U.S. defense policy for 38 countries and five bilateral defense alliances. Prior to the Bush administration, he worked as a Professional Staff Member with the House Committee on International Relations. He also served with the CIA, the State Department at the United Nations, and in the private sector defense and intelligence industry.
Brookes is a decorated military veteran, having served on active duty with the Navy in Latin America, Asia, and Middle East in aviation and intelligence billets. Brookes has more than 1,300 flight hours aboard the Navy's EP-3 reconnaissance aircraft. Now a retired reserve Commander, during his reserve career he served with the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Naval Intelligence, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Office of the Vice President, working as an intelligence analyst, strategic debriefer, Russian language interpreter, defense attaché, policy adviser and Associate Professor at the Joint Military Intelligence College.
Brookes is currently a doctoral candidate at Georgetown University . He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy (bachelor's degree in engineering); the Defense Language Institute (diploma in Russian); the Naval War College (diploma); and the Johns Hopkins University (master's degree in government). He has studied German and Polish.
He has traveled to more than 50 countries on five continents and has served as an international election observer in Indonesia and Cambodia . He has served in political positions at the local, state and national level, including being a drafter of the Republican National Committee's 2000 foreign policy platform at the Philadelphia convention. Brookes served as an adviser to the 2000 and 2004 Bush campaigns on foreign policy and has briefed
the 2008 presidential candidates.
Brookes' awards and honors include: Navy League of New York's Frank Knox Media Award, Joint Service Commendation Medal; Navy Commendation Medal (3 awards); Navy Achievement Medal; several naval and joint unit awards; the Defense Language Institute's Kellogg Award; the Joint Chiefs of Staff service badge; and Naval Aviation Observer wings. He also competed in wrestling and judo, winning a number of honors.
Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D.
Vice President, Domestic and Economic Policy Studies, Domestic Policy
E-mail Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D.
areas of expertise:
Health Care, Budget, Social Security, and Urban Studies
view all papers by Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D.
summary:
Stuart M. Butler has guided The Heritage Foundation's domestic policy research for more than 30 years.
As Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy Studies, Butler's steady hand has helped shape the debate on critical issues from health care and Social Security to welfare reform and tax relief.
By the 1980s, National Journal, Washington's premier magazine of politics and policy, had named him as "one of 150 individuals outside government who have the greatest influence on decision-making in Washington." Two decades later, Butler continues to be in the thick of the action.
In a recent example, he is a regular speaker on the national Fiscal Wake-Up Tour. He joined a group of nonpartisan, ideologically diverse budget realists who travel the country seeking to build public support for tackling the growing threat posed by runaway federal spending on the "Big Three" entitlement programs-Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
Featuring former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker and experts from Heritage, the Brookings Institution and the Concord Coalition, the tour has visited dozens of cities to meet with editorial boards, business leaders, academics and town hall gatherings of regular citizens. Even before the recession took hold, regional and national media--including CBS' 60 Minutes--devoted attention to the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour.
Butler joined Heritage in 1979, when it was a relatively obscure conservative think tank, as a policy analyst specializing in urban issues.
His first widely recognized policy proposal was the concept of "enterprise zones" to encourage development in blighted neighborhoods. How? By offering tax and regulatory relief to entrepreneurs who were willing to start businesses there.
Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D.
Vice President, Domestic and Economic Policy Studies, Domestic Policy
E-mail Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D.
areas of expertise:
Health Care, Budget, Social Security, and Urban Studies
Butler introduced the idea in an early paper for Heritage. It caught the attention of then-Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY), who co-sponsored legislation implementing the concept with then-Rep. Robert Garcia, a Democrat from the South Bronx. Today, at least 70 zones exist in cities across the country.
Butler grew up in Shropshire, in the west midlands of England. The son of a mechanic who left school at age 13, he says his modest roots strongly influenced both his personal values and his approach to policy. Although he holds bachelor's degrees in physics and math, and also economics, and a doctorate in American economic history from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, Butler believes that empowering ordinary people--not experts or government officials--is the best way to solve social problems.
Butler became a U.S. citizen in 1996. In his early days as a policy analyst, he visited tenements in the South Bronx and Washington, D.C., to discuss with residents how best to address the festering problems of public housing. The encounters led him to help design such approaches as tenant ownership and school choice.
Butler's abiding passion is health care reform. He has argued for a restructured system based on consumer choice and state-led innovation. In 1989's "A National Health System for America," Butler and Heritage colleague Edmund F. Haislmaier explained how distortions in the tax code created a health care system that denies individual choice and drives up costs.
When President Clinton began his bid to federalize health care upon taking office in 1993, Butler was one of the nation's most-quoted experts on why the Clinton proposal wouldn't work. But he also consulted with lawmakers to develop an alternative reform.
At the time, liberal pundits were among those who thought the Butler approach was superior. Michael Kinsley, then editor of The New Republic, called it "the simplest, most promising, and in an important way, the most progressive idea for health care reform."
More recently, National Journal again noted Butler's influence, calling him one of Washington's 12 "key players" on health care. In the debate over President Obama's health proposals, Butler again argued for an alternative based on consumer choice and state-led efforts, not federally directed ones.
In health care as in other areas of policy, Butler has been a leading proponent of reaching across the ideological spectrum to find bipartisan ways to achieve reform. For instance, Butler and Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution authored a major article that encouraged some of the most liberal members of Congress, as well as some of the most conservative, to craft and introduce House and Senate bills to foster bold state initiatives to reduce the number of uninsured Americans.
Butler has been published in leading academic journals, including Journal of the American Medical Association and Health Affairs, and in leading newspapers, including The New York Times. He is also a member of the editorial board of Health Affairs. He has testified before Congress dozens of times, been the subject of a profile in The Washington Post, and appeared as a guest commentator on all of the major television networks.
In addition to dozens of research papers for Heritage, Butler is the author of three books: Enterprise Zones: Greenlining the Inner Cities (1981), Privatizing Federal Spending (1985) and--with Anna Kondratas--Out of the Poverty Trap (1987).
In 2002, he accepted an invitation to spend a semester as a fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics. He currently is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Graduate School.
Butler, who is married and has two children, resides in Washington, D.C.
Karen Campbell, Ph.D.
Policy Analyst, Macroecomomics, Center for Data Analysis
E-mail Karen Campbell, Ph.D.
areas of expertise:
Macroeconomics
view all papers by Karen Campbell, Ph.D.
summary:
Karen Campbell is a policy analyst in macroeconomics at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis.
In this position, Campbell will be designing and maintaining the center's several computer models of the U.S. economy. She also will participate in several projects for "Leadership for America," Heritage's 10-year national policy campaign.
Previously, Campbell was chief financial officer of the Chester, Pa.,-based ABC Lid Machine Co., and ABC Seamer Technologies Inc., where she developed the canning equipment manufacturing and co-packaging firm's accounting system, prepared financial statements and assisted in strategy development, among other responsibilities. She also was an economics instructor and research assistant at Temple University in Philadelphia.
Campbell received her doctorate degree in economics in 2008 from Temple , where her work developing a theory of entrepreneurship received an award for an outstanding dissertation. She also earned a 2004 master's degree in economics from Temple and a 2000 bachelor's degree in accounting from Houghton College in New York .
In addition, she is a certified management accountant and financial manager through the Institute of Management Accountants .
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
Deputy Director, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies
E-mail James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
areas of expertise:
Homeland Security, Defense, Military Affairs, Interagency ("whole of government") Operations, Counterterrorism
view all papers by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
summary:
James Carafano, one of the nation's leading experts in defense and homeland security, directs Heritage's Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies.
Carafano is an accomplished historian and teacher as well as a prolific writer and researcher on a fundamental constitutional duty of the federal government: to provide for the common defense.
His research focuses on developing the national security required to secure the long-term interests of the United States -- protecting the public, providing for economic growth and preserving civil liberties.
In this capacity, Carafano is one of the principal policy experts who appear in Heritage's gripping documentary on the case for missile defense, 33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age.
In August 2009, Carafano was promoted to director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies as well as to deputy director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies.
Carafano, a 25-year veteran of the Army, manages day-to-day research and program activities of the Allison Center. He also serves as deputy to Kim R. Holmes, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies, in overseeing the centers and projects of Davis Institute, where Carafano had been assistant director since 2006.
He is a weekly columnist on national security affairs for the Washington Examiner newspapers.
Carafano's most recent book is Private Sector/Public Wars: Contracting in Combat-Iraq, Afghanistan and Future Conflicts (Praeger, 2008), a rigorous study of contractors' role on the battlefield and their impact on military effectiveness and civil society.
Carafano's current book project is a history of the modern military. He is editing a new book series, The Changing Face of War, which examines how emerging political, social, economic and cultural trends will affect the nature of armed conflict.
Carafano joined Heritage as a senior research fellow in 2003. He had been a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington policy institute dedicated to defense issues.
In his Army career, Carafano rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He served in Europe, Korea and the United States. His assignments included head speechwriter for the Army Chief of Staff, the service's highest-ranking officer. Before retiring, Carafano was executive editor of Joint Force Quarterly, the Defense Department's premiere professional military journal.
A graduate of West Point, Carafano holds a master's degree and a doctorate from Georgetown University as well as a master's degree in strategy from the U.S. Army War College.
He is a visiting professor at National Defense University and Georgetown University. He previously served as an assistant professor at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., and as director of military studies at the Army's Center of Military History. He taught at Mount Saint Mary College in New York and was a fleet professor at the U.S. Naval War College.
Carafano is the co-author with Paul Rosenzweig of Winning the Long War: Lessons from the Cold War for Defeating Terrorism and Preserving Freedom (2005). The authors, first to coin the term "the long war," argued that a successful strategy requires a balance of prudent military and security measures, continued economic growth, zealous protection of civil liberties and prevailing in the "war of ideas" against terrorist ideologies.
Carafano also co-authored a textbook, Homeland Security (McGraw-Hill), designed as a practical introduction to everyday life in the era of terrorism. The textbook addresses such key details as the roles of first responders and volunteers, family preparedness techniques and in-depth looks at weapons of mass destruction.
His other works include G.I. Ingenuity: Improvisation, Technology and Winning World War II (2006); Waltzing Into the Cold War (2002); and After D-Day (2000), a Military Book Club main selection.
As an expert on defense, intelligence and homeland security issues, Carafano has testified many times before Congress.
He is a regular guest analyst for all the major U.S. network and cable television news organizations, from ABC to FOX to MSNBC to PBS, as well as such outlets as National Public Radio, Pajamas TV, Voice of America and the History Channel. From SkyNews to Al Jazeera, he also has appeared on TV news programs originating in Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Great Britain, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Iran, Japan, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.
Carafano's op-ed columns and commentary are published widely, including the Baltimore Sun, Boston Globe, New York Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today and Washington Times in addition to the Washington Examiner.
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
Deputy Director, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies
E-mail James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
areas of expertise:
Homeland Security, Defense, Military Affairs, Interagency ("whole of government") Operations, Counterterrorism
He is a member of the National Academy's Board on Army Science and Technology and the Department of the Army Historical Advisory Committee. He is a senior fellow at George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute.
In 2005, Carafano received Heritage's prestigious W. Glenn and Rita Ricardo Campbell Award. The honor goes to the staff member determined to have made "an outstanding contribution to the analysis and promotion of the free society."
I could go on and on but I think I made my point. Tell me everyone. After reading these descriptions whose opinion do you think you can trust. The Heritage Foundation or pinheads jomama and bob
These descriptions were only maybe 1/10 of the experts at the heritage foundation if anyone would like to see the rest feel free to visit The Heritage Foundation on the web at
http://www.heritage.org/experts/
Phil you're just acting stupid now. It is well known that heritage.org is a biased radical right wing blog. As such anything you read there should be taken with a grain of salt as witnessed by the numerous times I have disproved the crap that you have posted.
If you would like anything else disproved please mention it specifically and I would be glad to fill you in on the subject.
I have repeatedly presented you with facts (which I sourced) :) and you continue with ridiculous fantasy.
This is what ignorant conservatives do. They ignore facts in favor of made up crap.
I imagine you will not take me up on my offer to disprove anything specific. Because facts threaten you and your fear mongering.
I'm going to go ahead and help you with some more of your ignorance in the meantime.
"So Everyone why don't we take a look at the righters at The Heritage Foundation."
Phil, it's spelled "writers".
"After all if these too pinheads"
The number 2 is spelled "two".
I can see that you didn't get much of an education so I'd be glad to help you out explaining any specific concerns you have about healthcare.
Phil, the credibility of a "think-tank" or any other similar organization is not determined by the number or employment-history of its writers - at least not entirely. One must also consider the content of what they write and whatever their agenda may be. Personally, where you take someone having once served under a President Bush as a good thing, I see it as a fault. The simple fact is that President Bush (both of them) were and are no better than the man currently sitting in the Oval Office.
Conservatives take great delight in bad-mouthing liberal political officials (and vice versa with the Liberals), but the fact is that Clinton gave us NAFTA and a US Army turned Global Police; Bush promised to move the nation back to a more traditionally "conservative" foreign policy (no more US troops as peacekeepers and the like). Bush did not hold to those promises, in fact under his watch NAFTA was strengthened beyond Clinton's dreams with the Security and Prosperity Pact of North America, which operates within the offices of NAFTA with little to no Congressional oversight (which is illegal). Furthermore, contrary to his promises concerning the usage of American military forces, the US Armed Forces are currently being used in at least two countries to "maintain stability" and to hunt down criminals (bin Laden and his people are independent from any national government and are therefore criminals and not targets requiring full military force), effectively using the US Armed Forces as global police on a scale far grander than anything Clinton could have ever hoped to accomplish.
Additionally, while the Democrats failed to pass the PATRIOT Act-by-another-name under Clinton's administration (there was no "War on Terror" to make people accept such an anti-American piece of "legislation)), the Republicans practically rubber-stamped that same legislation under President George W. Bush.
Phil, I have told you before - and I really wish you would take this advice, you really need to do your own research. Look at information through your OWN eyes rather than through the eyes of propagandists like the Heritage Foundation (or any Liberal alternative for that matter). Look at what people actually do, as actions speak louder than words. The Republican Party talks "freedom and low taxes" but walks the same high-tax freedom-stealing line as the Democrats. They are the SAME party, two sides of the same anti-Freedom coin. Stop drinking their Kool-Aide and wake up to reality.
Also, Phil...just say that usdebt link...looks like a good and interesting site.
Speaking of Nobel Prizes, checkout the column posted at www.fromwhereistand.info - the one where he wins the Nobel prize for Economics!
Couldn't agree with him more!
jomama like you've been told before this is a blog not a thesis paper or a resume. Are you some kind of english teacher or something.
You say: "The offer is still open to debate actual facts."
Like I said you still have yet to prove anything The Heritage Foundation said to be wrong. I know you prefer bumper stickers, obama media, and left wing nutjobs like your self to EXPERIENCE and EDUCATION but I think I will stick with The Heritage Foundation thank you vary much. The same goes for you Robert G. Tell me you two how many PHD's do you have. How many presidents have you worked for. How many branches of the military have you served in. How many times have you testified before both the Senate and House of Representatives. You TWO (Does that make you happy joemama) still have nothing and as far as I'm concerned your still talking out of your ass.
Once again everybody after reading these descriptions I posted on December 19, 2009 7:30 AM whose opinion do you think you can trust. The Heritage Foundation or pinheads jomama and Robert G
Phil, in case you missed it, I was saying that I don't trust "Republican" OR "Democrat" 'experts'. And, honestly, with how the American education system works - even at the college level - any college degree, including a PhD is really just a slip of worthless paper that says you know something, regardless of whether or not you actually do. And I don't care how many presidents anyone has worked for, because I do not trust any of the presidents we have had within my lifetime (that includes Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama).
I'm not a 'party' guy, I like to think for myself and won't get my information from anyone strongly associated with a political party. Such information is generally just propaganda...and I'm sure PhD's are great at formulating propaganda.
By the way, why are so quick to resort to name-calling? I thought it was only those "nasty" liberals who resorted to low-blows when people disputed their alleged "evidence"? Well, I guess you are just more proof that the Conservatives aren't really any better. Which is why I stay firmly in the middle and am content to be a human being instead of a stinking label.
Well robert g you can Kiss Uncle Sam's ass and mine while your at it and go straight to hell. I don't give a crap what your fat socialist ass thinks. If you think me and the rest of this country are going to pay your way in life you got another think coming and that goes for you too jomama. I suggest you take a flight to Russia or france because this country will never buy your bull shit. Save your political correctness speech for your idiot in chief and get down to brass tax. You two say its so easy to prove The Heritage foundation wrong then put up or shut up. If you think your going to censer my speech with your political correctness bullshit your delusional.
Phil - You said "jomama like you've been told before this is a blog not a thesis paper or a resume. Are you some kind of english teacher or something."
I was just noticing your inability to spell simple words.
"Like I said you still have yet to prove anything The Heritage Foundation said to be wrong."
I have proved multiple things false that you pasted from Heritage already. For instance the ridiculous "buy insurance or go to jail" thing.
As I said if you have any other specific concerns that you would like me to address please list them and I will provide you with the facts.
"I know you prefer bumper stickers, obama media, and left wing nutjobs like your self to EXPERIENCE and EDUCATION"
No I prefer credible facts over radical right wing blogs.
"whose opinion do you think you can trust. The Heritage Foundation or pinheads jomama and Robert G"
Only a dumbass would trust a radical right wing blog over credible facts from reliable sources. You don't have to trust me as I back up my claims with links to factual data.
So again Phil. If you have any specific concerns or fear mongering you need debunked please list them and I'll be glad to address them with rational logic and facts.
"If you think me and the rest of this country are going to pay your way in life you got another think coming"
Nobody was asking you to pay anyone else's way Phil.
"I suggest you take a flight to Russia or france because this country will never buy your bull shit."
The majority of the people in this country would like a public option for insurance. If you don't like that I suggest you move to Antarctica because this country isn't going to put up with your shit.
"Save your political correctness speech for your idiot in chief and get down to brass tax."
What political correctness speach were you referring to?
The Washington Times
Thursday, November 12, 2009
By Donald Lambro
In all the sanitized TV news reports about the House-passed health care plan, no one mentions the shocking tax penalties and maybe jail time implicit in the bill's nearly 2,000 pages.
This is what could await uninsured Americans who do not want to buy health insurance as the bill demands them to do - or else.
Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), in a letter to the House Ways and Means Committee, confirms that failure to comply with the terms of the law that the Democrats passed last weekend could put people in jail. The JCT told the committee that anyone who decides not to maintain "acceptable health insurance coverage" or, absent that, pay the individual health insurance mandate tax of about 2.5 percent of income, would be liable to large fines or prison sentences.
"This is the ultimate example of the Democrats' command-and-control style of governing - buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and should be stopped immediately," said Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, ranking Republican on the tax-writing committee.
"H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at anytime during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax," the JCT letter stated.
"Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual" under these circumstances if the government determines the taxpayer's unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the JCT explained. It gave two examples when these penalties could be applied under the U.S. tax Code:
c "Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
c Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years," the JCT letter said.
The Congressional Budget Office says the lowest-cost nongroup family plan under the House bill would cost $15,000 in 2016 - a hefty sum for millions of middle income, mostly younger Americans and families whose budgets are stretched as it is.
The Senate Finance Committee reduced the penalties for the failure to purchase health insurance, although noncompliance could still hit uninsured Americans with significant tax penalties. But that will lead to further financing problems because it creates an incentive for younger workers who would prefer paying the fine than costlier insurance premiums, shrinking the risk pool of healthier people needed to offset the costs of everyone else.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/12/tax-penalties-and-prison/
Published: Sunday, November 22, 2009
HEALTH CARE
Bill does provide for imprisonment
This is in response to the Wednesday letter that states there is no jail provision in the House health-care bill.
The bill says that anyone not buying the insurance will face a fine of 2.5 percent of their income (page 297) or face penalties (described in IRS Code) of up to five years in prison.
The IRS code describes the penalties as follows:
Section 7203 — misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
Section 7201 — felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years” (page 3).
It’s definitely in the bill if you take time to research it. I think people should wake up and look at what this government is doing instead of following along like a herd of sheep.
Larry Wold
Everett
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20091122/OPINION02/711229938
H.R. 3590: The Quality, Affordable Health Care
for All Americans Act
December 2, 2009
Individual Mandate: Beginning in 2013, individuals would be required to purchase insurance
coverage equivalent to a bronze plan in the individual or small group market, or an employerprovided
plan that meets certain requirements.24 Exemptions would be permitted on religious
grounds and for undocumented immigrants. Individuals must attest to coverage on their tax
returns, and insurers must report information on their enrollees to the IRS. An exemption from
the mandate applies if the premiums for the lowest-cost plan available exceed eight percent of
income (which is deemed “unaffordable” coverage) and for individuals below 100 percent of the
FPL. The penalty would be $750 per adult with a maximum of three times the individual penalty
per family. The mandate phases in according to the following schedule: In year 2014, $95;
2015, $350; 2016 and after, $750.25 The penalty is indexed to cost of living, not premium
inflation, so that the penalty will become smaller relative to the cost of insurance over time,
thereby weakening the incentive to purchase insurance. Failure to pay the penalty would not
result in criminal penalties.26
http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/L28HR3590HealthCare120209ac.pdf
H.R. 3590 is intended to expand access to health insurance, reform the health insurance market
to provide additional consumer protections, and improve the health care delivery system to
reduce costs and produce better outcomes.
While the bill would expand insurance coverage to 94 percent of the legal population (24
million Americans would still be without coverage) and could improve the functioning of the
individual and small group insurance markets, many experts question whether it will
effectively control costs or reform the health-care delivery system.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the coverage provisions in the bill will
cost $848 billion over 10 years (fiscal years 2010-2019). However, the major provisions in the
bill would not take effect until January 1, 2014, meaning the bill uses 10 years of revenue to
pay for six years of coverage. Republican staff on the Senate Budget Committee estimates that
the total spending in the bill over 10 years of full implementation (FYs 2014-2023) would
exceed $2.5 trillion.
To pay for the expansion of insurance coverage, the bill increases taxes by $493.6 billion, and
reduces Medicare spending by $464.6 billion. Specifically, the bill would cut $134.9 billion
from hospitals, $120 billion from Medicare Advantage (MA), $14.6 billion from nursing
homes, $42.1 billion from home health agencies, and $7.7 billion from hospices.
Among the more prominent taxes, the bill includes a new 40 percent excise tax on health
insurance plans that exceed $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, raising $149.1
billion over 10 years; a new Medicare payroll tax on higher-income individuals that raises
$53.8 billion; a $60.4 billion tax on health insurers; a $22.2 billion tax on drug manufacturers;
and a $19.3 billion tax on medical device manufacturers.
H.R. 3590 mandates that all lawful residents purchase qualified insurance coverage or pay a
penalty. The penalty for not having qualified health insurance would be $750, phased in over
three years beginning in 2014.
The bill would provide tax credits for individuals between 133 and 400 percent of the federal
poverty level (FPL)—$29,330 to $88,000 for a family of four—to help them purchase
http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/L28HR3590HealthCare120209ac.pdf
You are a lier jomama
Phil, I work for a living - I DO NOT take charity and DO NOT live off of food stamps or any other Federal program. I never said that I intend to prove the Heritage Foundation is wrong, I simply stated that I PERSONALLY do not trust them and that I see them as nothing more than a source of Right-Wing propaganda (which is just as harmful to this nation as the Left-Wing variety).
Have I honestly said anything to make you think that I am a socialist? Calling Lincoln out on his unconstitutional actions is socialist? No, it is the American way to raise our voices when the government does wrong. The idea that government is 'always right' and 'never wrong' comes from unAmerican, anti-Freedom Fascism.
Personally, I oppose Obama's health-care plan. My opinion is that anything the governments gets its fingers into turns to shit really quick. Look at the VA clinics as an example of what Federal health-care will look like, it isn't a pretty picture.
Phil, honestly...why call joemama a liar? Simply post your research and let your facts speak for themselves. Perhaps joemama simply hasn't read the bill? Did you consider that? My guess is that you did not. Being an ass what you get you anywhere in a civil discussion.
So Phil your claims of "buy healthcare or go to jail" were exaggerated scare tactics.
The penalty is a tax. Willfully not paying your taxes can put you in jail as it does now.
I'm glad that you did a little more research and corrected yourself on that topic. Thank you.
If you're going to call me a liar (and misspell that word) would you please list anything specifically that you think I lied about. Accusations like that should be backed up.
Robert G, you said: "Personally, I oppose Obama's health-care plan. My opinion is that anything the governments gets its fingers into turns to shit really quick. Look at the VA clinics as an example of what Federal health-care will look like, it isn't a pretty picture.
I would disagree with you on that one. Customer satisfaction with Medicare is much higher than with private insurance. It also has less overhead. They also don't deny or drop people that have pre-existing conditions.
Also systems in other countries with some sort of government run insurance have proven to be more effective and efficient than our system.
However you can keep your current insurance if you like so opt for that there's no reason for you to be against letting other people have another option.
Also Robert, VA clinics was a really bad example to use since there is no plan to have the government run clinics or hospitals.
You would simply use your coverage to visit the same clinics or hospitals you do now.
Joe mama is there something wrong with you? Did you really say:
"So Phil your claims of "buy healthcare or go to jail" were exaggerated scare tactics.
The penalty is a tax. Willfully not paying your taxes can put you in jail as it does now."
Do you honestly not understand what that means?
"c "Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
c Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years," the JCT letter said."
"To pay for the expansion of insurance coverage, the bill increases taxes by $493.6 billion, and
reduces Medicare spending by $464.6 billion. Specifically, the bill would cut $134.9 billion
from hospitals, $120 billion from Medicare Advantage (MA), $14.6 billion from nursing
homes, $42.1 billion from home health agencies, and $7.7 billion from hospices."
Its a fancy way of saying buy our health care or go to jail. It also means there going to raze our taxes $493.6 billion and cut
$134.9 billion from hospitals,
$120 billion from Medicare Advantage (MA),
$14.6 billion from nursing homes,
$42.1 billion from home health agencies, and
$7.7 billion from hospices."
If you cant understand that; nobody can help you.
Phil - You said "Joe mama is there something wrong with you? Did you really say:
"So Phil your claims of "buy healthcare or go to jail" were exaggerated scare tactics.
The penalty is a tax. Willfully not paying your taxes can put you in jail as it does now."
Yes Phil, the penalty is a tax. Willfully not paying your taxes currently and in the future can get you a fine or jail time.
Honestly what is it you don't understand about this? The penalty is a tax. I don't know how to state this more clearly for you.
Either way, joemama, the effect is still the same - refuse to pay for the government medical coverage or go to jail. The thing is, you keep talking like there is a real option, like the government will allow us to disregard the federal health care in favor of private care. Whatever the semantics or particulars, the health care bill in actual effect does exactly as Phil has been saying - it removes the actual option, so that any choice becomes an illusion rather than a substantial choice.
Concerning your response to my previous post:
I must admit that I am not too incredibly familiar with Medicare and was not speaking of that one program in particular, but in a more general sense in regards to federal involvement. However, I do know that Medicare is tax-payer supported and that (presumably, correct me if I am wrong) those actually on Medicare do not pay into the program at all, unless they perhaps also happen to work at the same time. In this light, of course Medicare has higher customer satisfaction as for those receiving health care through this program their "insurance" is FREE, and naturally private insurance has lower satisfaction because it is NOT FREE. This is not to say that Medicare doesn't do any good, again I'm not very familiar with success or lack thereof with this program.
As for the VA clinics, I know for a fact that you are wrong on this. My grandpa died because of poor treatment he received at a VA clinic. No, I don't have an axe to grind on this point - his diabetes and other health problems were going to catch up with him eventually anyway. I'm simply speaking from a bit of actual experience on this one. That was a few years ago, though, so perhaps things have improved in that area since then (though I doubt it).
Robert G - You said "Either way, joemama, the effect is still the same - refuse to pay for the government medical coverage or go to jail."
No the effect isn't the same at all Robert. You keep the insurance you have now, get the public option, or pay a tax.
"The thing is, you keep talking like there is a real option, like the government will allow us to disregard the federal health care in favor of private care."
Who has misinformed you that you won't be able to use private insurance? That's ridiculous. Of course you can use private insurance if you want. No part of the bill has ever suggested otherwise and it's scary that anyone actually believes that.
"Whatever the semantics or particulars, the health care bill in actual effect does exactly as Phil has been saying - it removes the actual option, so that any choice becomes an illusion rather than a substantial choice.
Again you seem to be completely misinformed on the subject. It actually gives you an additional choice. Use Medicare/Medicaid, use private insurance, or use the additional choice of the public option.
"Medicare has higher customer satisfaction as for those receiving health care through this program their "insurance" is FREE"
No, wrong. Medicare is not free. My girlfriend is on Medicare and pays a monthly premium. Find more info on Medicare premiums here:
http://questions.medicare.gov/cgi-bin/medicare.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2100
So the customer satisfaction with medicare is because of the quality of the service compared to private insurance.
"As for the VA clinics, I know for a fact that you are wrong on this."
Wrong how? I stated that VA clinics have nothing to do with this because even if you use the public option you still will be going to the same hospitals you do now. The only thing that changes is who reimburses the hospital as with Medicare.
"My grandpa died because of poor treatment he received at a VA clinic."
Sorry about your Grandpa. I've know people who have died because of the poor treatment they've received at public hospitals.
Regardless it isn't relevant because as I said, even if you use the public option you will still be going to the same hospitals you do now.
This is a very child like and simplistic propaganda piece made by people who where both afraid of the "red menace" and had an agenda of their own. Why do you think they mention people promoting "class warfare" 1st in their list of considerations to "beware" of. Is perhaps because they ARE the small but elite class that would have the masses happily swallow the simple fairy tale of america. The evolution of this country's wealth is sadly not so simple and rosey as this cute little cartoon would like it's viewers to believe. It was in fact built upon the backs of the unwilling, oppressed and disenfranchised masses who where told whatever they needed to be told (or kept in line through the lash) to keep them from looking behind the curtain and actually thinking critically about whose making the rules and why. This is easy to do with people who can only think about survival from day to day. The idea that because we are the most materialistic country, it therefore follows, that we are the best country is obviously absurd to any one who has left it and returned. And as the current economic situation of the U.S. elucidates, it's a painfully false idea as well.
All nationalists of any country need do is TRAVEL with an open mind to see that no ONE country has it figured out. They all, or at least most of them, have something valuable to offer by way of concepts and ideas and equally, things to avoid by way of prejudice and antiquated dogmas. An intelligent country, like an intelligent individual, will thoughtfully integrate into their own system what works and more importantly THROW OUT what doesn't. This is how such systems are refined. And this is why the U.S is like an old sick dog who was once the alpha but is slowly losing it's ability to lead anyone on anything as it can no longer honestly lead by example. Blind adherence is a fools game that always causes suffering for those unable to meet reality as IT IS not as they wish it to be. When one has the courage to step out of their myopic world and truly look around with out letting fear influence their what they see. That rare person will be rewarded with with a much more hopeful view of humanity's potential to work together on a global level and rise to meet the challenges that face us ALL. Remember, what you do and how you live YOUR life affects people for better or worse thousands of mile away. As you would have them consider YOU in their decisions follow the golden rule and act in likewise fashion. You are not an island.
Who has misinformed you that you won't be able to use private insurance? That's ridiculous. Of course you can use private insurance if you want. No part of the bill has ever suggested otherwise and it's scary that anyone actually believes that.
My point was that you can't have JUST the private insurance, either way I still have to pay - in some form or other - for a public "option" that I don't want. If you can't "not" have the "public option" then it is NOT an "option" but rather a forced mandate.
No, wrong. Medicare is not free. My girlfriend is on Medicare and pays a monthly premium
Well, as I said, I wasn't familiar with Medicare. Thank you for the link, I'll look at it later when I have the time.
Sorry about your Grandpa. I've know people who have died because of the poor treatment they've received at public hospitals.
Regardless it isn't relevant because as I said, even if you use the public option you will still be going to the same hospitals you do now.
Going beyond the VA clinic example, and I should have used this before, but I actually know first-hand what government health- care is like. How? I am 25% Chippewa, which entitles me to federal health-care through the Indian Bureau. Now, the care itself - when you actually get it - isn't generally all that bad. But here's the rub, here's why I abandoned the government route to instead pay out of my own pocket. Going through the "public option" you have long waiting lists. They wont give you the care right when you need it. My parents had a hell of a time convincing them for my brother's emergency life-or-death appendix surgery a couple years back, for example. It was unquestionably necessary treatment, yet they still were reluctant to fulfill their side of things and actually fork over the cash (metaphorically speaking).
Options for eye-care, likewise, are limited. Sure, you can get to a good eye-doctor in your local clinic, but if you want those free government glasses you have to be content with the cheap garbage that will scratch the first time you clean them with your shirt...since after all...if you are using the free route you probably cannot afford actual cleaner, and they do not provide cleaning supplies for free. You have to go to the Reservation clinic to have your glasses cleaned if you want free cleaning.
When I injured my back five years ago it took nearly two months to get the Indian Bureau to approve the MRI that I needed.
No, the "public option" isn't really all that great. I'll pay out of my own pocket thank you very much. And I will personally stand for any draconian legislation requiring me to pay into YET ANOTHER system that I have no personal interest in ever actually using. I already pay into Social Security, which I don't plan to use when I 'retire' (which I doubt I'll ever be able to anyway), and I already pay into Medicare - which I don't use, and I'm sure the list is longer than that. I want to spend the money I earn the way that I want, not the way that my EMPLOYEES in Washington DC think I should. After all, the Federal Government is just a bunch of people we "hire" (elect) to carry out the business of government on the behalf of We the People...as WE are the government.
...want on a bit of a rant there. Sorry. We are nation that revolted against its mother country over taxes, and now we are much more heavily taxed then the Founding Fathers ever dreamed of. I personally, am sick of it, and I am sick of worthless lazy people getting a free ride off my and others hard work.
Such is a purely unsustainable system, and it will collapse. The more we add to it, the more catastrophic that collapse will be.
To Robert - You said "My point was that you can't have JUST the private insurance, either way I still have to pay - in some form or other - for a public "option" that I don't want. If you can't "not" have the "public option" then it is NOT an "option" but rather a forced mandate."
Again I don't think you understand. If you keep your private insurance you will NOT have the public option. If you want the public option then you pay the premium for it. If you want private insurance you pay the premium to private insurance.
"Going beyond the VA clinic example, and I should have used this before, but I actually know first-hand what government health- care is like. How? I am 25% Chippewa, which entitles me to federal health-care through the Indian Bureau."
Robert, I agree that veterans and Indians should be treated well but again your examples aren't relevant.
You are talking about a separate medical system. With the public option, as with medicare, you will go to the same doctors and hospitals that you would with private insurance. Therefore the waiting times will be identical, the care will be identical.
If you use the public option you are simply using a different type of insurance to pay for your treatment. Your not going to a separate facility or doctor.
Are you following now? Your posts are making me wonder how much of the population has the wrong idea on what we are talking about.
"I'll pay out of my own pocket thank you very much. And I will personally stand for any draconian legislation requiring me to pay into YET ANOTHER system that I have no personal interest in ever actually using. I already pay into Social Security, which I don't plan to use when I 'retire' (which I doubt I'll ever be able to anyway), and I already pay into Medicare - which I don't use, and I'm sure the list is longer than that. I want to spend the money I earn the way that I want, not the way that my EMPLOYEES in Washington DC think I should."
Our taxes pay for all sorts of things that our citizens need. I may not ever need fire or police services but I understand the need for them. I don't have a problem helping to fund Medicare or Social Security as I believe our elderly and disabled should get the help they need.
Healthcare reform and a public option was a big platform of Obama's and he was elected in a landslide. 70% of Americans and most doctors want a public option. So if our employees in Washington are going to do what We the People want they will give us a public option.
What we really should be concerned about is our taxes funding unnecessary wars like Iraq.
Our taxes are actually much lower now than they have been often in the past. Have a look at the graph on this page...
Tax rates in history
"I am sick of worthless lazy people getting a free ride off my and others hard work."
That is a completely unfair generalization. Sure some lazy people get a free ride but for the most part truly needy people get assistance.
"Such is a purely unsustainable system, and it will collapse. The more we add to it, the more catastrophic that collapse will be."
Sorry Robert that's just not true. As we've seen with other countries that have some sort of government run healthcare system they are able to provide better healthcare cheaper and make it available to all their citizens. The systems are stable.
You are talking about a separate medical system. With the public option, as with medicare, you will go to the same doctors and hospitals that you would with private insurance. Therefore the waiting times will be identical, the care will be identical.
The doctors at the Reservation clinic are, in my area anyway, volunteers from the local private clinic. If you need anything more than a regular examination, dental work, or blood-word they send you to the local private hospital. It is precisely just a different kind of insurance, granted in this case it has its own separate clinics that handle some of the basic work.
If you use the public option you are simply using a different type of insurance to pay for your treatment. Your not going to a separate facility or doctor.
The point of my statement had nothing to do about WHERE you receive care, but rather it was about the fact that when you do get it (wherever it may be at) you have a rather long wait...and I don't mean having to wait an extra half hour in the waiting room. I mean more like "Sorry sir, but your name is still a month or two down on the list" kind of waiting. Do you follow?
Our taxes pay for all sorts of things that our citizens need. I may not ever need fire or police services but I understand the need for them. I don't have a problem helping to fund Medicare or Social Security as I believe our elderly and disabled should get the help they need.
Where in the Constitution is the Federal government authorized to run any kind of health care system of any kind? They aren't so authorized, it is an illegal activity on their part. Whether such a system would be good or bad, they do not LEGALLY have the power to do it (not that that has ever stopped DC). The Federal government exists for very specific reasons, and providing health-care...social security, medicare, and at least half of the things they do now are not legal for them to do.
Here's the thing, if a State government wants to have a public health-care system then great. Their constitution might make that possible, the US Constitution does not give the Federal government the authority. And, really, this is my main reason for opposing such programs - aside from the fact that have no faith or trust in our government.
"Where in the Constitution is the Federal government authorized to run any kind of health care system of any kind? They aren't so authorized, it is an illegal activity on their part."
Robert, I agree. And that is my biggest problem with this sort of crap. Our Founders knew what they were doing when they limited the powers of the federal government. Of course they realized situations would arise requiring adjustments to the Constitution, so they provided a legal mechanism for such adjustments:the Constitutional amendment. The deliberately (and wisely) made this process somewhat difficult and tedious to prevent its abuse.
They knew, as I do, that by its very nature government is an inefficient, greedy beast with an insatiable appetite for power and treasure. They provided for us a government "of Laws, not of Men", a Constitutional Republic fundamentally resistant to usurpation by special interests.
Friends, history is pretty clear here: every time the federal government has undertaken tasks or claimed powers not granted by the Constitution it has proved itself inept. People wonder how our once-great Nation could find itself mired in its current array of predicaments, but the answer is obvious: we have allowed it to reach far beyond its Constitutional restraints.
Please understand: this isn't about "Democrats" or "Republicans". Both major parties have routinely attacked our Constitution, just from opposite sides of the ring. Republicans seem to elevate one group by demeaning the other; Democrats do the EXACT SAME THING, except they switch groups. Their purpose is the same: to circumvent the rule of Law in favor of rule by mob. Our "leaders" know that mob mentality is a malleable thing. They use it effectively to subdue and control us all. But they also know it will only work as long as they keep us divided.
There is a Force determined to destroy our free, sovereign, Constitutional Republic, and it is succeeding. I'm sure many of our legislators don't realize it, but most of them are serving this Force. I know many US citizens would disagree with me here, but I consider this to be a force of Evil and grand as any Satan has ever devised. And every time a lawmaker supports a bill contrary to our Constitution (s)he is joining forces with the Enemy of this Republic.
And that, my friends, is Treason, as defined by our Constitution.
Just a few thoughts from my cave.
I apologize Robert G. Apparently I misjudged you. You really do understand what is going on and next time I wont be so quick to judge you but joemama has done nothing to prove me wrong; In fact he has proved me right over and over again and my statements still stand against him. What I should have said is.
Well joemama you can Kiss Uncle Sam's ass and mine while your at it and go straight to hell. I don't give a crap what your fat socialist ass thinks. If you think me and the rest of this country are going to pay your way in life you got another think coming and that goes for you too bob. I suggest you take a flight to Russia or france because this country will never buy your bull shit. Save your political correctness speech for your idiot in chief and get down to brass tax. You two say its so easy to prove The Heritage foundation wrong then put up or shut up. If you think your going to censer my speech with your political correctness bullshit your delusional.
I would say more about the subject at hand but It seems Robert G and warren have already won the argument.
To Robert - You said "The doctors at the Reservation clinic are, in my area anyway, volunteers from the local private clinic. If you need anything more than a regular examination, dental work, or blood-word they send you to the local private hospital. It is precisely just a different kind of insurance, granted in this case it has its own separate clinics that handle some of the basic work."
As long as you understand that this is completely different than the way the public option would work. You would not go to separate clinics nor would there be volunteers. You would go to the same doctors and hospitals that you would under private insurance. So comparing it to the Indian system isn't really relevant at all.
"The point of my statement had nothing to do about WHERE you receive care, but rather it was about the fact that when you do get it (wherever it may be at) you have a rather long wait...and I don't mean having to wait an extra half hour in the waiting room. I mean more like "Sorry sir, but your name is still a month or two down on the list" kind of waiting. Do you follow?"
I follow but you don't seem to be yet. Since with the public option you would be using the same doctors and hospitals the wait wouldn't be any longer or shorter than with private insurance. Just as the wait with Medicare isn't any longer or shorter than with private insurance. Are you getting this?
"Where in the Constitution is the Federal government authorized to run any kind of health care system of any kind? They aren't so authorized, it is an illegal activity on their part."
Healthcare easily falls under General Welfare. What is not provided in the Constitution is preemptive wars in countries that are not threatening us like Iraq. Also maintaining bases in foreign countries is not in the Constitution. Yet somehow much of America doesn't blink an eye at these illegal actions.
Phil: That you perceive this as an argument is indicative of the problem we are all facing, and one we need to face together. By focusing on our differences rather than our commonalities, by name-calling and such, we only serve that Force intent upon the destruction of our Republic.
Speaking only for myself, I agree with much of what you have posted here. I also often agree with the substance of Rush Limbaugh's statements. However, I see Limbaugh as part of the problem: he serves to keep us divided, calling each other names, off chasing wild geese of 'diversity' while ignoring our common interests. We who love Liberty have a common Enemy, call it what you will. As long as we remain divided and fighting one another, our Enemy will prevail. If we value being right over being Free, Freedom will evade us all.
Anyone who imagines government to be capable of benevolence, or efficiency, or reason, or justice... in short, anyone who expects government to create viable solutions... has not been paying attention. And this is not just OUR government, it is simply the nature of government to nourish the evil inclinations of those in positions of power.
I believe most citizens of this Nation value Liberty as much as I do. However by keeping us divided, the Powers That Be are able to convince the masses that "the other side" (dems, repubs, whatever) will abuse their Liberties if left unrestrained. Both sides accuse the other of "fear mongering"... well, guess what? Both sides are right! And as long as we can be manipulated into fearing each other, the Force of Evil we should rightly fear will simply feed the flames and watch us self-destruct.
I implore you all: whatever 'side' you support, please seek and support open dialog among We, The People. There will always be those who allow their anger and frustration to overrule their judgment. We must all endure pointless taunts and personal attacks targeting everything from our religion to our spelling and grammar. This is inevitable, but try not to take it personally or let it move you off-point. Such mean-spirited attacks are unworthy of a response because, face it: every last one of us harbors a streak of, for lack of a better term, asshole. It is the task of each of us to gain control of our own streak and learn to rein it in. Until we do this we are condemned to speak through it, creating an environment in which productive dialog is impossible.
And that is exactly what the Enemies of Liberty want us to do.
Warren - You said "They knew, as I do, that by its very nature government is an inefficient, greedy beast with an insatiable appetite for power and treasure. They provided for us a government "of Laws, not of Men", a Constitutional Republic fundamentally resistant to usurpation by special interests."
Warren federal governments have actually been proven to be more efficient and effective in the healthcare area than privately run systems.
The only reason we are having any trouble getting reform passed is precisely because our government is so prone to usurpation by special interests and lobbyists. With health insurance companies trying to protect their greedy ways.
"There is a Force determined to destroy our free, sovereign, Constitutional Republic"
What force exactly is trying to destroy our freedom and sovereignty?
This seem like some odd vague fear that you threw out there.
Phil - You said "joemama has done nothing to prove me wrong"
I've proven you wrong many times in this thread already. I've also offered several times to have you make a list of anything else specifically you'd like me to debunk and you don't seem to want to take me up on it.
"Well joemama you can Kiss Uncle Sam's ass and mine while your at it and go straight to hell."
That's awfully childish of you but I guess that's all you have left. How about you kiss his ass and go to hell instead.
"I don't give a crap what your fat socialist ass thinks. If you think me and the rest of this country are going to pay your way in life you got another think coming"
Phil I'm in damn good shape, make a hefty salary, and am not a socialist. I never asked for anyone to pay my way. This is just more childishness from you.
I guess if you don't have an argument you just resort to making up crap.
"I suggest you take a flight to Russia or france because this country will never buy your bull shit."
I suggest you take a flight to Antarctica because this country isn't buying your bull shit.
"Save your political correctness speech for your idiot in chief and get down to brass tax."
We got rid of the idiot in chief in the last election. Also please tell me what political correctness speech you are referring to. It looks like you just felt like throwing out that term for no reason.
"You two say its so easy to prove The Heritage foundation wrong then put up or shut up."
Already put it up.
"If you think your going to censer my speech with your political correctness bullshit your delusional."
Nobody was trying to censor (<- note spelling) you Phil and there was no political correctness. Why do you insist on making up things?
That's awfully childish of you but I guess that's all you have left. How about you kiss his ass and go to hell instead.
Agreed, I despise the Right-Wings childish anti-liberal/socialist attacks just as much as I hate the Left-Wings attacks against the 'Right' (not accusing you of making such attacks, as I have not seen resort to such childishness).
We got rid of the idiot in chief in the last election. Also please tell me what political correctness speech you are referring to. It looks like you just felt like throwing out that term for no reason.
Agreed, except for you seeming implication that our new president is any better. We simply replaced one idiot for another. I see the same trend towards some form or other of tyranny from Obama that I saw from Bush.
I guess maybe I have let my rage get the better of me at times but its only because I love this grate nation and I see it going 100 miles an hour off a cliff. I suppose I deserve that Warren and Robert G but I did apologize to you. Your right we must get united again. Like the old saying goes: "United we stand divided we fall". The question is united behind what? We are at a paradox. If we become a communist nation arguments like this will no longer be possible at least not with out the gestapo police breaking our door down and forgetting us in jail or worse. Friends we must unite behind the constitution first and foremost. Without our constitution we are Russia. We must find candidates who understand that and will protect it with there life's. We must go before the supreme court and abolish all the laws in our country that are unconstitutional. That is where we must start. We must restore constitutional law in order to preserve freedom and liberty. If we don't all our efforts are futile no matter how great our efforts are.
Phil wrote, in part:
"The question is united behind what?"
That's a good question Phil, and one for which there is an answer, though sadly many of our citizens won't accept it. Some folks reject it out of hand, but I hope they'll follow my reasoning to its conclusion. Whatever anyone's religious beliefs, there is logic to my thinking here:
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 chronicles 7 14
King James Version
For the moment please consider this in its historical context, and the Old Testament of the Bible as a history of the Children of Israel, nothing more. Consider God to be anything you wish, or nothing at all; for my explanation here God could be entirely imaginary. I only ask that you believe there is a Force for Good (Creation), and a Force for Evil (Destruction). For many of us this is self evident; for others, perhaps not.
Throughout the Old Testament there were periods of time during which the Jews were strongly united under one God, the Creator of all things. They believed their leaders were Divinely directed, and they had faith God would protect them. During these periods they prospered and their most powerful enemies fell before them.
But there were times when their faith wained, and with it, their UNITY. During these times they suffered defeat and hardships, until they restored their faith in their God and RE-UNITED under Him.
My point is this: a stronger unity can be built behind the Force of Good than the Force of Evil. This is pretty basic; the masses are generally happier during periods of creation and plenty than during destruction and famine.
We individuals can choose to serve either Force - that is entirely up to each of us. But if we wish to be happy and productive it behooves us to UNITE behind the Force for Good.
To anyone who has a problem with the "God" thing, I've known a number of Patriots who were agnostic or atheists. They simply believed in the benefits and value of precious Liberty, so much so that they were willing to defend it with their lives.
Here I will say to one and all, I am a Christian, though I don't claim to be very good at it. I am NOT an evangelist; your beliefs, or lack of them, is entirely your business. I know this: if you can find peace within yourself sufficient to you, conflicting ideas represent opportunities to learn and grow.
I also know there are elements of pure Evil in every human being, including (and perhaps especially) me. No matter what you may believe or how strongly we may disagree, you are not my enemy. But the Enemy resides in each of us; it is my task to defeat it within myself. For that reason I am a work in progress and if you're making progress you are too.
For too many years, I imagined I had arrived and had, if not the answers to everything, at least the right questions. Now I know I had neither, and now I am once again teachable. Still terribly opinionated, mind you. Changing my mind is almost as hard as passing an amendment to the Constitution, but it can be done. This is because I've learned to value and respect opinions even diametrically opposed to my own.
Thoughts from my cave....
Phil - You said "only because I love this grate nation and I see it going 100 miles an hour off a cliff."
Yet you give no example of how it's going off a cliff.
"We are at a paradox. If we become a communist nation arguments like this will no longer be possible at least not with out the gestapo police breaking our door down and forgetting us in jail or worse."
Yet there's no danger of us becoming a communist nation and no indication that there's to be any gestapo stopping us from discussing things. That would be fear mongering.
I do admit that Bush's wire tapping program was pretty scary though.
Warren you said "My point is this: a stronger unity can be built behind the Force of Good than the Force of Evil. This is pretty basic; the masses are generally happier during periods of creation and plenty than during destruction and famine."
I agree, we should all get behind the force for good and make sure all our citizens have access to healthcare instead of the forces of evil and destruction that start unnecessary wars like Iraq that kill hundreds of thousands of people.
NO one stepped up when the last administration was routinely depriving Americans of their rights. They let fear be an excuse to foresake all the hard-fought battles and toil of our founders without hardly a whimper. They allowed an American administration to literally trigger and continue a war for completely bogus reasons. They turned their back on Christian values in a hundred ways, but especially when they supported unmitigated greed on Wall Street instead of supporting every day Americans. They continue to invoke "isms" when they're talking about the health and well-being of the American people. That hardly seems like a Christian perspective to me. I've stopped considering labels like "liberal" and "conservative." I make decisions based on what I truly believe Christ would do. That takes so much ideology and bluster out of the political discussion and reduces everything to its least common denominator.
@joemama:
Excellent! We have a point of agreement upon which a real discussion might be built. It is both natural and expected we will disagree at times regarding ways & means of achieving these and other goals, but such disagreement won't define either of us as idiots, communists, fascists or whatever.
Regarding universal healthcare vs. the Iraq War: these are two distinct issues so I'll take the liberty of separating them, at least for the moment. If you see a connection I've overlooked please enlighten me.
On the war, I couldn't agree more. Many believe GW Bush lied to get us involved there, others claim he was simply operating on the best intelligence available, which happened to be flawed. My position is this: it doesn't matter now. We're there and we shouldn't be, and this particular error was initiated on his watch. This fact provides one more reason for me to dislike Bush. But Bush is gone now, and has done all the major damage he's likely to do.
Now we have Obama who, IIRC, promised during his campaign to get us out of Iraq... yep, right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk ... in which he said, "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." That was in Oct. '07 and I can't help but notice, not only are our troops still there, but he's done a number of other things 'first'. This fact provides me one more reason to dislike Obama, and yet more evidence that anyone still comparing Bush and Obama to justify the misdeeds of either is urinating in his own beer.
Now, to universal healthcare: Joemama, I expect we'll have a few major differences here but I won't take them personally; hope you don't either. As I see it, the "free enterprise" approach to healthcare hasn't failed; the problem is, we haven't been taking that approach. Our health care industry is regulated to hell and back, in ways Madison, et al. would never have imagined. Most people probably see this as a good thing, but who do they think defines the regulations?
If you think it's some benevolent government bureaucracy you are sadly mistaken. It is the AMA, pharmaceutical manufacturers, insurance companies, etc. The big guys can buy what they want... Congressmen, Senators, research hospitals... even Presidents.
Can you imagine the reaction of the AMA if all medication was suddenly deregulated? If we could once again diagnose our own ailments, visit the local apothecary and get whatever WE decided we needed without a prescription?
How about the insurance companies, if they had to compete with one another across State lines? Or Big Pharma, if we could all order our meds from Canada (or anyplace else we could find them at a better price)? Does anyone honestly believe these restrictions are examples of our Benevolent Federal Government protecting us from some evil boogyman?
If so, I have one question: who the hell can we count on to protect us from the Federal Government?
The answer to that question is simple: we have only ourselves. And my friend, that is as it should be. We must be allowed the Liberty to succeed or to fail, purely by virtue of our own wits, industry & resources.
Laws designed to protect us from our own folly invariably restrain our most able instructor, error. I see it as fundamental in a free society that by law you be protected from MY folly, within reasonable limits. I fail to see how it is either society's responsibility, or right, to protect me from myself.
I'm looking forward to any reasoned responses, and please don't worry about your honest thoughts offending me. I'm no longer young and my time becomes more valuable to me each day. My time here is well-spent if it helps me understand how others think. This sometimes expands my own thinking, which IMO is the only valid purpose of such discussions.
If I wanted a pointless row I'd get a TV and watch Rush Limbaugh or Nancy Pelosi or Professional Wrestling. I like to think my mind is a bit more developed than that, and I hope yours is too.
As to spelling, grammar & usage: yes Joemama, it sort of jumps out at me too, but I've learned to (mostly) overlook it. I make my share of errors but fortunately my spell checker catches most of them. Also I have a number of (otherwise) very bright friends who persist in "texting" messages, I presume from their phones, and probably while driving. They tend to rely heavily on their software to complete their words, and obviously don't proof their posts before hitting 'send'.
Also, I have found one's formal education level to be an extremely unreliable gauge of intelligence, or the validity of one's perceptions. I've learned much over the years from people who were functionally illiterate, thus learning that to discount one's thoughts on such a basis is nothing but another form of bigotry.
Just a few thoughts from my cave....
@Phil,
If you had taken the time to read, you would see that I haven't been merely "against" this cartoon. Initially, my reaction to this cartoon was that it made a lot of sense. It speaks truth. It remains relevant.
But then, I saw different people each arguing completely different points, yet using the cartoon to back up their viewpoint. That's when I realized the cartoon is nothing more than a Rorschach Test. People will see what they want to see, understand the lesson they want to understand, and use the cartoon the way they want to use the cartoon.
Some said the flag was backwards in the video. I instantly defended this, saying that there could be any number of reasons this was so without being unpatriotic. I thought perhaps someone was looking at a flying flag from the other side.
So, I watched the video again. This time, I saw the flag was hanging on the wall vertically. I didn't think much of it. It looked "right". So, I did some research. It turns out it isn't hanging the right way, when hanging a flag vertically. So, those complaining about the flag were right.
I disagree that this was done intentionally, though. I think it was just an oversight by some cartoonists who were just hired to draw some frames.
In any case, this was the bulk of my part of the discussion. I learned some new things about hanging flags vertically. I admitted that I was initially wrong.
Yet, in the midst of all of this, you started turning the video into something anti-Obama. Again, this was the outcome of your Rorschach Test. It says more about you than it says about the video. I'm not saying your viewpoint is wrong. Your viewpoint is your viewpoint. You have a right to have your viewpoint. You have a right to believe in what you believe. You likely have some very good reasons to believe what you do.
Where I had a problem was how you started becoming condescending, rude, and started acting like nobody else had a right to believe in anything else but what you believe in. This is an oxymoron. It makes you a hypocrite.
If you truly believe in freedom, you would welcome others who disagree with you... rather than believing the world would be better off without people who disagree with you. If everyone thought exactly like you... while it may be great for YOUR viewpoint... it would eliminate the diversity which makes America so great. We have a good balance of many diametrically opposed viewpoints. We had this when our country was born and we still have it today.
@Phil,
I think the real threat to America will be when everyone completely agrees with one ideology. THAT is something to fear. If everyone got along, that is great. But getting along does not mean agreeing.
You seem to point at everyone who disagrees with you and label them a "liberal". I think that's a weak argument. It isn't an argument at all. It's just giving up. It's being too afraid to speak the truth and open yourself up.
If two children are arguing on a playground and one just says, "You're a poo-poo head!"... you know there will be no learning going on... no growth... no changing of minds... just mindless labeling and name-calling. Sure, your feelings are probably hurt because someone who disagreed with you a long time ago made you cry, or made you afraid, and perhaps now whenever anyone disagrees with you, you become afraid or sad and your only method of communication is calling someone a "liberal" and quoting your favorite website material.
That's your prerogative. However, a liberal... or a conservative... or someone who is somewhere in-between... would ALL agree that you're just being petty. You're arguing just to hear yourself argue. You aren't really contributing anything useful to a discussion. I haven't seen you do much more than regurgitate information found on other websites. I've already read that information. I've already heard that viewpoint. I disagree. If you want to change my mind, you'd need to give me another point of view... your point of view... which will help me to see things in another light. Until you do, you're only making your viewpoint look "hateful" to me.
You seem to automatically want to put me into some sort of bucket, because that's likely what you do when you're afraid of someone. Put them in a bucket with a label like "liberal" so you can keep them safely at bay to protect yourself. The reality is, I voted for Bush. I agreed with us going into Iraq. I still think it was something that is necessary.
At the same time, I do see a lot of our liberties being taken away from us by each successive administration. I saw Bush taking away a bunch of our rights, under the guise of protection. Now, I see Obama taking some rights away, under the guise of protecting the planet.
I use to think global warming was hogwash. Then, I really believed in it. Now, I'm on the fence. I DO believe what we are doing IS having a negative affect on the Earth... however, I ALSO believe that the Earth can handle itself and doesn't need our help. We do the same thing with our bodies. We use stuff that makes us sick... then we take drugs to fix our ailments... and those drugs cause more problems still. I think we need to stop micro-managing everything to death.
So, before you just start stuffing me into a convenient label, how about you just relax and focus on the issues at hand. This isn't about you. This isn't about me. It's about the present and the future. A present and a future that will go on whether or not you or I exist. The only role we should be playing is trying to come up with a solution, not just pointing fingers at each other and blaming the other for the problem.
Who cares WHY we are in the situation we are in. Who cares WHO is to blame? Coming to these conclusions solves nothing. It just wastes time. It clogs the Internet with websites and conspiracy theories that only serve to distract everyone and entertain the masses.
Some things that you see as a problem, I don't. Some things I see as a problem, you don't. So, rather than focusing on issues that we don't agree are problems... how about we work together on the problems we both agree on. Then, we can find some common ground on the issues we disagree with. I think the best mediation is when both people are equally unhappy, because if both sides are fully happy, something devious has likely happened.
Bob and jomama I just want you both to know I will no longer be reading your posts. Your socialist communist views are a waste of time and have no place in any productive society. In fact they are self destructive to a productive society which I know is your goal.
That includes your most recent comments.
@Phil,
It's sad to see you go, Phil. Nonetheless, everyone knew you'd eventually run away. I told you how much you and I have in common and you responded by saying that I have "socialist communist views". The Rorschach Test has clearly turned your finger around and pointed it at yourself. It is clear to everyone here, now, that you are a socialist communist that seeks to manipulate people into a single viewpoint by making all other viewpoints look hateful. By doing so, you can convince the world that there is only one way to be, which is the heart of socialist communist views.
You started off by bashing Christians, then you bashed anyone who voted for Bush, finally you bashed anyone who voted for Obama. You systematically made sure to bash anyone who essentially took part in the system, one way or the other. In other words, you don't want people to play a role at all. You want everyone to just sit on their thumbs and let the socialists take over.
Thank you for showing your true colors, Phil, and Merry Christmas to you.
You think that things are bad now. Just wait until Obama finish's his four years, and at the rate he is going the country will be bankrupt.
He is absolutely the worst president that we have ever had.
I think that the worst thing that congress did was give the under 21 year olds the right to vote as they are the ones that put him in.
@Skipper27,
You got that right. The big problem with the world are the people under 21. They shouldn't have the same rights as those over 21 because they are too stupid to vote.
It is also fairly apparent that people over 70 are so out of touch with the new way of the world that they are equally as dumb, if not worse. Perhaps there should be age-caps on voting. Maybe 21-70.
Also, if you can't speak English very well, perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Maybe a simpler solution is an IQ test with every ballot. If your IQ doesn't register high enough, your vote just doesn't count.
The whole hanging-chad problem in Florida should disqualify all residents of Florida, just for safe measure.
After all, when our forefathers designed a system based on votes, clearly they only intended intelligent people to vote, right? They planned an elite system of only specialized people who could understand English, were of a certain age range, and of an acceptable intelligence. Just because a 20-year-old can live apart from his parents, marry, have children, and fight for our freedoms in the military doesn't mean they are clever enough to have a say in how their freedoms are modified by those 2 years older than them.
Skipper27, I wonder if the misspelling of "finishes" would disqualify your vote. You might want to be careful. Don't want the IQ-Auditors knocking on your door late at night.
@Phil
You think we don't live in a police state already? Its already here, and they only need one more big excuse to make it obvious as hell to everyone. Look at what happened to the "Militia Movement" in the 90's. They were simply trying to follow their legal duty as citizens (legally any male from about 17-45 or so is "militia" - by Federal law). What happened to them? For one, the media demonized them, associated the likes of Timothy McVeigh with the militia even though he only went to one Militia meeting, and that group didn't invite him back according to the research I have done. Second, a lot of prominent figures within that movement were jailed over bogus charges and a couple people seemed to have simply dropped off the face of the earth.
Time to face reality, people, we are not living in the Constitutional Republic founded by our Fore Fathers. No, we are living under a neo-Marxist/Fascist tyranny. The Republic created more than two hundred years ago was never intended to garrison its troops in foreign lands, nor to even maintain a large standing army during times of peace to begin with. It was not intended to provide 'social programs' of any kind, it was not meant to have any say whatever in education or in how we live our lives nor the particulars of how we operate our businesses. It was not intended to send public money (the treasury) overseas as "foreign aid" nor to give it out as charity in the form of "social security" or "medicare/medicaid" or "welfare". It was not intended to be controlled by the banker elites or the corporate fat-cats or the lobbyists and special interest groups. Or government was intended to represent the American people abroad, to provide for the common defense and posterity.
Our government, as it stands now, is exactly the opposite of what we were meant to have. They tell us we have a democracy and that is what we now have. But this is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about democracy: "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. The US Constitution was written to protect from both the arbitrary rule of an autocrat and also from the whims of the majority. Sadly, now, we have both a president who is effectively an autocrat (with precious few limits on his power) and a majority growing increasingly in power due to our failing system.
I am convinced that we see in America now is very close to what people would have seen during the last days of Germany's Weimar Republic. Our currency is damn near worthless, inflation is running rampant, our presidents have been accumulating more and more power to themselves through various legislation - ie PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, War Powers Act, ect. - and edicts (executive orders).
Phil, you suggest going to the Supreme Court and getting them to overturn all the unconstitutional legislation. This solution has been tried and it has failed. We the People have attempt to secure a redress of grievances only to find that our very own representatives do NOT listen. The only peaceful solution left is tell virtually all currently sitting politicians that they are fired and to tell BOTH the Republican and Democrat parties to get the hell out of our government. But this solution will not work either, as our despotic government will see it as an act of aggression and will act accordingly, ie Martial Law. And that will almost certainly lead to Civil War.
Robert G I agree with everything you said. Why are you getting upset. Yes it just may come to that but we can't just throw up our hands and rase the white flag. I myself will live free or die fighting to preserve freedom.
Robert G, I believe you are essentially correct. However I expect our despotic government or its International owners will deliberately instigate a civil war. They must know such a confrontation is by now practically inevitable. By creating it themselves they will initially control what happens, where it happens and what the Press sees of it.
BTW there's a short story you might enjoy. Just Google The Window War by Mike Vanderboegh. I'd post the link but don't remember if that's allowed here.
Apologies, Phil, I just got to ranting a bit. Didn't mean to make you think I was angry at you.
Thats ok Robert G I know how you feel. Keep up the fight.
The big eared idiot we have in there as president now needs to be sent packing. We will have to wait on that until 2012.
However, we can clean house next November. Pay very close attention to how your canidates feel about America. Less government, taxes, and more illegal alien control.
Vote dem or repub, just make sure they are not libs.
D
@daveleeander
Both the Democrat and Republican parties are thoroughly corrupt, "conservative" and "liberal". Both sides have been leading this nation to destruction. As an example: under Clinton we got NAFTA, under Bush we got the "Security and Prosperity Pact of North America" which is basically 'super NAFTA'. Under Clinton we had illegal wire-tapping of citizens and under Bush we had the same, and I'm sure we still have it under Obama. There are only a very small hand-full of politicians on either side that are even remotely trustworthy, and it generally hard to tell which those are.
Liberals are not the enemy. Conservatives are not the enemy. Globalists, Socialists, and Fascists are the enemy. The thing is, they are basically all in the same group right now and they make up the majority of both major parties.
Hoping Obama is going to be a correction is like hoping a train wreck is a good think. Stupid is Stupid does.
Robert G I think we all understand that the government is a mess and we all know we must do something to fix it. I think daveleeander was just trying to say we as american citizens need to wake up and start voting more responsibly. Yes there has been corruption on both sides but history has shown that liberals tend to lean more towards socialism and communism. The republican party is now paying for there corruption and there situation is now forcing them to go back to there conservative roots. Democrats don't even understand what conservative is.
Clarification
When I said "Democrats don't even understand what conservative is." I was speaking mostly about the Democrat politicians in office.
it reminds me of Dr. J. Vernon McGee when he spoke of 'cults and ism's'. Come to think of it, I guess there is no good 'ism'.
@Phil
Not even "conservatives" really understand what 'conservative' means anymore, and likewise neither side really understands anymore what "liberal" means.
Conservative does NOT automatically mean "pro-Freedom" and all. No, it simply means to "maintain the status quo or else to return to older traditions/customs". All Liberal means is, essentially, "pursuit of change". Historically Liberalism has actually been the driving force toward freedom and Conservatism has been the driving force in maintaining autocratic government. Things are a bit different now, just clarifying what Conservative and Liberal ACTUALLY mean.
@Robert G,
That raises an interesting point. Let's say someone likes the way the government is and doesn't want any change. That sounds like a conservative. Then, let's say some liberals (who want change) start mucking up the works of government and change it to something the conservative no longer likes.
The conservative now wants "change"... but change to go back to the way it was. By wanting this "change", is the conservative now a liberal?
And once the liberals get what they want, and now want government to stay that way, do they become conservatives?
@Bob
Going back to what used to be would still be 'conservative'. For example, if someone in the US wanted to return to being under the authority of the English Crown then that person would be a conservative. Likewise if someone wants to return to actually following the Constitution then that person is again a liberal. However, if that person wanted to not only return to following the Constitution but also wanted the Constitution amended to (as an example) place more restrictions on what the government can and cannot do then that person is both a liberal and a conservative at the same time.
As an example, in the last election both Obama and McCain wanted some form or other of health-care reform. They each had different ideas of what needed to be done but either way a call for reform of any kind whatsoever is always a Liberal position, since reform means change and change is the heart of true Liberalism. McCain wanted to keep both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan going in full swing and this was a conservative position. Similarly Obama wanted to pull our troops out of Iraq but expand the war in Afghanistan, representing a duality position that was both liberal on the one hand - pulling out of Iraq - and conservative on the other - escalating the war in Afghanistan (this would be conservative since it is the tendency of war is escalate anyway).
To answer your last question, when the Liberals get what they want and than want for things to stay the same then, yes, they do essentially become conservative. However, if those who resisted the Liberal's changes want to return to how things were before then they are also still conservative. Since, as I stated above, Conservatism is both wanting things to stay the same and the desire to return to older ways of doing things.
About that first paragraph in my previous post, this sentence:
Likewise if someone wants to return to actually following the Constitution then that person is again a liberal, should actually read thusly:
Likewise if someone wants to return to actually following the Constitution then that person is again a conservative
@Robert G,
Interesting view. I'm not 100% certain whether I fully agree with it, but it's an interesting way to view things.
I think it makes the term "conservative" too open-ended (liberal) for most conservatives.
i.e., I would imagine that many conservatives don't exactly want to go back to being under British rule. That would essentially destroy the U.S., and most conservatives are rather patriotic and will fight to the death to keep the United States sovereign.
On the other hand, there is always some period of time one could want to "go back to" and be seen as conservative, which I think unfairly paints every conservative as someone who only looks back and never forward.
You description works great provided that the United States started off conservative and became more and more liberal over time, continuously. However, I see that it has gone up and down in waves between conservatism and liberalism.
i.e., the 60's were rather liberal... Clinton's era was rather liberal... we are entering a more liberal era now... but in between, (during Bush's time) things have gotten more conservative.
So, if someone wants to return things to the way they were in a more liberal time in the past, that person is clearly more liberal. I don't think conservatives necessarily want to go so far back that we are still under British rule, however... or don't have automobiles.
The way I see conservatism and liberalism are not necessarily opposite sides of a coin. Instead, I see the two as being potentially able to co-exist, because they deal with completely different concepts.
To me, a conservative is someone who feels that we are grossly ignoring the letter of the constitution as it was written. The focus is more on writings, rather than the purpose. i.e., if the constitution says "right to bear arms" it means that there should be no restrictions whatsoever. If you want to carry a gun onto a playground, you should have the right to. As soon as exceptions are written, the rights are slowly stripped away until it is nearly impossible to ever own a gun without breaking some sort of new-age law, thus taking away our constitutional right.
To me, a liberal is someone who feels that the constitution was an initial framework meant to provide a spirit of law which can be modified to match the times. So, once everyone gets together and agrees guns should never be on a school ground, everyone high fives each other, writes the law, and guns have a new place they are outlawed.
@Robert G,
I see and understand both sides. Both sides consider the constitution and the purpose of our founding fathers to be important, but conservatives feel that there is no need to change anything with the laws to match any "times"... whereas the liberals feel that if we don't change with the times, we will forever be stuck in the past.
I agree with both sides. The conservative in me says that we need to be really careful about changing the foundation of our system. By putting so many different restrictions on guns, we risk losing the right to bear arms altogether. Some liberals might think "why do we need guns anyway?" but that's a question that was already asked by our forefathers, was already discussed in length, and a decision was already made that it was an important right. Continuing to have the discussion repeatedly only seeks to undermine the foundation of our country.
The liberal in me also says that we can't just stick with "the old ways"... abolishing slavery... and in some cases, enforcing the idea that "all men are created equal" have only been possible by allowing change. This is why our forefathers often used vague language in the constitution... purposefully left out specific details in the constitution... and put in provisions to allow for change into the constitution.
The constitution was always meant to be a foundational document to rule all... not the one and only book of laws. Not to mention the fact that each state has its own laws and its own sovereignty to some degree, as provided in the constitution.
So, I think that some uber-conservatives misunderstand the nuances that were allowed for in the constitution, to allow our system to adjust for the times. Some uber-liberals misunderstand the fact that our constitution, and the rights it affords, is what makes our country unique. By changing things too much, we risk becoming no different than any other country, taking away our advantage.
Making an analogy, imagine a "dot com" company. The liberals would continue to make requests to change the website, making it more like Amazon.com. They'd say "hey, look... Amazon does X, so we should do X also." The conservatives would say, "Sure, Amazon does X... but they're Amazon. If we do everyone Amazon does, we'd just BE Amazon. If you want to work for Amazon, leave here and go work for Amazon instead. Don't try to change this company into Amazon, because that's not the company *I* want to work for."
The liberals do have a point. Amazon is a successful website. Following their example isn't too bad of a business decision (as long as you don't right-out plagiarize.)
The conservatives also have a point. If you change too much, you lose your identity.
I am not by any means "wishy washy". I don't just choose "both sides" because it is safe or convenient. If anything, I am a conservative in that I recognize and understand what our forefathers wrote into the constitution and wanted to allow for. Progressive change without changing progress.
So, the conservative in me says "Let's only change what makes sense... but let's also undo what made little sense to change in the first place... and let's always look to the constitution to guide us." The liberal in me says, "Let's not sit around and be afraid to re-think our laws. The U.S. Code holds our laws, not the constitution. The constitution is like our mission statement, not our operating manual.
@Robert G,
Some of the laws Bush passed took our country further away from the Constitution. Thus, in that sense, Bush was a liberal. On the other side, Bush talked a lot of conservative talk. Obama has often been called a liberal. However, many of the changes he has been making have been bringing us closer to the constitution. In this sense, he would be conservative. However, most presidents have taken both conservative AND liberal actions to the course of our country. So, for the most part, a hard-core liberal or a hard-core conservative shouldn't be any less happy or more happy with any given president, given the evidence.
@Phil
I was going off of the actual dictionary definition of the words not anyone's political views of what those words ought to mean...
The thing about returning to British rule was simply an example.
I wasn't using the terms "conservative" or "liberal" in the sense of a personal label, but rather as an issue-specific label as that is all they really can be if one were to be honest. Most people have some things they would rather not change, some things they would like to go back to, and other things they would like to see changed. Thus, most people hold both conservative and liberal views.
I think you missed the point of my previous post. Although, in a way, your statement drives right at the heart of what I was saying. Conservatism itself is not any particular view or belief, and neither is Liberalism. Instead they are general attitudes that, when treated as such, can easily and peacefully coexist.
Believing that the Constitution's proper intent and meaning is being ignored is not a conservative view, rather wanting society to return to that proper view is a conservative view. Simply believing that the Constitution is being ignored would require a different label, perhaps that of "Constitutionalist" or perhaps "Traditionalist".
Likewise believing that the Constitution is a framework that can be modified to match the times is not a liberal view, it is a reformist view. Actually wanting to change the Constitution would be Liberal.
One interesting point to consider is this: the Founding Father's were NOT conservative. The Conservatives of their day were loyal to the Crown. Conservatism is about resisting change (which CAN be a good thing at times), and so those in America during the Revolution who wanted to continue under British rule were "conservatives". On the other hand, since liberalism is all about change (not always good, but sometimes is) the Founding Fathers were Liberal, simply because they wanted to create an entirely new system of government that promoted the ideals of Freedom and Liberty.
In what I see as being part of a perfect society the attitudes of Conservatism and Liberalism would work together to keep unnecessary and/or destructive change from occurring (conservatism practiced rightly) while at the same time ensuring that those things that did need to be changed would be changed in a responsible manner (liberalism practiced rightly).
@Bob
"Obama has often been called a liberal. However, many of the changes he has been making have been bringing us closer to the constitution."
Bob, I must have missed those changes. Can you give some examples?
As to what's "liberal" and what's "conservative", those terms have been stretched and abused so much I expect they mean different things to different people. In my view, the essential difference is this: a true Conservative loves personal Liberty enough to allow everyone to enjoy it, even people he fears. A true Liberal fears his fellow citizens enough to permit restraints upon his own personal Liberty in order to impose it upon others.
BTW,
HAPPY NEW YEAR to you all! (Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, whatever - All my Fellow US citizens) May 2010 be the best year yet for you, and for our Free, Sovereign, Constitutional Republic!
Your points are all valid. I understand what you are saying. but I think your missing my point. Although it is helpful to know the literal definitions of Conservative and Liberal I was speaking in everyday language. Today democrats in office label themselves as liberals even though they are socialist/communists. It is because of that the everyday language translates liberal into socialist/communists. Unless obama declares himself king of the United States there will be a another election and the next president is going to be a republican or a democrat. Somebody is going to be the next president. Someone is going to fill the seats of congress and the rest of our political offices come next election. The question is do we want to keep the terds we have in office and continue down the sewer pipe or like daveleeander stated: "we can clean house next November.”
PS
Just a little advice for you. Just stop reading bob and joemamas posts. They have the collective intelligence of Beavis & Butt-Head and the same love for this country as hitler. Speaking to them is like speaking to a brick wall. They are a distraction from productive and intelligent conversation and I believe they do it on purpose to create disunity. That is my advice. Take it or leave it its up to you
@Phil,
Your hateful comments represent what's mostly wrong with the world today. You ignore the fact that I and joemama are voters, among millions of voters. You apparently belong to a group that just wishes to "ignore" a huge set of voters. Proof that your goal is a goal of elitism. To only move the country in a direction that a minority of voters wish the country to go into, while telling your elite brethren to just ignore the majority of voters. You follow-up by lumping the other voters into some "other" group, even though they are each unique and do not necessarily agree with each other. I do not know joemama and I do not necessarily agree with joemama, and yet you lump joemama and I into a convenient group. Then, you insult our intelligences without actually knowing either of us.
When I have a civil discussion with others on here, I don't drag you into the message. I only address your specific messages. You, on the other hand, when having a civil discussion with another find the need to just insert more insults towards anyone you disagree with. It's also one thing to attack someone's ideas, but to then insult someone's intellect as a whole is the same kind of hatred that leads to racism, terrorism, and temper tantrums.
If you disagree with me that we need to pay close attention to the constitution and continue to revise our laws to bring our system closer to the original intention of the constitution, that's your prerogative. And I welcome your differing point of view. However, I would never compare you to "Beavis and Butthead" no matter how much I disagreed with your view, because I don't know you outside of your political discussions here.
I pray that one day you can let go of the systematic hatred you have for people you disagree with and that you can understand that we are all in the same boat and should learn to get along while also protecting our ways of life, not attack each other, tossing each other out of the boat until our way of life is preserved. Doing so, you'll eventually end up in a boat all alone.
Robert G This is an email I received what is your opinion?
The Fundamental Transformation of America
When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist,
People said it didn't matter.
When it was discovered that his grandparents, were strong socialists, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama,
People said it didn't matter.
When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims,
People said it didn't matter.
When he wrote in another book he authored “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
People said it didn't matter.
When he admittedly, in his book, said he chose Marxist friends and professors in college,
People said it didn't matter.
When he traveled to Pakistan, after college on an unknown national passport,
People said it didn't matter.
When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology,
People said it didn't matter.
When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator",
People said it didn't matter.
When the Palestinians in Gaza, set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign,
People said it didn't matter.
When his voting record supported gun control,
People said it didn't matter.
When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done,
People said it didn't matter.
When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Mummar Kaddafi and Hugo Chavez,
People said it didn't matter.
When it was pointed out that he was a total, newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing,
People said it didn't matter.
When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals,
People said it didn't matter.
When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question,
People said it didn't matter.
When he refused to wear a flag, lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry,
People said it didn't matter.
When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises,
People said it didn't matter.
When he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance,
People said it didn't matter.
When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage, anti-capitalism, anti-free markets, pro government control over everything and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition
People said it didn't matter.
When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues,
People said it didn't matter.
When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination,
People said it didn't matter.
When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him,
People said it didn't matter.
When his first act as President, literally within 5 minutes of taking office, he signed executive order #13489 that sealed his own records,
People said it didn’t matter.
When the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, and continues to spend millions in court to keep the material sealed,
People said it didn't matter.
When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character, who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home,
People said it didn't matter.
When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected,
People said it didn't matter.
When he started appointing czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communist,
People said it didn't matter.
When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this nation" into something else,
People said it didn't matter.
When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN,
People said it didn't matter.
When he appointed a cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialist,
People said it didn't matter.
When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers,
People said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar and he believes in "Explicit Consent", harvesting human organs without family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting,
People said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Kevin Jennings, an overt homosexual, and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, education network, as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers,
People said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and admires Hugo Chavez,
People said it didn't matter.
When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama's senior White House advisor and she is an avowed Socialist,
People said it didn't matter.
When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration,
People said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Carol Browner as global warming czar, and she is a well known socialist working on Cap and trade as the nation’s largest tax hike in history,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar, who since had to resign when this was made known,
People said it didn't matter.
When Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed, because he was a tax cheat,
People said it didn't matter.
When a Ft. Hood Muslim major Malik Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and an unborn baby, wounded 29 others, we found out he is an Advisor to Obama's Homeland Security team,
People said it didn't matter.
When as president of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia,
People said it didn't matter.
When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness,
People said it didn't matter.
When his actions concerning the middle-east seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time friend,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States ,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he upset our European allies by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians,
People said it doesn't matter.
When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops the Field Commanders said we had to have to win,
People said it didn't matter.
When he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off,
People said it didn't matter.
When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected,
People said it didn't matter.
When he forced the takeover of insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc,
People said it didn't matter.
When he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government,
People said it didn't matter.
When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control,
People said it didn't matter.
When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy resources in the United States through Cap and Trade,
People said it didn't matter.
When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State, people finally woke up........ but it was too late.
Any one of these things, in and of themselves does not really matter. But.... when you add them up one by one you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that our Obama is determined to make America over into a Marxist/Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this, do an internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ? Personally, I like happy endings.
If you are an Obama Supporter, please recognize that you have elected a president who is a socialist. There is simply no debate about these facts. But you need to seek the truth, you will be richer for it. Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. I did. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation.
Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Don't rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers for the truth. Search the internet. Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there as well, but you are smart enough to spot the fallacies.
Newspapers are a dying breed. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth? Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he is currently waging an open war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, and he has failed to refute any facts presented – because it is all true. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn't. Please, find the truth, it will set you free.
Our biggest enemy is not China , Russia , Iran ; no, our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington DC.
Frank Martini
Phil nothing you posted really matters.
Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
wfred
Same to you
@Phil,
It would seem to me that there are a lot of missing facts from that huge list. Almost as if every fact of Obama's life and Presidency was carefully combed through and only certain facts with a common theme were cherry-picked to paint a picture that the original writer was intended to paint.
I don't give any more credibility to that cherry-picked message than I'd give to a similar message that tries to paint Obama as the perfect person.
Obama's life in its entirety (both good AND bad) as well as his actions as President (both good AND bad) without any slant or bias would need to be taken as a whole to really make an educated judgement. Anything else is just an exercise in human language.
@Phil
Many of those things are cause for concern, certainly. However, not wearing a flag-pin is, to me, completely irrelevant. Not putting his hand to his heart for the National Anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance, is also irrelevant. Here is why: We are supposed to be a FREE nation, not a ritualistic "let's all love America" type of nation. The Star-Spangled Banner, while being a beautiful and moving song is far too militant to honestly be the national anthem of a traditionally anti-war nation. And the Pledge of Allegiance, as it happens, was written by a Marxist anyway. This is supposed to be a nation where petty little things like flag pins and 'paying respect' to the national anthem and such don't even matter.
In truth, all this focus on Patriotic symbols and such from the "Right" in this nation simply stinks of Fascism. Truthfully, if I were to ever run for office I will also not wear a flag-pin, neither will I put my hand to my heart for the national anthem or the pledge (I pledge allegiance to no one and nothing). I will refrain from doing these things not out of hatred for this nation, but rather out of a deep love for what this nation is REALLY supposed to be about.
That said, I'm pretty sure that Obama's reasons for doing the above were different than mine would be.
What do I think of that email though? What is the point of it? Virtually everyone willing to admit that Obama is all-bad already knows it or else is steadily coming to that conclusion just by seeing how he is doing in office now. Do we really need more anti-Obama propaganda?
I'm with wdlockaby on this one. Most of our past presidents, at least those after Lincoln, have been part of the globalist/Elite machine. (And many before him, too.)
Only Lincoln & Kennedy have stood up to them and we don't need to be reminded of what happened to them.
FDR thought Joe Stalin was just wonderful. Nixon brought in Kissinger, just as Obama has. Clinton pushed his Socialist agenda, just as LBJ did.
Bush II dictated and signed all those "executive signing authorities" that have given Obama the ability to walk over the Constitution and citizens of America today. Bush I's daddy was an associate of Hitler's. (If you doubt that, google "Prescott Bush".)
Obama was "hired" to get all those who normally don't vote off their arses to support his entitlement programs, thereby enslaving millions more. Like it or not he was "elected" on the basis of race-which should never have entered into it>
(my keyboard just stopped working properly)
Yes< Bush is just as guilty as Carter and Nixon and LJB and Clinton and FDR and and and and. They've all bought into the plan to sell out America.
We should be more worried about the Buildengerg group more then Bush, Obama, Clinton or the next president.
Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!
Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!
Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued!
Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.
Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).
Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!
Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)
Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)
Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.
Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.
Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)
Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)
Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)
Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.
Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)
Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.
Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!)
Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)
Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)
Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)
Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.
Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).
Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.
Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)
Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)
Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)
Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)
Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!
Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)
Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)
Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)
Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; & nbsp;guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')
Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)
Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.
Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)
Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)
Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)
Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)
Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)
Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.
Robert G you say:
"if I were to ever run for office I will also not wear a flag-pin, neither will I put my hand to my heart for the national anthem or the pledge (I pledge allegiance to no one and nothing). I will refrain from doing these things not out of hatred for this nation, but rather out of a deep love for what this nation is REALLY supposed to be about."
I think maybe my initial judgment about you may have been correct. You don't know what this country is about. Your statements are proof that knowledge does not equal wisdom. How can any elected official or citizen uphold, protect and defend this country it's constitution and it's people if they hold the attitude: "I pledge allegiance to no one and nothing". This attitude is the vary reason why government is out of control. We have politicians taking bribes from our own president for personal gain because they "pledge allegiance to no one and nothing" except themselves. The pledge is a commitment to the devotion to our country. Take that away and we become an every man for themselves country. That brings disunity to our country and we fall.
Phil, I love this country. I love America. However, I am not a slave to this country, I am no serf. I do not pledge allegiance to my country, though I will serve my country to the fullest of my ability.
Because, Phil, I understand what this country is REALLY about. It is not about the flag, it is not about the Constitution. The Constitution was written as a safe-guard to protect what this nation is really about. What this nation is really about is FREEDOM and LIBERTY. I am a Free Man living in what was once a Free Nation, but what is now sadly a Corporate-Fascist/Socialist State of Tyranny and Corruption.
The people in power now, it isn't that they don't pledge allegiance to anything. They are the ones who (excluding Obama) pledge allegiance to the flag with a smile in front of as many people as possible. Because what they believe in is power, that is what their hearts pledge allegiance to - power and the pursuit of power. They want to control everything, and a part of how they control everything is by making the mindless masses do things like "pledge allegiance to the flag". Do you not realize that the Founding Father's DID NOT write any kind of pledge of allegiance for this country? Don't realize the significance of that?
A real American, if he were to pledge allegiance to anything at all, would pledge allegiance to only freedom and his family. Further, proper American Patriotism is not felt towards the United States but rather to the particular State within which you live. The united States is Federation of Sovereign and Independent States, not all that different in principle from the European Union - and indeed Europe is simply following our example, after a fashion. The State in which you presently reside is YOUR NATION and that is what you should feel any patriotism for.
I do not pledge allegiance to myself, if I were to pledge allegiance to anything, it would be to Freedom and Liberty and to my wife and children (should the day come when I have a wife and children).
I love the united States, I love my adopted home state of North Dakota, I am a North Dakota Patriot; but I am neither the slave nor serf of either.
And, again, the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist to trick the masses into making the themselves the slaves of a by-then already corrupted Federal government. The whole idea of a pledge is directly contrary to the ideals of freedom and liberty that the Founding Fathers fought and bleed for, and that literally hundreds of thousands of Americans have died defending.
No, Phil, it is YOU who does not really understand what this country is actually about. Let me ask you this: To what lengths will you do to defend Freedom? If will go no further than politics and elections and courts then you truly have no idea what this nation is about. After all, this is a nation Born of Rebellion. The American Revolution could just as easily been called the "American Colonial Rebellion against the Crown". Our Fore-Fathers were willing to sacrifice life and limb in the name of Freedom, and so am I. How about you?
((not talking about anti-government activity, just generally about fighting for freedom))
Hold on … who is the "them" and who is the "us?" Sure, we all get the point of this presentation but if you think we're going in the wrong direction what do you think you can personally do about it? I'll tell you what … it's nothing! You can do nothing to change the direction this country is going … more social and community.
Oh sure, you can join a group, perhaps a tea party and rally for freedom, but will it change the direction? No. The winds of change are upon us, my friends, and individuals and groups are powerless against the winds of change.
Will we (you) lose some freedoms? You bet'cha. And again, there is absolutely nothing legal you can do about it. And if you choose individual violence, you lose. You do not have the resources or the guts to do anything that will change the winds of change.
The best you can do is live your life as best you can cause thinking you can make any change at all is folly. You (we) are S.O.L.
@ RICKHANSON:
I respectfully disagree that we can do 'nothing', though I expect that is precisely what many of us will do. The really sad fact for those of us who will fight for Liberty is we won't see it in our lifetime. Many who realize this will decide it's not worth the fight for the benefit of generations as yet unborn. Our Republic is being assaulted by unprecedented Godlessness from both sides. From the Right: Unconstitutional, undeclared foreign wars glorified as "nation-building" or "exporting democracy". And the Left: unrepentant murder of the unborn, glorified as "choice". In view of this shared disregard for life NOW, who would be willing to die for the Liberty of generations a century from now?
I expect we'll be learning the answer to that question a lot sooner than most of us imagined. Truth is, I never thought I'd live to see this Nation on such a determined course to self-destruction. Can it be salvaged? I doubt it, at least in my generation, and probably not in yours either. But I believe the spark of Freedom will always exist as long as there are humans around to pass it on, and from time to time it will be coaxed into a flame. At such times, to the Glory of God, Liberty will prevail.
This cartoon, and it is a cartoon, is reflective of the times in 1948, the scarey part is how well it fits in todays governmental policies. we have lost too many freedoms and rights to these polititions and thier cheating ways.. now is the time to vote every elected politition OUT OF OFFICE, sure some of them have not participated in these thefts, but they have also done little or nothing to halt these thefts.
We must demand term limits on all polititions, in a small effort to stem the power grabs they are making.
vote "GET OUT" in this next election.. you can make a difference..so DO IT...
Robert G you said:
"I do not pledge allegiance to my country"
Neither do traders
"the Founding Father's DID NOT write any kind of pledge of allegiance for this country"
Then lets look at the pledge regardless of who wrote it.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America"
Today the flag is a symbol of freedom and liberty projected by our constitution. Also it instills respect, confidence and pride in our country.
", and to the republic for which it stands,"
Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. Archaic figurative a community or group with a certain equality between its members.
"one nation under God,"
This statement is to remind us that as powerful as we are, any and all power we have comes from God. It reminds us we are still subject to God and if we do not put him first and conduct ourselves by his moral standards and commandments he will take what ever power we have away from us. It's to humble us and remind us there are consequences to our actions.
"indivisible,"
This word defines our unity that we must stick together as a people and a nation.
"with liberty and justice for all."
This statement defines our objective which is freedom.
You're correct "the Founding Father's DID NOT write any kind of pledge of allegiance for this country" but The Pledge Of Allegiance is a Pledge to our founding fathers objectives which are:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Regardless of who wrote it it's a summary of their objectives. We as a nation have fallen away from these principles so is it any wonder this country is falling apart.
Robert G
It is you who does not understand what this country is actually about and why don't you tell all of us on the internet "To what lengths will you do to defend Freedom?" and see how that goes over for you.
RickHanson
I feel sorry for you. If our founding fathers had the attitude there would not be a USA at all.
@Phil
Today the flag is a symbol of freedom and liberty projected by our constitution. Also it instills respect, confidence and pride in our country.
A flag flown by a government which systematically forced tens of thousands of native peoples off their ancestral homelands just so that citizens of that nation could claim that land as their own, which conquered numerous islands from imperial Spain (initially granting independence to only one of those islands), and has become the first Global Empire - albeit in an unconventional fashion - does not represent freedom or liberty. In truth the Federal flag has become tarnished with deep and awful stains of tyranny over the past century at least. That stain of tyranny only grows worse every year. I fly the Gadsden Flag, that flag was the first flown by the Founding Fathers and more properly represents freedom and liberty.
", and to the republic for which it stands,"
This part would be fine if it were actually in line with a proper "American spirit", which it is not. As I already explained, your loyalty ought to be to your state and not to the Republic. The way the American Constitutional-Republic is SUPPOSED to work is that you are a citizen of the united States THROUGH your citizenry in your State, and any loyalty to the Republic is only to the extent that the Republic's actions are in line with what is best for your own State. As an example, at the beginning of the Civil War Robert E. Lee was asked to lead the Union Army. Lee turned down this offer, though he did so reluctantly. General Lee loved the Union, he truly and sincerely did, however he loved Virginia more and Virginia had just voted to secede (which was perfectly legal despite Lincoln's bizarre case to the contrary). Lee's patriotism and loyalty was first to his State and second to the Union. This is the nature of proper American Patriotism. Loyalty to the Republic first, and insisting on this is Fascist in my opinion.
"one nation under God,"
This argument is completely irrelevant. The fact still stands that the Founding Father's never intended for the American People to pledge allegiance to the Republic or to its Flag. They had a very good reason for this, as they knew that America would quickly become the tyranny that it has under such circumstances. If you inspire this kind of loyalty in a government then a traditionally rebellious population loses its healthy rebellious temperament, and then the national attitude which served the most strongly to keep the government in check and the People free is removed.
"indivisible."
The united States was never meant to be indivisible. The Constitution is a contract between the several States. If one State gets to feeling that its interests are no longer being met by adherence to this contract then that State was meant to be able to leave. The Constitution makes no mention of secession whatsoever, and so then under the provisions of the Tenth Amendment it is then well within the Constitutional Authority of ANY State to break from the Union at any time and for any reason. Since the Constitution makes no mention of the issue the Federal government has absolutely zero authority in the matter. Lincoln's war to "preserve the Union" was, in fact, illegal and unConstitutional - further his war destroyed the very foundation of American Freedom and Liberty.
Regardless of who wrote it it's a summary of their objectives. We as a nation have fallen away from these principles so is it any wonder this country is falling apart.
This nation is falling apart, not because we have fallen away from these principles, but rather because we adhered to them for nearly a century. Sure, during that time we became the most powerful empire the world has ever known - but imperialism is completely contrary to the founding principles of this nation. Before we even "fell away from these principles" the United States had already become one of the most globally despotic regimes in history. We even disregarded the notion of "government by and for the People" just so that we could install "pro-America" governments in foreign nations.
The American Republic that I love is the one the Founding Fathers intended to create. An America where people are free to live their lives as they wish. Where they don't have to fear being robbed or killed by outlaws or by too-powerful police (the Founding Father's didn't like police either, and for good reason). Where people do not need worry about being forced to fight in a war that they do not wish to fight (ie no "selective service system"). A country where your vote truly counts, instead of in a country where sworn testimony before Congress that the elections are electronically rigged goes ignored. The modern America is sad and disintegrating sham, I can only hope that one day we can realize the high-minded goals of the ones who created this could-have-been-great Republic.
-continued next post-
Unfortunately we have many people such as yourself who buys into the Corporate Fascist agenda, believing the lie that that agenda is actually about Freedom. We also have many people like joemama and Bob who buy into the Socialist agenda and believe it is genuinely about helping people.
What people need to realize is this:
Without real and true Freedom you can NEVER truly have these things:
1. Safety
2. Good Health Care
3. Wealth
Why? Because if you don't have Freedom:
1. Give up your freedom in exchange for safety (ie gun-control) then all that happens is you are defenseless against every-day criminals and you are also defenseless against foreign invasion and your own government (the 2nd Amendment is about defense against the tyranny of our own government more than anything)
2. You can never have good health care because despite its claims to the contrary the Government DOES NOT know what is best for you or for society in general.
3. You can never get ahead in life with the government planning the economy, planned economies ALWAYS FAIL. And the American Dollar is due to collapse any time now.
The list goes on. Without real freedom you have nothing. The Right-Wing is just as tyrannical as the Let-Wing.
And the "Pledge of Allegiance" is a tool of Tyranny for both sides. the Pledge is about nothing less than loyalty to that Fiend of all Fiends "Big Brother" (so to speak). Give that pledge if you want, but as for me - I will have Freedom.
Conquests of the American Republic-turned-Empire
1848 - most of Texas, half of Colorado, part of Wyoming, part of Oklahoma, Utah, Nevada, California, Arizona, New Mexico - result of the Mexican-American War
1865 - Conquest of the Confederate States of America under the guise of "preserving the Union".
1893 - Annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii
1898 - Conquest of Puerto Rico and the Philippines from the Spanish Empire (the Philippines was promised independence but the US was very slow in delivering on that promise)
Various - Native American tribes were repeatedly and forcibly removed from their own lands in order to make room for white settlers.
Additionally both Iraq and Afghanistan have been forced to have democratic governments. While a move towards freedom is always good, a democratic government is destructive to freedom. Further no nation has the moral authority to establish a new government in different nation of the behalf of that nation. If the Iraqi and Afghani peoples want Freedom they and they alone can fight to make themselves free. Freedom comes only at the cost of a people's own blood. Also, should the Iraqi or Afghani democratic governments ever adopt "anti-America" policies it is very likely, due to the general attitude of hyper-Patriotism in the modern American Empire, that these governments will be demonized by both the US government and the US media and it will again be likely that the US government will act to depose those governments or their leaders. The US governments frequent intrusion into foreign local politics bears this out as being highly probable.
The American Flag, at present, represents Empire.
Robert G you say you love this country but I'm starting to realize that you truly hate this country. I am now wondering if you are one of those Muslims that want to get rid of the constitution and replace it with Shari'a law or more so a satanist believing there should be no law at all. If we followed your philosophy this country would be ripped apart and maybe that is your goal. you preach freedom without unity. there is another word for that called anarchy. You constantly live in the past and act like you have a bleeding hart for anybody that was ever wronged. You act like we owe the world and have no right to exist as one nation. Get your head out of the past and into the present. Know our history don't live in it. Yes I know things are screwed up but like it or not economics are a reality and they don't conform to personal opinion and political philosophy. You may not like it or believe in it but it doesn't care. buying and selling has been going on on this planet since there have been people on the earth. The basic principle is:
I gather resources
I produce a product
I sell the product for more wealth then I used to create it.
I profit
I keep some for myself and use the rest to get more resources and make more product.
I sell more product
I earn enough profit to employ someone who needs a job.
He then helps me to make my product as I pay him so he can support himself and his family.
I then get more resources and sell more product.
I get much more profit keep some for myself and hire more people.
They help me make more product and I pay them so they can support their selves and their families.
They then go out into the community and buy goods and services from other businesses to support there families.
Those businesses make a profit keep some fore themselves
Those businesses then hire more people to make more product and they support their selves and their families.
Then the employees from other businesses come to my business and buy my product so I can make more profit and hire more people and they then support their families.
This scenario works and improves general quality of life for everybody. Its called capitalism and it is freedom. It is freedom of industry and there is nothing wrong or immoral about it. You earn what you keep and keep what you earn. Whether it is the owners or the employees general quality of life improves as a community. The problem is socialism for example:
I gather resources but I cant buy as much because of government sails tax and fees to pay for redistribution of wealth.
I produce a product but not as mush because I don't have many resources.
I sell the product for more wealth then I used to create it but I must pay outrages sails taxes to the government to pay for redistribution of wealth. I must raze the price that I'm selling it for.
I profit vary little because not many people can afford my product.
I keep none for myself and use the rest to get more resources make more product.
I sell more product but make little to no profit.
I earn enough profit to sustain myself and can't afford to hire anyone.
Other businesses loose profit because people have less money and cant afford there products.
in order to survive businesses are forced to lay off employes because they can't afford to pay them and taxes to pay for redistribution of wealth.
The people that are employed are called the middle class. These people now become the lower class and over time the middle class gets wiped out.
Businesses die and unemployment goes through the roof.
Government must continue paying but they cant collect enough taxes to support a socialist society.
Government raises taxes to continue redistribution of wealth closing down the few businesses that are left.
Now there are only two classes in power: the upper class in control of the government and the unemployed lower class being crushed at the bottom.
People turn to crime to survive.
Government becomes a monarch
monarch is overthrown by a more powerful Government.
Socialism doesn't work.
Anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority and doesn't work
Capitalism Works!
@Phil
Firstly, I don't believe I discussed economics, were you meaning to address someone else with that point?
Secondly, I am not and have never been a Muslim. In my view "Alah" is the same as the Christian "Satan".
Am I talking about disunity? No, I am not. I am talking about Freedom. As I have said, while I will not pledge allegiance to the Federal Government or to the Federal Flag, I will serve my nation to the best of my ability. However, it would seem that to you serving your nation must necessarily mean service to the Republic only, whereas I see service to the Founding Principles of this nation as being infinitely more important. Although, that is not to say that service to the Republic (ie the Federal Government) is irrelevant - it is not irrelevant - nor is it to say that such service is necessarily or always wrong. It is just that where service to the "Flag" or to the Federal Government would have you act contrary to the principles of Freedom and Liberty then service to those Principles must come first.
I apologize if you misunderstood my previous post concerning American imperialism. My intent was not displaying any kind of hate for this nation, nor was it intended to state that the uS must make amends. No, I was simply pointing out that the united States is NOT perfect and that is much more far gone then most people would ever conceive of. If one truly loves his country then he is willing to admit his beloved country's faults. A character flaw that goes ignored can never be corrected.
I look to the past only in an attempt to see how things might unfold later on, I do not live in the past. My mind is on the future, but looking to the future while ignoring history is foolhardy in the extreme. Yes, we must know our history, but we must not stop at simply knowing - we must understand what that history means for us today.
American Imperialism is at the very heart of what has become so wrong with our nation. We have busied ourselves with justifying it and imagining new names for it other than 'imperialism'. During the Mexican-American War we called it "Manifest Destiny", now we have an even more bizarre name for it "defending freedom". The problem is that one cannot defend Freedom through imperialism, the two are diametrically opposed to each other.
By the way, I do - in fact - love the Constitution. I have read it almost more times then I have read the Bible (and I have read the Bible cover-to-cover at least twice that I can remember, probably more). There are only few amendments I would like to make to the Constitution, the first would be to repeal the 16th Amendment and the second would be to further restrict the Federal government, and also I would like to amend it so as to make it more clear that the right to own firearms is an individual right and that this right is to remain unrestricted (as the Founding Father's intended it to be). I would certainly never want to get rid of the Constitution.
Finally, Phil, great job at demonstrating your talent for unfounded character attacks again.
Do you understand what Freedom really even entails? Do you really understand how absolutely necessary it is? And do you truthfully understand that the current American system is extremely toxic to our Freedom on all fronts? We are not just talking about a hand-full of political talking points, we are talking about the very heart and soul of our nation.
I can't resist a brief reply to your statement about capitalism...
It does work. Never said anything to the contrary in this discussion that I can remember. You make rather strange assumptions.
Please note that without a central government it is literally impossible to have anything other than a capitalist economy. It is only with a central government that one can have socialism. The only exception to this would be communalism, but communes only generally work on a small scale, and they don't seem to have ever worked for very long (social prejudice may be a factor in that however).
Capitalism, as you said, does work. It isn't perfect, but it works. Though, of course, no human has ever come up with a perfect anything so that capitalism is imperfect comes as no great surprise.
The pros of Capitalism:
-Wealth is generated at a much greater rate and more efficiently than in other systems
-More individuals can partake of this wealth than in most other systems (barring any corruption)
-Benefits greatly from Free Enterprise, Free People pursuing their own dreams and desires (within reason of course)
-When coupled with Sound Money policies and when lacking any toxic central banking institutions (they are all toxic) quality of life for everyone gradually goes up
Cons:
-Doesn't really do much to alleviate poverty, but then no economic model truly does anyway (no one has figured out how to "cure" this "societal disease" yet)
-Easily coupled with fiat currency and central banking, both of which are outgrowths of fractional-reserve banking (a natural and unhealthy development in all capitalist societies to date)
-When operating under the previously stated system of fractional-reserve banking + central banking + fiat currency the effect is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer
-Continuing from above quality of life goes down instead of up
-Wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, increasing poverty and unemployment
So, you see, Capitalism is double-edge sword. When combined with true Free Enterprise, and with minimal government intrusion the capitalist system is generally beneficial to the majority of a population. However, when combined with a Fractional-Reserve Banking model, fiat currency, and the inevitable Central Bank (nothing more than a Fraction-Reserve Banking cartel) you have make Capitalism into a very destructive system.
Capitalism can be good, it can also be bad. It is all in how much Freedom is involved in the system. Right now there is very little freedom in our economy, and current American Capitalism is destructive to society. However, if we were to move towards Socialism or Communism thing would become exponentially worse.
Phil, I encourage to stop making grand assumptions about people to simply be civil.
Phil - Pure capitalism doesn't work. That's why most nations including the US have a mix of capitalistic and socialized institutions.
For example if you ran the Police and Fire Departments under a capitalistic model they would have to charge for their services and only people that could afford it would receive their protections. If your house was on fire and you don't have money to pay the fire department they would just let it burn.
That's why we have them socialized.
It's also more profitable to dump waste into rivers than to properly dispose of it. Which is why we have socialized institutions to regulate environmental concerns, food quality, etc.
In healthcare the profit motive could actually keep you from curing people. Cured people aren't profitable but repeat customers are. So to maximize profitability it would be preferable to not cure someone and perhaps keep them coming back for medications that treat the symptoms.
You also seem to have a great misunderstanding of the business side of Socialism. Many highly socialized countries (like Denmark for example) have very successful and profitable businesses.
"I am now wondering if you are one of those Muslims that want to get rid of the constitution and replace it with Shari'a law"
Most Muslims have no interest in removing the constitution and replacing it.
@Robert G - You said "Secondly, I am not and have never been a Muslim. In my view "Alah" is the same as the Christian "Satan"."
That is ridiculous. A very rudimentary education in religious history will show you that Islam and Christianity are both based on Judaism. They are 3 branches of the same religion. Then each of those religions have branches below them.
So Allah is the same god as the Christian and Jewish god.
I find it amusing and sad at the same time that lately almost all right wing talking points are irrational fear based crap. It's as if they are just trying to throw as much fear at the wall as they can and hope some of it sticks.
It doesn't matter how much of it can easily be debunked. It seems like the rational is that enough people are gullible enough to believe it without checking and this will somehow be effective.
It's not surprising as it was effective years ago but it's much less effective on the general population now as most of them have learned their lesson after Bush.
For example Phil's right wing talking point:
When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist, People said it didn't matter.
A quick search reveals that Davis wasn't so much a communist or a mentor.
"In his memoir Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote about "Frank", a friend of his grandfather's. "Frank" told Obama that he and Stanley (Obama's maternal grandfather) both had grown up only 50 miles apart, near Wichita, although they did not meet until Hawaii. He described the way race relations were back then, including Jim Crow, and his view that there had been little progress since then. As Obama remembered, "It made me smile, thinking back on Frank and his old Black Power, dashiki self. In some ways he was as incurable as my mother, as certain in his faith, living in the same sixties time warp that Hawaii had created."[14] Obama also remembered Frank later in life when he took a job in South Chicago as a community organizer when he took some time one day and visited the areas where Frank had lived and wrote in his book, "I imagined Frank in a baggy suit and wide lapels, standing in front of the old Regal Theatre, waiting to see Duke or Ella emerge from a gig." [15]
Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of Political Affairs magazine, claimed that "Frank" was Davis, and that he was a "decisive influence" in helping Obama to find his present identity as an African-American.[16] Claims that Davis was a political influence on Obama were made in the widely-disputed anti-Obama book The Obama Nation.[17] A rebuttal to The Obama Nation released by Obama's presidential campaign, titled Unfit for Publication, confirms that "Frank" was, in fact, Frank Marshall Davis, but disputes claims made about the nature of their relationship.[18]"
It's an excuse to get the Communist label out there. But even if Davis was a die hard communist their discussions were primarily about race relations.
"He warned against blacks accepting the Depression-era remedies being pushed by communists"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Marshall_Davis
I'm not sure why the right thinks this is going to scare people. Perhaps it will, but only if they don't put much thought into it.
Next talking point:
"When it was discovered that his grandparents, were strong socialists, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school"
A quick search doesn't really turn up anything about his grandparents being "strong socialists" or his mother going to a socialist school. The talking point doesn't indicate why we should be afraid if it were true either. Just an excuse to get another fear label out there I suppose.
The American public school system is socialized so I guess anyone who attended public school went to a "socialist school".
Next talking point:
When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims, People said it didn't matter.
Not sure what the point of this one is so I'm not going to even bother fact checking it. Some sort of fear based religious bigotry I suppose. We know Obama is not a muslim and it's not like we have any laws against people with muslim fathers being elected to office. Or muslims being elected. So what is going on with this one?
When he wrote in another book he authored "I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
People said it didn't matter.
"Here is the accurate and more complete quote: "Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-books.htm
Why would the right try to misinform you by distorting the quote? Seems an obvious ploy to invoke some anti-muslim bigotry. The actual quote is something all Americans should stand by to defend the freedoms of their fellow citizens.
When he admittedly said, in his book, he chose Marxist friends and professors in college, People said it didn't matter.
"They, they, they. That was the problem with people like Joyce. They talked about the richness of their multicultural heritage and it sounded real good, until you noticed that they avoided black people ...
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling conventions. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated."
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ownwords.asp
Not sure what the problem is here. I guess they got the Marxist label out there for some fear though.
When he traveled to Pakistan, after college on an unknown national passport, People said it didn't matter.
"Apparently, according to the Obama campaign, In 1981 -- the year Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University -- Obama visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia. After that visit, Obama traveled to Pakistan with a friend from college whose family was from there. The Obama campaign says Obama was in Pakistan for about three weeks, staying with his friend's family in Karachi and also visiting Hyderabad in Southern India."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html
So what's the fear here? Visiting Pakistan is somehow evil? WTF really? Why exactly?
When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate, People said it doesn't matter.
Blatant lie, they're talking about the New Party. Not the Marxist Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Party_(United_States)
I suppose it's another way to get a misleading fear label out there.
When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology, People said it didn't matter.
Actually the preacher didn't hate America. He wanted to improve the plight of its black citizens. He is against some of America's policies. Just like the right is against some things America is doing now. That must mean the right hates America.
When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator", People said it didn't matter.
"Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine's most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006."
Sure would be nice if he was more consistently liberal. That's what the people voted for. I guess the right is thinking "liberal" is a fear word except that's obviously what the people want.
When the Palestinians in Gaza, set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign, People said it didn't matter.
WTF? Can't find anything at all substantiating this and why would it be bad in the first place. The oppressed people of Gaza can't fund raise? Even if you had some sort of Palestinian bigotry going on then what? White supremacists supported Bush. Does that make Bush something?
When his voting record supported gun control, People said it didn't matter.
He has a mixed record on gun control. Pretty reasonable stuff.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Bar...un_Control.htm
Damn it's tiring continuing to debunk right wing talking points. Is that the goal maybe? Tire people out with misinformation?
My favorite one is:
When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, People said it didn't matter.
A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.
"Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158314
The "homosexual indoctrination" bit is the epitome of right wing scare tactics. It makes me laugh but also makes me wonder how many gullible people actually believe this crap and get all ascared.
Why do you think there's this hardcore trend for most right wing talking points being easily debunked fear mongering, labels, and misinformation? We see it with healthcare reform and everything Obama. We saw it in the Bush campaigns. Do they really think the most effective way to push their agenda is this way over reason and facts?
@Joemama,
"Phil - Pure capitalism doesn't work."
I beg to differ. On the federal level, the purer, the better. Very many of the problems we suffer as a Nation are rooted in government interference with the Free Market. As for police & fire departments, these are matters for the community to decide. Of course if you actually OWNED real estate in a community and didn't agree with its decision it would be your right to exclude your property from that community, but we don't privately own property in this country, AFAIK.
@RobertG, I generally agree, but I'd have to say "current American Capitalism" doesn't work because it is NOT Capitalism. At this point in our history it has become so polluted by Unconstitutional regulations it bears little resemblance to a Free Market economy.
And to all: For all its shortcomings, this Nation became the freest, most productive, most powerful and richest country in the history of civilization. It got a good jump on success by following our Founding Documents. Yet every step we have taken away from that foundation has weakened us in all respects.
The only hope for the survival of our free, sovereign, Constitutional Republic is the restoration of those Documents as the bedrock of our laws.
Warren - You said "I beg to differ. On the federal level, the purer, the better. Very many of the problems we suffer as a Nation are rooted in government interference with the Free Market."
Government interference as certainly needed and is sometimes good and sometimes bad. Without it you get things like child labor, rampant pollution, unsafe workplace practices, and unsafe products.
We used to have much of the above problems and still do to some extent. But you can certainly see them out of control in other countries that don't have as many regulations.
As for police & fire departments, these are matters for the community to decide.
Yes and communities decide on a socialized model because it makes sense. We also use the socialized model for our military, roads, post office, libraries, public schools, etc.
Joemama, I agree with you, to a point. That 'point' is clearly defined in our Constitution & Bill of Rights. The purpose of those documents is to limit the power of the federal government and protect the rights of the States, and the citizens.
Some of the tasks currently handled by the federal government are enumerated in the Constitution. Those not so enumerated cannot be legally undertaken by the federal government without an amendment to justify them.
So, if the general public and the 'powers that be' want, say, federally funded and controlled public education, they must pass a Constitutional amendment to accommodate it. Otherwise it is Unconstitutional, and therefore illegal and unenforceable in the States.
To build any sustainable structure it's a good idea to start with a sound foundation. I believe our Founding Documents form the soundest foundation for representative government ever conceived by man. But in order to function as it was designed, any construction or expansion upon it must take its design into account. Otherwise we wind up with precisely the sort of dysfunctional mess we have now.
BTW, I can't tell you how it pains me to see people who are honestly trying to save this Nation pass on such misinformation as you have previously pointed out. I get buckets of this stuff, mostly from friends on the Right. I try to take a few minutes to either validate or refute the claims, and send them my conclusions and links to relevant documentation.
One of the points I try to impress upon my misguided friends of Liberty is the damage they do to our credibility by perpetuating these lies. The TRUTH will serve us all, whereas lies only serve those who would keep us divided.
What you see as 'Right Wing Fear-mongering' is actually no such thing. Oh, it is often believed and forwarded by Right-wing reactionaries, but it was almost invariably created by people a lot smarter than that. These people are the dividers, the real Enemy of Liberty.
What few people, Left, Right or Center, seem able to grasp is, we have a common Enemy. And all that Enemy has to do is to keep us divided, seeing the enemy in one another. If our Enemy can keep this going just a little while longer we will self-destruct, and our once-free, sovereign, Constitutional Republic will be no more.
Joemama, I'm sure you and I can find many points of disagreement. But I am equally certain that is exactly what our mutual Enemy hopes we will do. It will behoove us all to concentrate on finding points of agreement and cultivating them, and saving our animosity for those intent upon our destruction.
@Phil
I have very little interest in discussing Islam with you, I was simply stating my view and refuting your strange notion that I must be Muslim. And, yes, I know that Islam is loosely based off Judaism.
And concerning the faults of pure capitalism, we are in agreement. My list of pros/cons had to do more with business than with fire departments and the like.
@joemama
Most left-wing talking points are also fear-based crap. The object of fear is simply different. For example, with the right-wing the object of fear is generally something along the lines of "national security" while on the left-wing it will often be something like "the environment".
The left and right are simply differing sides of the same coin. Their methods, I find, are not all that incredibly different.
@Warren - You said "Joemama, I agree with you, to a point. That 'point' is clearly defined in our Constitution & Bill of Rights. The purpose of those documents is to limit the power of the federal government and protect the rights of the States, and the citizens."
I'll agree that many unconstitutional things have been going on in recent years. For example invading a country that was not threatening us like we did with Iraq is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution. The permanent military bases we maintain in countries we aren't at war with would be another example.
"BTW, I can't tell you how it pains me to see people who are honestly trying to save this Nation pass on such misinformation as you have previously pointed out. I get buckets of this stuff, mostly from friends on the Right."
That's refreshing to hear. I welcome honest fact based debate but constantly disproving these misinformation campaigns gets ridiculous.
"What you see as 'Right Wing Fear-mongering' is actually no such thing. Oh, it is often believed and forwarded by Right-wing reactionaries, but it was almost invariably created by people a lot smarter than that. These people are the dividers, the real Enemy of Liberty."
I've often thought that myself. There's some fairly smart devious people pushing this stuff. It's like they try and throw every piece of misinformation they can up against the wall just to see what will stick. Unfortunately many people don't bother to check it and spread it on. And then people like Phil are just reduced to name calling when you prove it wrong.
Putting this stuff does disservice to their party though on some level as the more thoughtful and rational like yourself often want to distance themselves from the ridiculous.
"Joemama, I'm sure you and I can find many points of disagreement. But I am equally certain that is exactly what our mutual Enemy hopes we will do. It will behoove us all to concentrate on finding points of agreement and cultivating them, and saving our animosity for those intent upon our destruction."
Sounds good. Try this one...it seems to me that one the largest problems we have now is corporate interests polluting our government. We've had people from large food processing companies working in the FDA. We've had people from the industries we're supposed to be keeping tabs on writing the bills the regulate them. I think we've all heard about Goldman Sachs influence on the government. And of course there's the lobbyists, campaign contributions, and "corporations as people".
From and earlier post of yours you said "In my view, the essential difference is this: a true Conservative loves personal Liberty enough to allow everyone to enjoy it, even people he fears. A true Liberal fears his fellow citizens enough to permit restraints upon his own personal Liberty in order to impose it upon others."
On this one I'd have to completely disagree with you at least with modern conservatives. You have it completely backwards.
Liberals are more for personal liberty. Where most of the conservatives I talk to want to keep homosexuals from marrying, would approve of separate treatment for muslims, supported Bush's warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act and torture, are against legalizing marijuana even for medical use, are afraid of legal Latino Americans, and some would actually support the government prohibiting divorce.
Liberals don't fear their fellow citizens like that and generally fight those kind of restraints on their personal liberty.
@Robert G - You said "@Phil
I have very little interest in discussing Islam with you, I was simply stating my view and refuting your strange notion that I must be Muslim. And, yes, I know that Islam is loosely based off Judaism."
Looks like you've confused something I wrote as something Phil wrote. I was merely pointing out your mistake. All 3 religions are worshiping the same god since they are simply 3 branches.
Most left-wing talking points are also fear-based crap. The object of fear is simply different. For example, with the right-wing the object of fear is generally something along the lines of "national security" while on the left-wing it will often be something like "the environment".
I'd disagree there. This thread is a good example. There are a lot of right wing fear based talking points but virtually no left wing fear points.
Certainly national security has been used to talk us into all kinds of things and many are interested in acting responsibly towards the environment but I really haven't seen anything like the "commie, marxist, socialist, kenyan, muslim, antichrist, death panel, killing grandma, euthanasia, nazi!" crazy fear tactics currently being attempted by the right.
This is the most warped outlook of Anything that I have seen in a long time.. You people are among the idiotic so-called educated that I have seen.. That is what scares me, that you people have no idea what is really happening
Lora it is spelled 'abysmal'.... sorry couldn't resist.
Bottom-line: we are where we are and we ARE going down the wrong path as defined by our founding fathers. We’ve seen the system work in a way that I’m sure would have surpassed their wildest dreams. But we are letting it slip away…
Neither party is representing the will of the people. We have allowed every whining special interest group looking to get something from the government to somehow be successful. Now it is the status quo. Imagine if we didn’t have our wealth stripped from us every payday by all of the various government agencies, how benevolent we could all be…
I would much rather give locally to organizations and people in need than give to the government to inefficiently redistribute to whoever holds out their hand. One of my co-workers disagrees. He says he’s too lazy to do that. He’d rather have the government do it. Shame on him! He’s young, maybe he will learn.
Yes, Capitalism is an ‘ISM’ and it is far from perfect, but it does correct ITSELF through market pressures and a Government will not (due to largely to apathy and election cycles). If the media spent more time investigating the abuses in the Capitalist paradigm and less in propaganda-spew, then it would correct itself that much faster. There is no system better to drive innovation, growth, and prosperity than a merit-based society. Giving to those unwilling to work hard and contribute to the ‘greater good’ does nothing but breed contempt from those willing to put it all on the line every day whether it be a laborer, a business owner, a soldier, or a politician.
We the English speaking, tax paying, law abiding citizenry of this great country need to take time out of our busy lives to fight now for what is important or be faced with the necessity of a violent revolt later when the government has usurped so much power that we no longer have any choice but to revolt. Call your representatives, write them personalized letters, call the White house, let them know you don’t agree with the policies they are presenting and let them know you are actively working on making sure they don’t get re-elected. We need them to change their perspectives or throw the bums out! They don’t serve us, the ‘silent majority, they serve the professionals who lobby them to get special favors while we go toil to pay their salaries and to pay for all the new ‘programs’. Hmmm. Good work (politicians and lobbyists) if you can get it, eh?
No one person can control the outcome of this great nation. However, this administration, in particular, promised transparency to the political process but has instead held tightly the information that is being negotiated. And why not? There is no balance of power designed by our forefathers to protect the political process. Both houses of congress (Legislature), the White House (Executive), and the Supreme Court (Judicial) are all ‘progressive’ leaning and to whom do they need to report? US! That’s who. We are in grave danger and too many of us are willing to stand by and watch.
Organize! Talk to your friends and neighbors! Share the outrage!
When your kids ask you in 20 years what you did in this time will you them I fought for their future or were you too busy?
Here are some links to make it easier for you…
Senate Contacts
House of Representatives Contacts
White House Contacts
@joemama
Concerning the comment about the origin of Islam, I stand corrected. Don't know why I thought Phil said it. However, just because Islam is in some way based on Judaism does not mean they worship the same god. Allah and Yahweh are not the same, from the studying I did a few years ago Islam has rather different values in some respects. Though, as I said before I have very little interest in discussing Islam. To tell the truth, I have come to the conclusion that all of the world's major (and minor) religions are "full of it" - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism included (though not just those three).
Also, whether or not the left-wingers in this discussion have resorted to fear-based talking points is irrelevant as you have mostly been countering Phil's arguments it seems.
@Timothy - You said "Call your representatives, write them personalized letters, call the White house, let them know you don’t agree with the policies they are presenting and let them know you are actively working on making sure they don’t get re-elected."
What we need to be doing is writing our representatives and the White House telling them we do agree with the policies they are presenting and not to pay any attention to the party of "no".
This is why we elected them. So they would roll back the damage the Bush years did and get some real reform accomplished!
As I read through the comments engendered by the sixty-year-old cartoon, all I could see was naiveté. The ideas people toss about are crystallized into single words or short phrases. Unity – unity about what? Are we going to have unity between Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, etc., when there are unalterable and conflicting core differences that separate each from the other? Tolerance – the magic tonic word from the sixties – tolerate what, child pornography, child molestation, rape, bigamy, bank robbery, murder, abortion, drug addiction, alcoholism, homosexuality, lies, deceit, dishonest elections, immorality, … so on into the night? Wake up! It is all about character and values, just as Martin Luther King alluded to. We in this country are given to spouting “high sounding” ideals that are too often diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive because of what you profess to want to believe and what you really believe and your actions based upon what you want at the time you want it. Between hypocrisy and ignorance, between greed and selfishness, and between laziness and indifference, we have come to a point in the history of this country where our own failure to live up to the ideals espoused by our founders and enshrined in our founding documents and our failure to require our leaders to likewise live up them has brought us to the edge of the precipice.
We are a corrupt people addicted to easy living. We didn’t work for our freedom, we inherited it, and like a lot of gifts, it generally isn’t appropriately understood or appreciated. Now that we are about to loose the last vestiges of our freedom, we whine and moan and blame everything except the real culprits, ourselves. We tolerate (there is that damnable word again) our leaders lying to us, we tolerate abuse by those elected leaders, we accept that the news media, which has a special protection built into the Constitution, is politicized and does not generally tell us the truth (so how can we decide what is right?). We accept a corrupt legal system in which power and money too frequently buy justice while a poor honest person supported by the truth is often denied justice. We accept a two-party political system over which we have virtually no control, again because of power and money.
So we can squabble and argue, we can shout and blame, we can moan and cry, but we won’t face the truth. Things are the way they are because we not only permit it, but condone it, use it, and benefit by it. What is the answer? We need to go back to the basics and reawaken our knowledge of principles, what they are, why they are, where they came from, and what those principles impose upon us in terms of action and behavior. It is, in fact, your obligation to require your friends and neighbors to behave consistent with their professed beliefs, and if those professed beliefs are in conflict with yours, there cannot be a society, there cannot be a culture, and there cannot be peace. There can be differences, differences cannot be avoided, but they must be differences in degree, not in kind. Now that is harsh, but that is the truth – you know that because that is where we are. Your government is a major culprit in bringing this about because it says you must tolerate any differences, you must accept differences that violate your principles.
This is an incomplete statement, a statement that some will find easy to challenge because of their own principles and beliefs. Assuming ideology as a motivation, it would be fun to discuss any point argued, and it would be most instructive for everyone to participate.
@American Longview - Your rant was really vague and off topic from what most people are discussing here but I'll address it anyway.
You say "Are we going to have unity between Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, etc., when there are unalterable and conflicting core differences that separate each from the other?"
Yes, of course we can have unity with people of different religious views. Why wouldn't we? The country was founded on religious freedom but we're all Americans.
"Tolerance – the magic tonic word from the sixties – tolerate what"
You posted quite a list of things that you don't want to tolerate. A lot of them illegal so they're covered. I did notice the bigotry towards homosexuals and I don't believe we should tolerate bigotry.
I notice you mentioned "immorality" as if you desire to push your own sense of morality on everyone else.
"Now that we are about to loose the last vestiges of our freedom"
How exactly are we about to lose the last vestiges of our freedom? Which freedoms specifically do you think you're losing?
"It is, in fact, your obligation to require your friends and neighbors to behave consistent with their professed beliefs, and if those professed beliefs are in conflict with yours, there cannot be a society, there cannot be a culture, and there cannot be peace."
Actually that's completely wrong. It is not your obligation to make your neighbors do anything and people with differing beliefs have always been able to form societies.
You have no right to force your neighbor to do anything unless they are breaking the law.
"There can be differences, differences cannot be avoided, but they must be differences in degree, not in kind."
This sounds like Nazi ideals.
"Your government is a major culprit in bringing this about because it says you must tolerate any differences, you must accept differences that violate your principles."
Thankfully. Your principles are for you. Other people have their own principles.
@joemama
I didn't vote for these jokers we have in office now, I didn't even vote for their Republican counterparts. BOTH PARTIES are KILLING this country and getting filthy rich at YOUR EXPENSE in the process. Obama is just going to do more damage, he isn't the evil piece of crap that "Conservatives" claim, but he isn't any better than Bush was either.
That said, if you like what Obama is doing then good for you. Everyone should be able to live in the kind of nation they would like. Problem is that there are plenty of people - like myself - who don't like the kind of nation that either the Republican or Democrat parties are trying to make.
@Vicki, you wrote:
"This is the most warped outlook of Anything that I have seen in a long time.. You people are among the idiotic so-called educated that I have seen.. That is what scares me, that you people have no idea what is really happening"
Hi Vicki, and welcome aboard! I hope you will elaborate on your statement above. (As a side note, I usually find the "You people" phrase amusing and use it occasionally myself, though perhaps for a different effect.)
Also, if you are including me among the "so-called educated", I am flattered, but you are mistaken. I cannot claim to have much formal education, only to be an old man who doesn't watch television, reads a lot and has been paying attention for a long time.
I am genuinely interested in other people's thoughts and that interest has helped me learn much of what I know. So please enlighten me: what, in your opinion, is really happening?
@Joemama, I enjoyed your post and typed a response to it but when I tried to send it something crashed the site and ate my response. So I'll try again. You wrote:
"I'll agree that many unconstitutional things have been going on in recent years. For example invading a country that was not threatening us like we did with Iraq is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution. The permanent military bases we maintain in countries we aren't at war with would be another example."
On this point we are in complete agreement. Further, I consider any prolonged military engagement anywhere to require a formal Declaration of War by Congress. Absent such a declaration I don't believe Constitutional justification exists for the President to commit troops. Such transgressions have become routine since President Truman began his 'police action' in Korea in 1950.
Regarding misinformation campaigns, you wrote: "I've often thought that myself. There's some fairly smart devious people pushing this stuff. It's like they try and throw every piece of misinformation they can up against the wall just to see what will stick."
I am certain you are correct here. My point is, the people creating such garbage are members of both parties, or of neither. That doesn't matter because either way they are working for our mutual Enemy. Our Enemy doesn't care which party comes out on top, so long as we keep taking this "party" crap seriously and keep fighting one another.
You wrote: "Putting this stuff does disservice to their party though on some level as the more thoughtful and rational like yourself often want to distance themselves from the ridiculous."
From my observation the core of each party has been taken over by the Enemy. The last several administrations, regardless of party, have worked to diminish our Liberty and sovereignty. I expect this will continue until our free Republic has been abandoned in favor of a World government.
More to come....
@Joemama, you wrote:
"Try this one...it seems to me that one the largest problems we have now is corporate interests polluting our government. We've had people from large food processing companies working in the FDA. We've had people from the industries we're supposed to be keeping tabs on writing the bills the regulate them. I think we've all heard about Goldman Sachs influence on the government. And of course there's the lobbyists, campaign contributions, and "corporations as people"."
Yet another point of agreement! I think you are absolutely correct about this. Please also consider: years ago if you were physically injured or sick, you could visit the local apothecary, request whatever medication you thought you needed, pay the druggist and leave. No prescription, nothing to sign... you were free to diagnose and treat yourself if you so desired.
We don't have that freedom today though. Instead, most medications much more potent than aspirin require a prescription. That usually means an expensive visit to the doctor. Now the laws requiring this purport to be in place to protect us from our own ignorance, but that is dishonest on the face of it. Just follow the money: our drug laws exist to enrich doctors, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, etc. This happens because Big Pharma, the insurance industry and the AMA can afford to buy a lot of Congressmen and create absurd PR programs to sell such foolishness to the public.
As a result We, The People are repeatedly and continually screwed. In addition to the expenses I mentioned, we must also fund a huge and powerful bureaucracy to control the industry. Also, There are doctors in practically every town who make a very good living doing nothing but writing scripts. I could walk from where I sit in my small Southern town at 3 AM and walk back in less than an hour with any drug I cared to buy, assuming I didn't get my throat cut in the process. So, what the hell are we paying for?
If the government really wanted to 'protect' us it would protect us from laws that claim to protect us from ourselves. Because the truth is, they never work as advertised.
Regarding my statement on the difference between a true Conservative and a true Liberal, you wrote:
"On this one I'd have to completely disagree with you at least with modern conservatives. You have it completely backwards."
Here I must note your qualification, "at least with modern conservatives", and I can understand your thinking here. However please note I said "true Conservatives"; I imagine your term "modern" would connote something else entirely. Many people today call themselves "Conservative" who are IMO nothing of the sort.
You mention homosexual marriage so I'll use this as an example. To me this is a classic non-issue, and beautifully epitomizes the Enemy's divisive tactics. So here's where I stand: I believe marriage is a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and their God. For me that's what it's always been and will always be... it's a 3-way deal.
Now please notice I didn't say between man, woman, God & government. As far as I know God never asked for the government's assistance with this, and IMO any man or woman who do ask probably deserve what they get. Historically, it is the nature of government to screw up everything it touches. So, why would otherwise sane people invite such a monstrosity into their most cherished relationship? I find this both baffling and hilarious.
The solution to this dilemma is perfectly clear to me: get government out of the marriage business. I told you what marriage is TO ME; it's none of my business what it is to anyone else. I know how MY God sees it; if YOUR God sees it as a union between a man, his ewe and the Rock of Gibraltar that is entirely your business. And in either event it is most certainly not the business of the government.
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."[h]
14 But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; 15 and if ye shall reject my statutes, and if your soul abhor mine ordinances, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant; 16 I also will do this unto you: I will appoint terror over you, even consumption and fever, that shall consume the eyes, and make the soul to pine away; and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. 17 And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be smitten before your enemies: they that hate you shall rule over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you. 18 And if ye will not yet for these things hearken unto me, then I will chastise you seven times more for your sins. 19 And I will break the pride of your power: and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass; 20 and your strength shall be spent in vain; for your land shall not yield its increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruit.
21 And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me, I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. 22 And I will send the beast of the field among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your ways shall become desolate.
23 And if by these things ye will not be reformed unto me, but will walk contrary unto me; 24 then will I also walk contrary unto you; and I will smite you, even I, seven times for your sins. 25 And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall execute the vengeance of the covenant; and ye shall be gathered together within your cities: and I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy. 26 When I break your staff of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver your bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied.
27 And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; 28 then I will walk contrary unto you in wrath; and I also will chastise you seven times for your sins. 29 And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. 30 And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your sun-images, and cast your dead bodies upon the bodies of your idols; and my soul shall abhor you. 31 And I will make your cities a waste, and will bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savor of your sweet odors. 32 And I will bring the land into desolation; and your enemies that dwell therein shall be astonished at it. 33 And you will I scatter among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.
34 Then shall the land enjoy its sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye are in your enemies land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy its sabbaths. 35 As long as it lieth desolate it shall have rest, even the rest which it had not in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it. 36 And as for them that are left of you, I will send a faintness into their heart in the lands of their enemies: and the sound of a driven leaf shall chase them; and they shall flee, as one fleeth from the sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth. 37 And they shall stumble one upon another, as it were before the sword, when none pursueth: and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies. 38 And ye shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up. 39 And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them.
40 And they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, in their trespass which they trespassed against me, and also that, because they walked contrary unto me, 41 I also walked contrary unto them, and brought them into the land of their enemies: if then their uncircumcised heart be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity; 42 then will I remember my covenant with Jacob; and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. 43 The land also shall be left by them, and shall enjoy its sabbaths, while it lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity; because, even because they rejected mine ordinances, and their soul abhorred my statutes. 44 And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them; for I am Jehovah their God; 45 but I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am Jehovah.
46 These are the statutes and ordinances and laws, which Jehovah made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by Moses.
Anyone have any idea if Phil had any point in quoting those bible verses? Pretty random.
@joemama,
I agree. That was rather random, if not a bit frightening. Whenever I see such behavior, I can only think "robot". Then, I ask if the robot might be programmed to kill. :D
On a side note, whenever I see someone post a bunch of copied and pasted text from another location, it feels rather insulting. It feels like similar behavior as Cliff Claven exhibited on Cheers. He was able to get away with it because everyone else in the bar was generally clueless or drunk. However, walk into a room full of intellectuals and start quoting books, and it's just an insult. It's another way of saying, "I think everyone else here is not motivated enough to pick up a book and read or visit a website and read, so I will 'read to you'."
Maybe I'm just too sensitive to such behavior, but it feels of poor etiquette.
Haha, as a young person, I think anyone old enough to REMEMBER this cartoon shouldn't have their opinions counted in current politics.
Offended?
What do you old farts care? You'll all be dead before I'm your age, and I will suffer the chaos and civil war you brought upon your children.
Stop being so damn stubborn and acknowledge there is more than two extremes. Carry a load on your backs while you still can. Don't be selfish and know that, hell, none of you who posted here are going to be as happy and prosperous as those cartoon W.A.S.P.s you just watched.
@ Dur:
"Haha, as a young person, I think anyone old enough to REMEMBER this cartoon shouldn't have their opinions counted in current politics. Offended?"
Bwahahahahahahaaaaa! Kid, I think anyone old enough to remember this cartoon should also remember being young enough to question EVERYTHING, especially the 'wisdom' of his elders. A degree of skepticism is a healthy thing no matter how old (or young) you are. It is unwise to either accept or reject anything out of hand regardless of its source, without due consideration. IOW keep an open mind, just not so 'open' that your brains fall out. Try to imagine this: many of my generation, in our youth, thought and felt very much as you do today. Such thinking helped aggravate the issues we inherited to create the mess we have now.
You wrote: "What do you old farts care? You'll all be dead before I'm your age, and I will suffer the chaos and civil war you brought upon your children."
Hey Kid, that's "Olde Pharts" to you young whippersnappers. Let's have a little respect here! Most of us didn't get this old by being smartasses, and you probably won't either. };~) But seriously, that's a legitimate question. There are many reasons why we care, and they are probably different for each of us. I have beloved grandchildren, nieces and nephews, as well as the children of many friends to consider. I hope my generation can preserve for them the precious Liberties our predecessors left to us, and restore those lost by the past few generations. I think anyone who feels any responsibility for anything at some point hopes to leave this world a little better than (s)he found it. Personally, I hope to leave it a little freer, safer, kinder and less Evil than it is today.
But you are correct; I don't have much time. I pray you do, and that you will use a lot of it to learn history. Please try to gain wisdom from the mistakes of the past and commit your keen mind to the service of Good, not Evil.
Please know the only way to combat Evil is to realize it exists in the hearts and minds of every human being, including yourself (and me too). Know that Evil is the only real Enemy. Accept that the only battleground on which you can be assured victory over it is within yourself; until you conquer your own demons all you will produce is noise. (more to come)
@ Dur: Finally, you wrote: "Stop being so damn stubborn and acknowledge there is more than two extremes. Carry a load on your backs while you still can. Don't be selfish and know that, hell, none of you who posted here are going to be as happy and prosperous as those cartoon W.A.S.P.s you just watched."
There is considerable wisdom in your words here, but don't assume everyone with whom you disagree is being 'selfish'. Again, acknowledge your own demons and confront them first. I'm not preaching here... I have to do this every day myself and believe me, I have many to confront! I have learned until I confront and control my own Evil I cannot effectively contend with it elsewhere. I have to examine my motives for everything I do, rooting out all forms of selfishness and injustice before I proceed. Otherwise I WILL be serving Evil because that is my nature.
And last, please don't imagine that 'happiness' and 'prosperity' are synonymous. Devote yourself to either and you may find it eventually, at the expense of the other. Had I sought prosperity I'd probably be a very rich, very miserable old man today. Instead, I sought TRUTH. I'm still seeking and finding it a little at a time, every day. In my case that doesn't pay very well and keeps me hovering around the poverty level these days. But that's ok with me because I'm a happy Olde Phart. I've had 'prosperity' with many of the trimmings and yeah man, it was fun! It kept me contented for a lot of years.. but not 'happy'. That's a little part of the TRUTH it took me a long time to learn, but for me it was the first part.
God bless you, young friend, and keep smiling. At your age, if you loose your sense of humor you won't have any sense at all! (and the older you get, the more you'll need it.) };~)
You know opinions are like a--holes, everybody has one.
Pretty soon the US of A will be just as bad as the people in all the countries we are trying to save. Fighting over every little thing we can think of....
www.2012Patriot.wordpress.com
search box: patriot, bible, suv, micro, lrad, egg, milk, water, silver, farm, garden, mel, jesse, jones, beck, loose, deception, ama, ada, rex, obama, bush, clinton, nau, cfr, nwo, echelon, haarp,
THIS should be shown in schools!!
It is unfortunate so many teachers are Liberals and taint our young minds today with their political views. (Obama songs in elementary schools last Fall)
The last administration was doing great until nancy and harry took over the congress. That is when the economy started going down hill. Look back and see for yourself. Bush could only sign the budgets the congress sent to him. He even tried several times to draw attention to the problems in Fannie Mae and Freddie mac and barnie lollie pop frank said everything was fine as he and obama were taking money from them for their campaigns. And now obama is asking for a 3.8 TRILLION DOLLAR BUDGET?? AND YOU WANT TO BLAME BUSH??? DAY
@Mary - What's a shame is too many teachers a conservative and taint their young minds with their political views.
Did you complain when kids sang songs about Bush?
@Dennis - The last administration was never going great. They started two wars that they didn't pay for and created tax cuts that weren't paid for that ran up the budget.
Bush had a lot of say in his budget. I do find the hypocrisy funny where you let Bush of the hook for his budget but then blame Obama for his. ;)
I think Obama knows what he is doing...& it is far more ambitious then most thinks...His objective was change this Nation into an Socialist Dictatorship.
Probably no politician has said one thing and did another as much as Obama!
Barrack is not about to let an good crisis go to waste! Everyone should realize, Obama has an very feasible plan to make the Democrats the ruling majority and the USA and a one party Nation! By making more & more Americans the wards of the State.
The great society programs of the Democrats has made the Black race, wards of the State while destroyed most of them as productive citizens of this Nation. Since the Social Engineering of the Democrats great Society there is no Category where blacks have improved! Aid to dependent children while on the surface seems compassion & necessary the law of unintended consequences has turned the women into breed mares and the men into roaming studs & their spawn grow up on the streets and jails supported by Crime and Welfare!
Now, for many blacks, if not most of them, the American dream consists of the next drug fix or their Welfare check, but they are the most consistent Democrat voters. They do not realize the programs & welfare has destroyed any & all initiative & chance for the American dream but has gently lead them into the ghetto & economic welfare bondage to the Democrat party!
Barrack and the Democrats already have funding for increased Welfare dependency. In addition, they have plans to give citizenship to the invading millions of Criminals and Uneducated peons! This alone with chain immigration and their breeding rate assures that they add 10,s of millions of Educated hating welfare voters for the Democrat party! Welfare voters will then far outnumber productive citizens & effectively change this Nation into an Third World Socialist Dictatorship controlled by the Democrat party!
Bill, I generally agree, but there are a few things I'd like to point out. First, this is not about Democrats vs. Republicans. Both Parties are made up of people trying to do what they think is best for this Nation. Unfortunately, the LEADERSHIP of both parties share the same goal: the subjugation and eventual enslavement of the citizens.
Second, this leadership derives its goal from its master, which is the Force of pure Evil. Call that Force anything you like or nothing at all - I call it Satan - but that doesn't matter. Anyone who can acknowledge or at least imagine that Force exists is capable of intelligent conversation.
And third, everything each of us does serves either the Force of Evil, or the Force of Good. But here's the kicker: no matter how hard we try to serve one and shun the other, we humans invariably wind up serving both.
Currently Obama is serving the Enemy, just as Bush did before him, and Clinton before him, etc. But these PEOPLE are not the Enemy, merely the Enemy's servants. We can't see the Force of Evil, only its works. Do they know they're serving the Devil? Bob, we can't answer that; it's between them and God, and the Devil.
I can tell you this with absolute certainty: the division we see among our citizens today is the work of the Devil. Even if Satan didn't create the Parties, he has incorporated them for his purpose: to keep us divided. Because as long as we can be kept squabbling over the small stuff he and his minions can get on with the business of destroying our Free, Sovereign, Constitutional Republic. Once that is accomplished we can be willingly herded into their "New World Order", ruled and enslaved by one master.
It was true before, it was true then, and it is most cetainly true now.
@Bill - You said "His objective was change this Nation into an Socialist Dictatorship."
That is your fantasy world but it's a bald face lie. Obama has no interest in turning the country into a socialist dictatorship.
Bush did go for dictator like powers with the Patriot Act and the removal of our freedoms. Obama is is not. I would like to see him give us back a few more of the freedoms that Bush took away though.
"Probably no politician has said one thing and did another as much as Obama!"
That's another thing you made up. If you actually check the record Obama has a pretty good record on his campaign promises so far.
"Obama has an very feasible plan to make the Democrats the ruling majority and the USA and a one party Nation! By making more & more Americans the wards of the State."
That's something else you made up with no basis in reality. Obama is not interested in having more people be wards of the state.
"The great society programs of the Democrats has made the Black race, wards of the State while destroyed most of them as productive citizens of this Nation."
That's another lie. Most black people are not wards of the state and are productive citizens. Do you just make up some fantasy world and then go around acting like it's real? Try some facts instead.
"Since the Social Engineering of the Democrats great Society there is no Category where blacks have improved!"
Actually there's many areas were they've improved. You lied again.
"Aid to dependent children while on the surface seems compassion & necessary the law of unintended consequences has turned the women into breed mares and the men into roaming studs & their spawn grow up on the streets and jails supported by Crime and Welfare!"
I see what the problem is here. You're a racist bigot. Bigots usually have mothers who are prostitutes and fathers who are rapists.
"Now, for many blacks, if not most of them, the American dream consists of the next drug fix or their Welfare check"
Definitely not most. But many people of all races use drugs. I know your primarily racist against black people but I'm going to give you some facts anyway.
Most drug offenders are white. Five times as many whites use drugs as blacks. Source.
I imagine this racism of yours is primarily why you make up these things about Obama.
"They do not realize the programs & welfare has destroyed any & all initiative & chance for the American dream but has gently lead them into the ghetto & economic welfare bondage to the Democrat party!"
They are are mostly in the democratic party because there is less racist bigots there.
"Barrack and the Democrats already have funding for increased Welfare dependency."
I tried to look up some info on your claim here but aren't finding anything. Do you have a source for this or is this something else you made up?
"In addition, they have plans to give citizenship to the invading millions of Criminals and Uneducated peons!"
Well we know that was a lie. Why do you make up so much crap? You sound like an uneducated peon.
Here's Obama's policy on immigration. Educate yourself.
"This alone with chain immigration and their breeding rate assures that they add 10,s of millions of Educated hating welfare voters for the Democrat party! Welfare voters will then far outnumber productive citizens & effectively change this Nation into an Third World Socialist Dictatorship controlled by the Democrat party!"
Damn maybe you're just completely insane. Considering Obama is not planning on making illegals citizens and that the illegals that are here are typically incredibly hard workers your whole premise falls down.
It's official. You made up and lied about every single thing you wrote.
Post a Comment