Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
Formerly: Libertarian Party of Citrus county

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The Law is not Relevant to Obama

This country was founded on the belief in the "rule of law". That all people are created equal, and endowed with inalienable rights. That no man is above the law. Obama clearly believes that some, including himself, are above the law and know what's best for the rest of us.

We have laws against federal employees and those receiving federal funds from working to influence other political entities like congress. Basically federal employees and those who receive federal funds may not lobby congress.

Under the regulations of the Office of Management and Budget, all charitable 501(c)(3) organizations -- organizations like the Center for Community Change -- are forbidden from receiving funds that go to "the enactment or modification of any pending federal or state legislation by preparing, distributing or using publicity or propaganda."

Under the Hatch Act, federal employees cannot solicit or discourage participation in political activity for anyone under consideration for a federal grant or contract.

Under the Anti-Lobbying Act, government employees may not expressly urge individuals to "contact government officials in support of or opposition to legislation." Nor may they “provide administrative support for lobbying activities of private organizations."

Why don’t these laws apply to the Obama administration and his buddies?

Arlene Goldbard of the Pratt Center for Community Development, State Voices and the Nathan Cumming Foundation, reported that on May 12, 2009 the White House sponsored a briefing for more than 60 community organizers and artists titled "Art, Community, Social Justice, National Recovery." Several government agencies were there. This briefing’s speakers included: chief of staff for the Office of Public Liaison, Mike Strautmanis, deputy social secretary for the White House, Joseph Reinstein, and director of presenting for the National Endowment for the Arts, Mario Garcia Durham. From the not for profit world were: Service Employees International Union (SEIU) representative, Michelle Miller, this group spent almost $61 million on behalf of Obama's election in 2008 and is closely allied to the disgraced ACORN; Center for Community Change representative, Sally Kohn, a leftist organization in support of illegal immigration and nationalized health care.

According to the report, NEA Director, Mario Garcia Durham said the "government and its policies should be shaped by participants' voices in connection with the NEA." Obama’s administration put The community organizers and artists in the same room, with the promise of funding from the NEA. President Obama himself has endorsed a strategy of keeping his non-governmental "Organizing for America" program up and running.

This is a clear violation of several laws created specifically to stop agencies of the federal government from lobbying.

With his town hall meeting comment in August stating that the “Constitution” was a problem in implementing dramatic changes to health care, and his direct violation of federal lobbying laws, it is obvious he thinks of himself as an “elite” who is above the law made for the rest of us.

Why do you suppose that this clear violation of federal law hasn’t shown up in the New York Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, or even NPR?

Monday, September 28, 2009

Obama Offers Honest Analogy

Obama has quit comparing the proposed health care options to the Unite States Postal Office, the USPO is on track to lose $7 Billion this year. The USPO is so bad that Government accountability office put the postal service on its high risk list because of its “increasingly shaky financial footing.” His new analogy is to compare the proposed health care option to state college and universities.

I think that is probably accurate. State college and universities costs have grown faster than private colleges for the past 3 decades. Don't believe me just check out the College Board's annual tuition survey. In fact the rising rates of state college and universities has been rocketing for years and their cost increases have outpaced even the skyrocketing increases in the cost of healthcare.

I think in this comparison Obama is being honest about what will happen when/if the proposed democrat plans for health care are enacted. Even higher costs with worse service.

The reasons both higher education and health care costs are both getting out of hand are the same; inflated demand and over reliance on third party payers and subsidies.

These situations are the result of big business who have lots of money, getting in bed with big government who make the laws, to hinder true free enterprise and protect big business and big government by limiting free markets using laws and government to limit competition. How else do you explain that big business get a tax breaks for offering employees health insurance, and individuals and small businesses don't? It's big business/government in bed together to limit competition.

Where true free markets exist, costs go down and quality goes up; look at Lasik and plastic surgery, or computers. Where government/big corporations control and hinder free markets costs go up and quality go down; look at education and health care, and banking.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Gun Registration

Currently in the house there is a bill, H.R.45. Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which if it becomese law would require every gun owner it the USA to register all their firearms, and would allow the government to deny you the right to purchase a firearm without due process.

History has shown that registration of firearms leads to gun confiscation, both in the USA and abroad. It's happened again in Canada where the CBC News has reported that Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms from registered owners in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of guns on the city's streets.

Most of the confiscations were due to paperwork errors, or guns not stored in a manor that suited the government. Guns kept in residents homes where they were readily available for self defense were confiscated.

When a gun hater tells you they just want to be able to track guns used in crime, or that registration won't lead to confiscation, you know that they are either a liar, ignorant or both.

Lucky for us the current house bill has zero co-sponsors and will probably not get out of committee, but as citizens if we care about our liberty and freedom we must follow the words of Thomas Jefferson and "be ever vigilant".

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

If Health Care is a Right . . . . .

If health care (aka health insurance) is a right, and since it looks like we are going to force everybody who can afford insurance to purchase insurance, and provide insurance to everybody who can't afford it; Then since we all have a right to Keep and Bear Arms, we must be planning on forcing everybody who can afford a firearm to purchase a one, and provide a firearm to everybody who can't afford it.

It only makes logical since.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It worked for Forsyth Ga. which saw an 80% decrease in violent crime after enacting a law requiring the head of every household to own a gun.....

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Liberty vs. Universal Health Care

I’ve finally figured it out. The people supporting government run health care don’t like, value, or want democracy, freedom and liberty. They don’t believe that the people should (or can) be allowed to make choices in how they live their own lives. They are using health care as an excuse to control the choices people can make.

“We provide you with health care; therefore we can determine how you must live to minimize the cost of that healthcare to everybody else”.

That’s the excuse liberals use to increase taxes and create laws governing a plethora of personal choices like what you can eat, what you can drink, smoking, drugs, seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, ad nauseum. The excuse that they can govern your personal choices because your choice costs all of society is a red herring. They only cost the government because we have let the government force the “Nanny State” upon us. If the government didn’t pay for health care, then you choices wouldn’t cost the government anything.

The liberal elites hate our constitution; they are even brash enough to say it. President B. Obama noted in an August 2009 town hall meeting about healthcare, that our constitution was the problem, it makes large wholesale changes to society very difficult. You see our constitution limits the federal government to specific delegated powers. Providing charity is not among the powers our federal government has. Details Here Our constitution was designed to protect the rights of individuals, not groups, not provide for the needs of the people, but protect their freedoms and liberty.

Here is the problem liberals who want to provide health care for everybody have; with liberty and freedom comes free will. When people exercise free will some people don’t choose to do, or act in ways that liberals approve. They drink, smoke, do drugs, eat too much fattening food, don’t wear helmets, they actually take risks. People exercising free will means that the governing elite don’t have control of what they do, their money, or their lives. They only want people to be able to choose what they think is right or good. Many (probably most) have their hearts in the right place, they don’t want others to suffer; they know that certain choices people make may lead to suffering; therefore they want to control the choices people can make. They are in fact willing to sacrifice liberty for security. They want to sacrifice the free will of all Americans so that they don’t have to see any suffering. They think it is unfair that some people make good choices and benefit from those choices and others don’t. They think it is unfair for you to make good choices for your children instill them with beliefs that help them make good choices, and to pass along your good work ethic to your children and belief in self sufficiency, because some other parents don’t and their children suffer.

It’s the same problem non-Christians have with Christianity, free will. If a person chooses correctly they receive salvation, if they choose incorrectly they receive damnation. The entire bible is a story of free will, and the consequences of exercising choices. The belief that it is unfair for people to suffer the consequences of the choices they make is the fundamental problem with liberal elites who believe that they know what choices people should make; right down to whether or not to purchase health insurance.

There is a moral imperative to help those who through no fault of their own need help. Recent examples of Katrina, and the Tsunami prove that people-to-people charity is more efficient, less costly, more humane and compassionate, and more likely to inspire change and self-sufficiency in the beneficiary. People can and would and do readily satisfy society's "moral imperative." There is no constitutional right to charity like health care, housing, etc. Liberals who don’t believe in liberty and freedom are using those as tools to gain control of the people.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

The Presidents Thinks We're Stupid

No matter how passionate a speech Obama gives, nor how loud he proclaims it, you cannot insure an additional 40 million people without increasing costs and/or without reducing benefits for the other 260 million people. So either Obama's a total idiot or he is liar and thinks we are really stupid; there is not other logical conclusion.

In his speech promoting healthcare reform he said “Under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” Consider that committees in both the House and Senate rejected amendments that would have explicitly forbid federal money from going to pay for abortion under the plan. It's covered the way a gallbladder removal is covered. If somebody decides it's medically necessary then it's covered. Basically the Secretary of Health and Human Services get's to decide specifically what's covered and what isn't. So if Kathleen Sebelius decides abortion is covered it's covered.

In Obama’s campaign speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, he promised they would be front and center in his new health care plan and that “family planning” would be at the heart of it all. So was he lying during the campaign or in last Thursday's speech?

Weather you want abortion covered or not is not the issue, the fact is Obama lied about it.

Obama said he wanted to work with the Republicans for a bi-partisan solution to health care reform. Yet he has refused to meet with any Republicans since April 1, 2009 on healthcare.

Even NPR last Friday had to agree that although the proposed health care legislation doesn't say that illegal aliens are covered, nothing in the legislation prohibits government from funding healthcare for illegal aliens, and the Democrat controlled committees in both the house and senate have previously rejected all proposals to include language that prohibits funding medical services to criminal residents. Because of Joe Wilson's outburst both houses are now working on adding the language to the health care bills. So at the time when Obama gave the speech, he was a liar, and worse yet, he called people who didn't accept his easily falsifiable comments liars.

Obama said "“The plan will not add to our deficit". The CBO says it will. How can you provide for an additional 40 million people to the health care system without rationing health services, increasing taxes to everybody, and/or raising the deficit. It's like telling your school board that they are going to get 15% more students (most eligible for free lunch), but that it won't cost any more, nor need any more teachers, nor result in an increase in class size, and that they must cut their spending from their free lunch program to make up for the difference.

Obama and the liberals supporting the current Democrat proposed health care plans, either think all of the country is very stupid and will believe their lies, or are so drunk with power they think we have no choice but to accept their lies.

Joe Wilson's outburst may have been poor manors, but it was the truth, Obama is provably a liar.

Friday, September 11, 2009

It is a waste of time to provide logical arguments to liberals.

Honest debate about political issues is impossible because of the irrationality of liberal doctrine. When a person’s principles are demonstrably based upon fallacy and devoid of rationale; all their rhetoric and precepts lead to their proffered result regardless of how they must torture logic, it borders on idiocy to engage that individual. Many of these individuals are so devoted to their core Beliefs, that regardless of how deeply irrational or perverse those beliefs are they cling to them the same way an alcoholic clings to the bottle.

Fervent Supports of Barrack Hussein Obama and his policies now openly advocate fascist, Marxist, and socialist policies into our political process. The history of the last century clearly show that when these ideas are implemented, individual freedom and liberty are eliminated and millions of people are eliminated (leaders to implement these ideas include Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler). They all implemented state control of education, healthcare, and industry.

Obama’s history, personal associations, and years of rhetoric in Chicago and national politics show him to be a fascist who wants to implement single payer health care. He has instituted more “Czar’s” than any president in history, positions that skirt the constitution. These unelected people, un-accountable to the senate or the people can and do institute policy, when exposed are extreme socialists and communists, who believe the ruling elite know better what “we the people” need than we do ourselves. Obama is a smart man; he has only been doing what he believed he could get away with. He has succeeded in taking over our largest banks and two of the Big Three auto manufactures, and wants government control of our health services industry. What has succeeded has been due to our widespread apathy and ignorance. The only reason government control of health care hasn’t been rammed down our throats yet is due to his miscalculations.

Considering health care, good people with their heart in the right place see that some people in the US suffer because they cannot afford the best health services the USA has to offer. They read about millions of people who are hurt by our current system due to no fault of their own, and feel something should be done. They falsely assume that people without health insurance don’t have health care. When you eliminate those who can but choose not to purchase insurance, the poor who qualify for existing programs but choose not to participate, and illegal aliens, the 40 million people without insurance in the USA actually equates to 10 million who fall through the cracks. The governments own numbers say that if the current Democrat proposed health care plans are implemented there will still be about 10 million who fall through the cracks. 10 million people is about 3% of our population, that means that 97% of our people receive health care; 80% of the population is satisfied with their health care (including those without insurance).

People who can and have need of the most advanced medical services fly to the USA to receive those services, they don’t fly to Canada, England, or Cuba. In Canada you can get a diagnostic MRI in 24 hours, if you’re a dog, otherwise you have to wait months. There are countless stories of people in countries with government controlled single payer health care who die waiting for treatment, or come to the USA and pay for it themselves. Compare medical innovations discovered and perfected in the USA to the rest of the world. The evidence is overwhelming when government controls and provides medical services to everybody for free, the results are less innovation, rationing of services, poorer services, and shortages.

In general, good people with their heart in the right place, see that some people in the US suffer; they in good conscience don’t want others to suffer. Nobody of good heart wants to see others suffer. With few exceptions most people or their children suffer because of their own decisions. The USA with its constitution which limits the government not the people, a country with no class system, where what your father did has no bearing on what you as an individual may accomplish, is a country which had more liberty and freedom for individuals to succeed than any other in history. With the liberty to advance from a business in your garage to the mighty Apple Inc., also comes the liberty to fail. The capitalistic system allows each individual to be rewarded based on how his fellow citizens value the service he provides through private exchange of services and money. The people have determined that the services and products Bill Gates, as provided are worth more than the services and products provided by your local grocery store bag boy. That’s why college dropout Bill gates is a gazillionaire and the bag boy makes minimum wage. But there is nothing stopping the bag boy from becoming another Bill Gates. Even persons with poor natural talent, bad looks, and low IQ like Rush Limbaugh can parley republican shtick into a fortune.

For some inexplicable reason liberals don’t want anybody to suffer the consequences of bad decisions they make. They don’t want persons who choose to drop out of school rather than apply themselves to suffer with poor wages that make their standard of living less. They don’t want person who chooses not to save for retirement to suffer poverty in old age. They don’t want the person who chooses not to purchase insurance to suffer the financial consequences of a severe illness or accident. They don’t want those who borrow more than they can repay to suffer foreclosure. They don’t even want the investors in big private businesses to suffer the loss of poor management. When people say that “no one should die because they cannot afford health care and not one should go broke because they get sick”, they are saying nobody should suffer the consequences of the risks they choose to take.

Worse yet for some inexplicable reason statists want to punish those whose decisions have lead them to success. Rather than have all in society pay taxes proportionally to what they are paid by society, they disproportionally tax those who succeed, and reward those who fail. It is twisted, why should anybody who doesn’t pay taxes get a tax “refund”? They want those whose choices have enabled them to provide for themselves to pay for the bad choices of others. The reasoned conclusion is that statists don’t believe that people can make decisions about their own lives; that some “leaders” know better what decisions individuals should make. The only logical conclusion is that they don’t believe in Liberty or Freedom, because to have liberty not only does one have the freedom to succeed but must be allowed suffer the consequences of exercising their liberty.

Christ said “There will always be the poor”, that is because God also gave us free will. Some people will make poor choices. The American people can and do take care of those who through no fault of their own, cannot take care of themselves. After the Tsunami the American people privately send more money and supplies than any other country, much less what we did through our government. St. Jude’s Hospital and the many Shriner Hospitals take care of children for free, the most effective aid after Katrina didn’t come from FEMA it came from private industry, churches, and individuals who willingly volunteered and sacrificed to help those in need.

Good liberals ignore history, and the wisdom passed down through the ages. They forget that it is because of suffering that we learn to make good choices. People learn through both reward and suffering, both individually and as a society. A child quickly learns through suffering that touching a hot stove is a bad choice. The first settlers to the USA established a communal society, where everybody had an equal share to everything society produced, the result was that many starved to death, and the first colony to the USA was nearly wiped out. By reestablishing individual private property rights, and the right to reap the benefits of good choices and hard work, and suffer the consequences of poor choices and laziness, the colony soon flourished. As a society early colonists learned that communal property and everybody being given what they need regardless of what they provide to society results in all of society suffering. In more modern history the former USSR and communists of the last century taught the world that socialism and communism lead to tens of millions of deaths and a lower standard of living for all but the ruling elite. The rule of law, property rights, capitalism and liberty has lead to the highest standard of living in history, where even the poor have color TV, AC, and microwave ovens. Compare the amount of freedom a country has to the standards of living of the people of that country and there is a direct corollary. The freer a country is the higher the standard of living that country has.

It is a fallacy to think that nobody should suffer the financial effects of an illness or accident. People only suffer the financial effects of an illness or accident because they or their legal guardians fail to prepare for it. Regardless of facts, of history, of reality, of reason, or of logic liberals desperately want nobody to suffer. To try and alleviate the suffering of a few they are willing to destroy the liberty of all. Or they are elitists who think that they know what’s best for everybody and are willing to destroy the liberty of all for what they think is best. In either case freedom and liberty have been removed from the liberals’ vocabulary.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

This is how the left deals with open debate



So this is how proponents of big government deal with debate and questions about healthcare reform?