The biggest issue that lies before America is Barack Hussein Obama's version of national health care. Obama claims that increasing demands on the health care system, which his plan surely will do, is somehow going to lower costs while increasing quality.
Based on the experiences of other countries, including Canada and European nations, Obama-care eventually may lower unit costs modestly (mainly through rationing). On the minus side, it will decimate the quality of care. It will make the world's gold standard in health care -- the U.S. -- start to resemble your local Department of Motor Vehicles ("take a number please").
I'll be writing on this subject for the next week to 10 days, and I hope you'll follow along.
One way Obama wants to control health costs is by increasing the number of abortions, both in the U.S. and worldwide. The basic concept is that dead embryos don't incur any additional health costs. I'll write more about that later.
For now, however, I want to focus on the severely infirm and/or "terminally ill" elderly. Here's what Obama recently said about them. He admitted he wants the government to decide what health care Americans receive.
"There's always going to be an asymmetry of information between patient and provider," he said. "And part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options." In other words, the federal government would be a middle-man, basically usurping a doctor's determination what treatment is appropriate.
In addition, Obama stated that "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here." (Note: it should not come as a surprise that people who are sick are big consumers of health care. People who are well don't need it.)
For such patients, he said, "I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/01/obamas-health-care-rationing/
In other words, if you're "chronically ill" -- say, you have diabetes or high blood pressure or multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis -- society (in the form of a government employee) may decide your presence on earth is no longer needed! Perhaps Obama "misspoke," as he has a chronic habit of doing, but his words as stated are extremely ominous. Frankly, those words may be the most chilling ever uttered by a U.S. President.
What about that "democratic conversation" Obama mentions? Basically, it may be a show of hands (by bureaucrats mainly) on how best to get grandma out of her expensive hospital bed and into a pine box.
His initial choice for his Health and Human Services Secretary, Tom Daschle, wrote a book emphasizing the need to keep the terminally ill from staying around as long they do. If HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius differs with Daschle (and Obama), she's yet to make that clear.
One thing Obama will not tell you is that dead people -- who famously tell no tales -- also incur no additional health costs. The more rapidly people die, the more the Obama Plan will save (if that's any consolation to grieving relatives). Perhaps Joe Biden will tell us it's "patriotic" for people to die with neither fanfare nor care.
Obama and other liberal Democrats regularly hold up the Canadian and European national health care systems as superior to our in the U.S. They are dead wrong at that. By nearly any measure, health care in the U.S. is much better at curing sick people than our counterparts overseas.
National health care systems save money in some bizarre ways. Consider how one business and economics writer (Phillippe Maniere) describes the situation in his native France:
"The majority of France's state-owned hospitals are managed in a way that is reminiscent of the old U.S.S.R. For example, in the average French public hospital, is is not uncommon for every window to be open, even in winter, because the heating system for the building cannot be regulated. With the only options being no heat or unbearably high heat, everyone opts for the latter. Predictably, this is not very cheap." Ah, the wonderful cost savings of Euro-care.
Oh, and French hospitals generally lack air conditioning, which can be a problem. In the summer of 2003 the lack of cool air, coupled with the fact most French doctors were on vacation, resulted in the death from dehydration of 15,000 elderly people.
By the way, the French health system, even with its obvious limitations, is far superior to those in Great Britain and Germany. Their mantra seems to be, "First, provide no care."
Of course, the excess costs on heat in such hospitals presumably are balanced by the number of patients who pass away prematurely. Perhaps some enterprising journalist (if there are any in DC) will ask Barack Obama if one of his health care models for America is France. If so, patients can prepared to be very hot -- and not just under the collar.
Am I really saying in this piece that a mainstay of Obama-care will be helping to terminate old people who are too stubborn to die quickly? To steal Gov. Palin's favorite saying, "You betcha."
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Contrats Between Palin and Obama
Sarah Palin with the statue of George Washington, "the Father of Our Country." Might Sarah be on her way to becoming the "Mother of a Revewed America," one now being devastated by the mindless Marxism of Barack Hussein Obama. Sarah loves America. Barack? He likes it -- sort of.
I believe Sarah's slogan -- mantra, selling point -- should be "I'm ONE of YOU." Then, she needs to spell out exactly how that's true. (Barack Obama may be many things -- but being "one of us" isn't among them.
She's a working woman. She's the daughter of two educators. She's a feminist. She's a wife in a a terrific marriage. She's married to a union man and has been a union member herself. She's an athelete -- basketball, running, snow-machining, hunting and fishing -- and a gun-owner. She's the mother of an Army infantryman. She's the mother of a special needs child. She's the mother of a daughter who had a child out of wedlock. She's a Christian who tries to focus on practicing her faith rather than merely delivering lectures about it.
She will run for President on the grounds that she has much more in common with hundreds of millions of Americans than Barack Obama. If people compare the character and achievements of the two people, Sarah wins hands-down.
I believe Sarah's slogan -- mantra, selling point -- should be "I'm ONE of YOU." Then, she needs to spell out exactly how that's true. (Barack Obama may be many things -- but being "one of us" isn't among them.She's a working woman. She's the daughter of two educators. She's a feminist. She's a wife in a a terrific marriage. She's married to a union man and has been a union member herself. She's an athelete -- basketball, running, snow-machining, hunting and fishing -- and a gun-owner. She's the mother of an Army infantryman. She's the mother of a special needs child. She's the mother of a daughter who had a child out of wedlock. She's a Christian who tries to focus on practicing her faith rather than merely delivering lectures about it.
Also, she's a political leader who has bucked her own Party. She's an oil-state Governor who has taken on Big Oil . . . and won. She's one of America's leading advocates of renewable energy. She has been a major advocate of integrity in government and politics. She has helped ensure that her state has the lowest taxes on individuals of any state in the Union.
She will run for President on the grounds that she has much more in common with hundreds of millions of Americans than Barack Obama. If people compare the character and achievements of the two people, Sarah wins hands-down.
Monday, May 4, 2009
The MSM: Mediocrity, Self-Absorption, Mendacity
Breaking news: Official Obama certificate of live birth released!
Today, The Boston Globe is in "last-ditch" negogiations with its unions to see if the paper can extract enough concessions to stay afloat financially. If the Globe, which is owned by the NY Times corporation, goes out of business, my view would be: good riddance. What public purpose does the Globe -- or the Times for that matter -- serve? None, unless supporting liberals in their political fantasies qualifies as a purpose. What's wrong with MSM?
It can ignore a great deal, but as a friend suggests, they couldn't ignore a white-hot smoking gun. The AP is sympathetic to Obama, but it would not sit on a major story. The AP and Reuters will almost always tell the basic facts about what's happening (e.g., how many people got killed or injured in a terroristic attack and who claims credit).
Where CNN, the Times, and others go wrong is in treating a major story as a minor one . . . and in buying in too quickly to the spin of the other MSM outlets. People like my friend and I know Obama well enough usually to figure out what's on his mind and what he's trying to hide. And what's on his mind about college records (I assume he had lousy grades but got lots of "scholarships") is something he really doesn't want us to know.
He also may not want us to know what many suspect: that he was listed as an Indonesian citizen in his days at Occidental. Was he listed as an Indonesian national at Columbia and Harvard? We're asking, but they're not telling.
The MSM ought to be all over this story -- like flies on horse manure -- but they choose to ignore it. They don't want to investigate anything that may "hurt" their Beloved Barack.
I remember once when Larry King had Larry Elder, a Black, articulate conservative, on one night, and King was amazed -- stunned -- that Elder didn't like Obama. Larry Elder said, "Look, I'm basically conservative, and Obama is a far-Left liberal, so no, I'm not 'proud' that he got elected."
I think King had never heard anyone, especially a Black, speak the way Elder had. I assumed they'd never invite Elder back. Why have Larry Elder when you can have Donna Brazile?
All around the country what passes for the MSM is either dead or dying. It has earned those fates. If the Globe falls this week, I'll shed no tears. Boston will still have the Herald, which is a much better paper.
The following are Tom Roeser's accurate comments about the increasingly odious Obama:
"His is not a family name, but a bramble bush of inconclusive parentage devoid of familial or parental stability . . . which explains his unfeeling inability to even feign patriotism or loyalty when what is supposed to be his country is under attack by foreign enemies. [In fact,] it is not his country; he knows no loyalty to anyone but himself. He is a multi-layered ideological non-citizen of any country . . . an anomaly of confusion even to himself."
It can ignore a great deal, but as a friend suggests, they couldn't ignore a white-hot smoking gun. The AP is sympathetic to Obama, but it would not sit on a major story. The AP and Reuters will almost always tell the basic facts about what's happening (e.g., how many people got killed or injured in a terroristic attack and who claims credit).
Where CNN, the Times, and others go wrong is in treating a major story as a minor one . . . and in buying in too quickly to the spin of the other MSM outlets. People like my friend and I know Obama well enough usually to figure out what's on his mind and what he's trying to hide. And what's on his mind about college records (I assume he had lousy grades but got lots of "scholarships") is something he really doesn't want us to know.
He also may not want us to know what many suspect: that he was listed as an Indonesian citizen in his days at Occidental. Was he listed as an Indonesian national at Columbia and Harvard? We're asking, but they're not telling.
The MSM ought to be all over this story -- like flies on horse manure -- but they choose to ignore it. They don't want to investigate anything that may "hurt" their Beloved Barack.
I remember once when Larry King had Larry Elder, a Black, articulate conservative, on one night, and King was amazed -- stunned -- that Elder didn't like Obama. Larry Elder said, "Look, I'm basically conservative, and Obama is a far-Left liberal, so no, I'm not 'proud' that he got elected."
I think King had never heard anyone, especially a Black, speak the way Elder had. I assumed they'd never invite Elder back. Why have Larry Elder when you can have Donna Brazile?
All around the country what passes for the MSM is either dead or dying. It has earned those fates. If the Globe falls this week, I'll shed no tears. Boston will still have the Herald, which is a much better paper.
The following are Tom Roeser's accurate comments about the increasingly odious Obama:
"His is not a family name, but a bramble bush of inconclusive parentage devoid of familial or parental stability . . . which explains his unfeeling inability to even feign patriotism or loyalty when what is supposed to be his country is under attack by foreign enemies. [In fact,] it is not his country; he knows no loyalty to anyone but himself. He is a multi-layered ideological non-citizen of any country . . . an anomaly of confusion even to himself."
Saturday, May 2, 2009
McCain, Specter Should Retire
A politically Independent friend from NH wrote me concerning her worries about the Democrats having "full control" of the U.S. government. I'm increasingly dissatisfied with people who call themselves "Independents." In a practical sense, they're little more than "enablers" for the far-left element -- the main one -- of the Democratic Party.
The sad thing, Kathy, is that the American people in general -- and New Hampshire in particular -- voted for full Democratic control of the White House, U.S. House, Senate, and judiciary. It won't be America.
NH's "Live free or die" slogan becomes "Hey, let's party!" If the Rev. Wright, Tony Reszko, and Bill Ayers didn't do in Obama, what will?
The age thing (I should talk!) is beginning to bother me greatly. McCain would be 74 in the 2010 election and 80 at the end of his term. Because of his POW experience and his health problems (cancer) John started to look increasingly weak and even confused as the campaign wore on.
I believe he should retire with some of his dignity still intact. Sarah seemed much stronger/tougher than her running mate. Apparently, he resented that fact.
In all sincerity, I found myself asking, "Why is John running for president?" I didn't like the answers that kept coming up.
His treatment of Sarah was/'is unmanly. He should be ashamed of himself, but I wonder if the man in his Washington life has ever felt shame?
Where is the courage and decency always associated with the name John McCain? I am seeing in his maltreatment of Sarah a lot of envy and animus. It isn't Sarah's fault her father and grandfather weren't admirals and she didn't get a free ride to the Naval Academy. It isn't her fault she didn't marry a fabulously wealthy person. To me, the John McCain of 2000 never reappeared in 2008.
Specter will be 80, going on 81 by the 2010 election and nearly 87 at the end of his term -- if the cancer doesn't recur. Robert Byrd goes around in adult diapers, drooling and crying, but hey, what a grand old man. Biden, a chronic liar and windbag, was elected to his sixth term. Teddy Kennedy, aged and riddled with brain cancer, still occasionally wanders around the Senate floor.
Citizen legislators? Yeah, sure, right.
The traditional New Hampshire Independents, and there's more than a boatload, may be a dying breed.
A lot of people who claim to be Independents are really waiting to cast their vote for the highest bidder which, surprise, always turns out to be the Democrat (barely outbidding the "moderate" Republican).
You may get a chance to see the last Republican ever elected to the Senate from NH -- Judd Gregg, a fine man, if he runs and if he wins.
The sad thing, Kathy, is that the American people in general -- and New Hampshire in particular -- voted for full Democratic control of the White House, U.S. House, Senate, and judiciary. It won't be America.
NH's "Live free or die" slogan becomes "Hey, let's party!" If the Rev. Wright, Tony Reszko, and Bill Ayers didn't do in Obama, what will?
The age thing (I should talk!) is beginning to bother me greatly. McCain would be 74 in the 2010 election and 80 at the end of his term. Because of his POW experience and his health problems (cancer) John started to look increasingly weak and even confused as the campaign wore on.
I believe he should retire with some of his dignity still intact. Sarah seemed much stronger/tougher than her running mate. Apparently, he resented that fact.
In all sincerity, I found myself asking, "Why is John running for president?" I didn't like the answers that kept coming up.
His treatment of Sarah was/'is unmanly. He should be ashamed of himself, but I wonder if the man in his Washington life has ever felt shame?
Where is the courage and decency always associated with the name John McCain? I am seeing in his maltreatment of Sarah a lot of envy and animus. It isn't Sarah's fault her father and grandfather weren't admirals and she didn't get a free ride to the Naval Academy. It isn't her fault she didn't marry a fabulously wealthy person. To me, the John McCain of 2000 never reappeared in 2008.
Specter will be 80, going on 81 by the 2010 election and nearly 87 at the end of his term -- if the cancer doesn't recur. Robert Byrd goes around in adult diapers, drooling and crying, but hey, what a grand old man. Biden, a chronic liar and windbag, was elected to his sixth term. Teddy Kennedy, aged and riddled with brain cancer, still occasionally wanders around the Senate floor.
Citizen legislators? Yeah, sure, right.
The traditional New Hampshire Independents, and there's more than a boatload, may be a dying breed.
A lot of people who claim to be Independents are really waiting to cast their vote for the highest bidder which, surprise, always turns out to be the Democrat (barely outbidding the "moderate" Republican).
You may get a chance to see the last Republican ever elected to the Senate from NH -- Judd Gregg, a fine man, if he runs and if he wins.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Palin-Obama and Toomey-Specter
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over-and-over . . . and expecting a different result."
I've been a conservative activist since the Goldwater days. But many of my fellow conservatives who are asking us to appeal to the "base" are wildly exaggerating the size of said base. (In the 2008 election, 23% of those voters identifying themselves as "conservative" cast their ballots for . . . Barack Obama.) There may be 10 million very confused "conservatives" out there. People in denial almost always do not win elections.
Right now in my home state of Pennsylvania, the big question is whether conservative Republican U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey can beat "moderate" (i.e., liberal) Democrat Arlen Specter in the November 10, 2010 election.
Frankly, most careful observers wouldn't bet even their coffee money on Toomey. Consider: Incumbent Republican -- and uber-conservative -- Rick Santorum spent $26 million in 2006 - and got just over 40% of the vote. Pennsylvania is a Blue state, and it has been getting bluer.
Is there any way Toomey can win? One very thoughtful Republican analyst, Mike Avery, of the Lehigh Valley, thinks there is, and he has many suggestions (see below) for Toomey. Will Pat be wise enough to follow them?
I don't know. What I do know is that Pat is a "coat-tie-and-wing-tips" Republican in a "jeans-tee shirts-and-Reeboks" state. If he focuses laser-like on the base and peddles nothing more than the GOP's version of "old-time religion," he will get about as many votes as . . . Rick Santorum.
Mike Avery believes it doesn't have to be that way. His approach is part of the answer for Toomey, and it should work for other Republican candidates, including my particular favorite, Gov. Sarah Palin.
When the McCain Campaign decided to pull out of Michigan last October, Sarah Palin opposed the decision. She said she and Todd wanted to go into the auto plants and seek votes from the autoworkers. Frankly, she regarded them as "her people" -- something very unsual (but necessary) for a Republican candidate.
McCain thought he could win in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania with the GOP base. That proved to be a fantasy.
The rest is from Mike . . .
If the events of today, April 29, [with Specter becoming a Democrat], don't mobilize Republicans, we might as well as give the keys to the Republican party to the Democrats and get ready to become "subjects" for the rest of our lives.
James Carville has a new book entitled "40 More Years"; the premise is this: Republicans have been so stupid that the Democrats are going to be in power for the next 40 years. Do you "resemble" that remark by Carville, or do you resent it? Speak up!
Let's review today's events: Arlen Specter has become a Democrat. That's a good thing, because now we can beat him twice.
But not the way we are going. GM & Chrysler are now owned by the government and the UAW. This is the beginning of the end of our country unless we start now to fight back.
Attention Pat Toomey: Do you know that truck drivers are Republicans? When have Republican candidates ever made a trip to a truck stop in their "straight talk express" motor-homes? Never, is the answer. Another question: When have Republican candidates ever made a trip to Sturgis, SD, for biker week? Never is the answer. Did you know that bikers are Republicans? You have never thought about it, have you?
So I ask you, Pat Toomey, do you want to win the Senate seat now held by Arlen Specter? If you do, we can help that happen. Put on some jeans and sneakers, and wear a "Pat Toomey for Senate" T-shirt, get into your motor home and start going to truck stops, biker events, into the inner cities and to the outer cities, go to the Wal-Mart parking lots and to the shopping malls, to the church parking lots after services, and anywhere else "street-level" Americans live & congregate.
Right now, we are seeing a Republican Party being led by the same people doing the same thing over & over again expecting a different result each time. It's not going to happen, unless we begin to take in new people with new ideas and then implement them. Think of it this way, the Democrats are just jumping for joy seeing the same old people trying to lead the Republican party... they know it's a win-win for them. And a loss-loss for us.
So, we have nothing to lose by inviting a better class of losers [campaign advisers and activists] to give it a try for us... hey, they might even help us win.Pat, are you going to help change things? Or are you going to be satisfied with losing?
Self-serving [and self-deluding] we lose. Together we can win. -- Mike Avery
Steve adds: How much of Mike's piece do I agree with? Every word. Let's no recapitulate the failures of Rick Santorum. Instead, let's be brutally honest, figure out what's absolutely necessary to prevail . . . and then act like winners.
I've been a conservative activist since the Goldwater days. But many of my fellow conservatives who are asking us to appeal to the "base" are wildly exaggerating the size of said base. (In the 2008 election, 23% of those voters identifying themselves as "conservative" cast their ballots for . . . Barack Obama.) There may be 10 million very confused "conservatives" out there. People in denial almost always do not win elections.
Right now in my home state of Pennsylvania, the big question is whether conservative Republican U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey can beat "moderate" (i.e., liberal) Democrat Arlen Specter in the November 10, 2010 election.
Frankly, most careful observers wouldn't bet even their coffee money on Toomey. Consider: Incumbent Republican -- and uber-conservative -- Rick Santorum spent $26 million in 2006 - and got just over 40% of the vote. Pennsylvania is a Blue state, and it has been getting bluer.
Is there any way Toomey can win? One very thoughtful Republican analyst, Mike Avery, of the Lehigh Valley, thinks there is, and he has many suggestions (see below) for Toomey. Will Pat be wise enough to follow them?
I don't know. What I do know is that Pat is a "coat-tie-and-wing-tips" Republican in a "jeans-tee shirts-and-Reeboks" state. If he focuses laser-like on the base and peddles nothing more than the GOP's version of "old-time religion," he will get about as many votes as . . . Rick Santorum.
Mike Avery believes it doesn't have to be that way. His approach is part of the answer for Toomey, and it should work for other Republican candidates, including my particular favorite, Gov. Sarah Palin.
When the McCain Campaign decided to pull out of Michigan last October, Sarah Palin opposed the decision. She said she and Todd wanted to go into the auto plants and seek votes from the autoworkers. Frankly, she regarded them as "her people" -- something very unsual (but necessary) for a Republican candidate.
McCain thought he could win in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania with the GOP base. That proved to be a fantasy.
The rest is from Mike . . .
If the events of today, April 29, [with Specter becoming a Democrat], don't mobilize Republicans, we might as well as give the keys to the Republican party to the Democrats and get ready to become "subjects" for the rest of our lives.
James Carville has a new book entitled "40 More Years"; the premise is this: Republicans have been so stupid that the Democrats are going to be in power for the next 40 years. Do you "resemble" that remark by Carville, or do you resent it? Speak up!
Let's review today's events: Arlen Specter has become a Democrat. That's a good thing, because now we can beat him twice.
But not the way we are going. GM & Chrysler are now owned by the government and the UAW. This is the beginning of the end of our country unless we start now to fight back.
Attention Pat Toomey: Do you know that truck drivers are Republicans? When have Republican candidates ever made a trip to a truck stop in their "straight talk express" motor-homes? Never, is the answer. Another question: When have Republican candidates ever made a trip to Sturgis, SD, for biker week? Never is the answer. Did you know that bikers are Republicans? You have never thought about it, have you?
So I ask you, Pat Toomey, do you want to win the Senate seat now held by Arlen Specter? If you do, we can help that happen. Put on some jeans and sneakers, and wear a "Pat Toomey for Senate" T-shirt, get into your motor home and start going to truck stops, biker events, into the inner cities and to the outer cities, go to the Wal-Mart parking lots and to the shopping malls, to the church parking lots after services, and anywhere else "street-level" Americans live & congregate.
Right now, we are seeing a Republican Party being led by the same people doing the same thing over & over again expecting a different result each time. It's not going to happen, unless we begin to take in new people with new ideas and then implement them. Think of it this way, the Democrats are just jumping for joy seeing the same old people trying to lead the Republican party... they know it's a win-win for them. And a loss-loss for us.
So, we have nothing to lose by inviting a better class of losers [campaign advisers and activists] to give it a try for us... hey, they might even help us win.Pat, are you going to help change things? Or are you going to be satisfied with losing?
Self-serving [and self-deluding] we lose. Together we can win. -- Mike Avery
Steve adds: How much of Mike's piece do I agree with? Every word. Let's no recapitulate the failures of Rick Santorum. Instead, let's be brutally honest, figure out what's absolutely necessary to prevail . . . and then act like winners.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Why America Has a Constitution
"The Constitution is not a living document. It's a dead document." (Justice Antonin Scalia on "60 Minutes") He means, of course, that the Constitution is a written document with real meaning, not a figment of our imagination.
Here are my comments on the superb essay below by Thomas Patric Burke, a constitutional scholar: Thomas Jefferson -- God, we could use another one of him -- understood that if the "right" were perceived to come from the government that the government could take them away. (Obama and others believe they come from them). "Endowed by the Creator" (and define Him -- or Her -- as you will) means they are part of our nature as being "created" (natural) beings and can't be taken away. People like John Jay (who told Geo. Washington the President must be a "natural born citizen") were so much more thoughtful and informed than most of our current political leaders. They were not politically correct. They were so much better than that. When absolutely necessary, the Constitution can be amended. Otherwise, it should be left alone
Notes from Wynnewood Institute (Pennsylvania)
April 21, 2009
Why Do We Have a Constitution?
Why do we have a Constitution? What is the purpose of constitutional government? Many people seem to believe that its purpose is merely to ensure that the business of the country is taken care of in an orderly way. On this view, what the Constitution produces is order.
But to produce order in a society, a constitution is not necessary. The nations of Europe were highly ordered societies, by some measures even excessively ordered, long before the introduction of constitutions, which first took place on the continent only during the nineteenth century.
In the case of the United States, many believe the reason for having a constitution was to unify the Thirteen Colonies into a single nation. But again many nations have been created or unified in the course of history without benefit of a constitution. The countries of Europe were unified either by force or by simple political agreement.
Historically the reason for having a Constitution has been to limit the power of government. Without a constitution the power of government is unlimited. The kings of England were absolute monarchs until William and Mary accepted the constitutional subordination of royal power to parliament in 1689.
Throughout Europe rulers had absolute power until the movement for constitutional government was initiated by a series of revolutions beginning in 1848. In every case, the reason for establishing a constitution was to replace the existing absolute power of government with limited power that respected the natural rights and natural freedom of individuals.
This was also the purpose of the American Constitution, as it was of the individual colonial constitutions that preceded it.
A move to enlarge the powers of government is therefore always a move against the Constitution -- not only against the particular existing constitution but against the very idea and purpose of constitutional government.
This is why those who wish to increase the power of government over its citizens prefer not to have a constitution. If they are forced by circumstances to have one, they prefer to have one that is "living" and therefore pliable to their schemes. But paradoxically a "living" constitution is a dead one.
When with this in mind we examine what the Federal Government has done in its current effort to remake the economy, it is seems evident that the immense powers it has arrogated to itself represent a fundamental attack on the very principle of constitutional government. If we wish to maintain our Constitution, that can only be done by insisting that there are some things the Federal Government and its agencies cannot do.
A first requirement is respect for property, since property is the first protection of freedom and defense against government. A related requirement is respect for contracts. Where does the government get the right, for example, to depose the president of a corporation, even as a condition of its receiving financial aid? That is a right that belongs to its shareholders and should never be done without their voluntary consent.
After 9/11 the argument has been made by some that even the defense of the nation against militant Islam and terrorism does not justify us in taking extreme measures such as war or torture. Those who make that argument should also be prepared to agree that it applies also in the economic sphere, and even in an economic crisis the power of government should remain within strictly limited bounds.
The first task of the American president is "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." That is his oath. To preserve the Constitution means to act within its limits. Even to salvage our economy, an unlimited government will be a bad bargain.
Thomas Patrick Burke
Other Wynnewood Notes and writings can be read at www.wynnewood.org/research.
Coming Wynnewood Events:Monetary Policy and the Shadow Banking System
A Seminar with Uli Kortsch, Monday, April 27, 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.
The Philosophical Basis of the Free Society: Friedrich HayekA Course with Prof. Thomas Patrick Burke
Thursdays, April 30 to June 4, 7:30 to 9.30 p.m. Six sessions.
To learn more about these events visit our website at www.wynnewood.org.
Send us an email with your comments. Comments may be posted on the Wynnewood Institute's website. The Institute reserves the right to withhold comments that are poorly written or offensive.
_________________________________________________________________________
The Wynnewood Institute is an independent, academic, non-partisan and non-profit organization with 501 (c)(3) status. Thomas Patrick Burke, Th.D., is its President. See our website at www.wynnewood.org.
To continue its work, the Institute relies on the generous support of its members and donors. Become a Member of the Wynnewood Institute.
Here are my comments on the superb essay below by Thomas Patric Burke, a constitutional scholar: Thomas Jefferson -- God, we could use another one of him -- understood that if the "right" were perceived to come from the government that the government could take them away. (Obama and others believe they come from them). "Endowed by the Creator" (and define Him -- or Her -- as you will) means they are part of our nature as being "created" (natural) beings and can't be taken away. People like John Jay (who told Geo. Washington the President must be a "natural born citizen") were so much more thoughtful and informed than most of our current political leaders. They were not politically correct. They were so much better than that. When absolutely necessary, the Constitution can be amended. Otherwise, it should be left alone
Notes from Wynnewood Institute (Pennsylvania)
April 21, 2009
Why Do We Have a Constitution?
Why do we have a Constitution? What is the purpose of constitutional government? Many people seem to believe that its purpose is merely to ensure that the business of the country is taken care of in an orderly way. On this view, what the Constitution produces is order.
But to produce order in a society, a constitution is not necessary. The nations of Europe were highly ordered societies, by some measures even excessively ordered, long before the introduction of constitutions, which first took place on the continent only during the nineteenth century.
In the case of the United States, many believe the reason for having a constitution was to unify the Thirteen Colonies into a single nation. But again many nations have been created or unified in the course of history without benefit of a constitution. The countries of Europe were unified either by force or by simple political agreement.
Historically the reason for having a Constitution has been to limit the power of government. Without a constitution the power of government is unlimited. The kings of England were absolute monarchs until William and Mary accepted the constitutional subordination of royal power to parliament in 1689.
Throughout Europe rulers had absolute power until the movement for constitutional government was initiated by a series of revolutions beginning in 1848. In every case, the reason for establishing a constitution was to replace the existing absolute power of government with limited power that respected the natural rights and natural freedom of individuals.
This was also the purpose of the American Constitution, as it was of the individual colonial constitutions that preceded it.
A move to enlarge the powers of government is therefore always a move against the Constitution -- not only against the particular existing constitution but against the very idea and purpose of constitutional government.
This is why those who wish to increase the power of government over its citizens prefer not to have a constitution. If they are forced by circumstances to have one, they prefer to have one that is "living" and therefore pliable to their schemes. But paradoxically a "living" constitution is a dead one.
When with this in mind we examine what the Federal Government has done in its current effort to remake the economy, it is seems evident that the immense powers it has arrogated to itself represent a fundamental attack on the very principle of constitutional government. If we wish to maintain our Constitution, that can only be done by insisting that there are some things the Federal Government and its agencies cannot do.
A first requirement is respect for property, since property is the first protection of freedom and defense against government. A related requirement is respect for contracts. Where does the government get the right, for example, to depose the president of a corporation, even as a condition of its receiving financial aid? That is a right that belongs to its shareholders and should never be done without their voluntary consent.
After 9/11 the argument has been made by some that even the defense of the nation against militant Islam and terrorism does not justify us in taking extreme measures such as war or torture. Those who make that argument should also be prepared to agree that it applies also in the economic sphere, and even in an economic crisis the power of government should remain within strictly limited bounds.
The first task of the American president is "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." That is his oath. To preserve the Constitution means to act within its limits. Even to salvage our economy, an unlimited government will be a bad bargain.
Thomas Patrick Burke
Other Wynnewood Notes and writings can be read at www.wynnewood.org/research.
Coming Wynnewood Events:Monetary Policy and the Shadow Banking System
A Seminar with Uli Kortsch, Monday, April 27, 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.
The Philosophical Basis of the Free Society: Friedrich HayekA Course with Prof. Thomas Patrick Burke
Thursdays, April 30 to June 4, 7:30 to 9.30 p.m. Six sessions.
To learn more about these events visit our website at www.wynnewood.org.
Send us an email with your comments. Comments may be posted on the Wynnewood Institute's website. The Institute reserves the right to withhold comments that are poorly written or offensive.
_________________________________________________________________________
The Wynnewood Institute is an independent, academic, non-partisan and non-profit organization with 501 (c)(3) status. Thomas Patrick Burke, Th.D., is its President. See our website at www.wynnewood.org.
To continue its work, the Institute relies on the generous support of its members and donors. Become a Member of the Wynnewood Institute.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Obama, Malicious or Just Stupid?
If you don't read Marnie Delano's writings at http://thedametruth.wordpress.com, well, you should start now. Ms. Delano expected the worst from Obama's creepy and self-aborbed presidency, and in that sense the man she calls BOzo rarely disppoints. Here's her recent column about the ill-conceived Manhattan flyover and other matters.
The Psy Ops employed by BOzo’s handlers are extreme, extremely UNsubtle, and, to me, impart two messages:
Whoever *They* are, they are in a BIG hurry to annoint this idiot in our minds as a superhuman figure who does not even catch a super duper flu; and
They know they have to work overtime to convey that misguided notion because he is so pathetically lacking in any qualities of leadership, intelligence and accountability.
The big news is “Flu Pandemic” and what does he do? He goes golfing while his DHS dupe is busy explaining why she isn’t stopping Mexicans who may be infected at the borders and why she has taken to accusing our veterans of homicidal lunacy, and Louis Caldera, formerly an “independent director” of the flawed and failed Indymac, his White House Military Office director is telling planes to fly low and close to buildings in downdown Manhattan.
Discounting the obvious fact that he should NEVER even conceived of such an insane idea let alone allowed it, the fact that no one in that still-traumatized area was appropriately warned defies logic, and obviously, even to the dimmest of countenances, the incident was both cruel and foolish. Unless, of course, it was by DESIGN. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a coincidence, and even these fools have better judgment than that, so one can only conclude that indeed, it WAS by design.
Both that whacked out picture and the Deification Project are literally sickening to behold. I have a strong stomach but the sight and sound of these things, combined with increasingly ill conceived events like the flyover, have literally made my hair stand on end. Just WHY and HOW we as a nation have managed to allow a coup installing this lame excuse for a sentient being into our White House I will never know, but now that it has occurred, the implications are clear.
The Psy Ops are in full swing, as is evidenced by yesterday’s intimidating and terrorizing “fly by”–what, they never heard of PHOTOSHOP???
In a memo obtained by CBS 2 HD, the Federal Aviation Administration’s James Johnston said the agency was aware of “the possibility of public concern regarding DOD (Department of Defense) aircraft flying at low altitudes” in an around New York City. But they demanded total secrecy from the NYPD, the Secret Service, the FBI and even the mayor’s office and threatened federal sanctions if the secret got out.
The only thing one can be sure of is that NONE of this stuff is accidental, or the result of “poor judgment,” although doubtless there is plenty of that going around these days. But the rest of it REEKS of evil psy ops gone mad and in case anyone has not yet wakened from their kool aid stupor, now would be the time to do so. It may already be too late.
As they say, For What It’s Worth…something’s happening here…and it isn’t pretty.
The Psy Ops employed by BOzo’s handlers are extreme, extremely UNsubtle, and, to me, impart two messages:
Whoever *They* are, they are in a BIG hurry to annoint this idiot in our minds as a superhuman figure who does not even catch a super duper flu; and
They know they have to work overtime to convey that misguided notion because he is so pathetically lacking in any qualities of leadership, intelligence and accountability.
The big news is “Flu Pandemic” and what does he do? He goes golfing while his DHS dupe is busy explaining why she isn’t stopping Mexicans who may be infected at the borders and why she has taken to accusing our veterans of homicidal lunacy, and Louis Caldera, formerly an “independent director” of the flawed and failed Indymac, his White House Military Office director is telling planes to fly low and close to buildings in downdown Manhattan.
Discounting the obvious fact that he should NEVER even conceived of such an insane idea let alone allowed it, the fact that no one in that still-traumatized area was appropriately warned defies logic, and obviously, even to the dimmest of countenances, the incident was both cruel and foolish. Unless, of course, it was by DESIGN. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a coincidence, and even these fools have better judgment than that, so one can only conclude that indeed, it WAS by design.
Both that whacked out picture and the Deification Project are literally sickening to behold. I have a strong stomach but the sight and sound of these things, combined with increasingly ill conceived events like the flyover, have literally made my hair stand on end. Just WHY and HOW we as a nation have managed to allow a coup installing this lame excuse for a sentient being into our White House I will never know, but now that it has occurred, the implications are clear.
The Psy Ops are in full swing, as is evidenced by yesterday’s intimidating and terrorizing “fly by”–what, they never heard of PHOTOSHOP???
In a memo obtained by CBS 2 HD, the Federal Aviation Administration’s James Johnston said the agency was aware of “the possibility of public concern regarding DOD (Department of Defense) aircraft flying at low altitudes” in an around New York City. But they demanded total secrecy from the NYPD, the Secret Service, the FBI and even the mayor’s office and threatened federal sanctions if the secret got out.
The only thing one can be sure of is that NONE of this stuff is accidental, or the result of “poor judgment,” although doubtless there is plenty of that going around these days. But the rest of it REEKS of evil psy ops gone mad and in case anyone has not yet wakened from their kool aid stupor, now would be the time to do so. It may already be too late.
As they say, For What It’s Worth…something’s happening here…and it isn’t pretty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
