Even though Obamacare was the catalyst, this speech embodies
the basics of why we conservatives fight to uphold basic Constitutional principles
and the responsibilities/limitations held within.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Monday, October 07, 2013
Equality before the law?
When does a law begin to stink?
When our Democratic friends passed and signed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, it was lauded as the change and compassion that every American needed to survive and be guaranteed the "right" to health coverage. Fast forward to today and that "right" has become way more expensive to procure. There's nothing affordable about it.
Because of this supposed "affordable" care, our king unilaterally decided to start exempting special interests; his core group of donors. Shortly afterwards came exemptions for businesses and Congress. Mr. President, why exempt people from your perfect “utopian” law? It's contents are still not easily understood all these years later.
When we fought for independence, one of the ideas that we fought for was the ability to live under the rule of law and not be favored by judgments of men. Under the law, we are all treated equal. However, when exceptions become the norm and societal classes are created because of those exceptions, laws become arbitrary and contempt is held toward the law.
When an elite mentality is allowed to grow throughout our representatives in Washington, a new ruling elite is formed. A ruling class. This elite class, when allowed to grow, begins to hold contempt for the law (even the ones they themselves pass) and in return contempt for our Constitution.
The Affordable Care Act has become so arduous and so cumbersome in its scope and reach that exemptions have been handed down from the Emperor-in-Chief himself, circumventing the Constitution and arbitrarily bestowing exemptions with no regard to the role of Congress or the law of his namesake.
Where does such contempt leave the average American? Why is a law good enough for one, but not for the other? Should not we all be treated equally under the law?
We are, I feel, headed toward a tipping point. A line has been drawn in the sand, a phrase so overused yet so accurate in its description of our current state of government overreach. We can either stand up for our Constitutional beliefs, or roll over and let decrees from the Beltway rule some while giving a pass to others.
I ask, what did we fight for if we have come to this as a society? What freedom do we have to live if government makes decisions for us? We, the People, are being given something to eat whether we want it or not. We're expected to choke on it while the people who are exempt sidestep in disgust of the foul crap they themselves passed.
The Republicans in the House are doing the right thing. They are standing firm, following a sentiment that is observed by a majority of the American people. While I prefer complete repeal, I am encouraged by the actions of the GOP to defund the ACA, or at the very least delay it. More importantly however, if aspects of this law are kept in place, we should make sure that we are all treated equally before the law.
When our Democratic friends passed and signed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, it was lauded as the change and compassion that every American needed to survive and be guaranteed the "right" to health coverage. Fast forward to today and that "right" has become way more expensive to procure. There's nothing affordable about it.
Because of this supposed "affordable" care, our king unilaterally decided to start exempting special interests; his core group of donors. Shortly afterwards came exemptions for businesses and Congress. Mr. President, why exempt people from your perfect “utopian” law? It's contents are still not easily understood all these years later.
When we fought for independence, one of the ideas that we fought for was the ability to live under the rule of law and not be favored by judgments of men. Under the law, we are all treated equal. However, when exceptions become the norm and societal classes are created because of those exceptions, laws become arbitrary and contempt is held toward the law.
When an elite mentality is allowed to grow throughout our representatives in Washington, a new ruling elite is formed. A ruling class. This elite class, when allowed to grow, begins to hold contempt for the law (even the ones they themselves pass) and in return contempt for our Constitution.
The Affordable Care Act has become so arduous and so cumbersome in its scope and reach that exemptions have been handed down from the Emperor-in-Chief himself, circumventing the Constitution and arbitrarily bestowing exemptions with no regard to the role of Congress or the law of his namesake.
Where does such contempt leave the average American? Why is a law good enough for one, but not for the other? Should not we all be treated equally under the law?
We are, I feel, headed toward a tipping point. A line has been drawn in the sand, a phrase so overused yet so accurate in its description of our current state of government overreach. We can either stand up for our Constitutional beliefs, or roll over and let decrees from the Beltway rule some while giving a pass to others.
I ask, what did we fight for if we have come to this as a society? What freedom do we have to live if government makes decisions for us? We, the People, are being given something to eat whether we want it or not. We're expected to choke on it while the people who are exempt sidestep in disgust of the foul crap they themselves passed.
The Republicans in the House are doing the right thing. They are standing firm, following a sentiment that is observed by a majority of the American people. While I prefer complete repeal, I am encouraged by the actions of the GOP to defund the ACA, or at the very least delay it. More importantly however, if aspects of this law are kept in place, we should make sure that we are all treated equally before the law.
ENR
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Run-up to Election 2012
A blog, is a blog, is a blog. I know, almost everyone who has a blog has
something to say. It’s the nature of why
they have one. And while I’m not
arrogant enough to think that everyone on the internet reads what I have to
write, I do of course have something to say (especially in an election year),
which I know for the most part is in the mainstream of American politics.
Beginning next week, I will highlight and write on a series of topics and
beliefs that I feel is important and essential to continuing the American idea. With Election 2012 one of the most important elections in
our generation’s lifetime, there are more posts to come, so stay tuned!
Eric
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Voting Rights or Political Posturing?
So, let me get this straight. The Obama administration rejected the Texas voter ID law yesterday, stating that it is discriminatory toward Hispanic voters, yet other countries, including Mexico, require an ID to vote in general elections.
Interesting.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t we all need an ID to drive, go through airport security and even get a library card? Yet, the Justice Department seems to think that we don’t need an ID to vote for president of the United States?
Again, interesting.
ENR
- Justice Department Files Objection to Texas Voter ID Law
- Requirements of other democracies
Interesting.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t we all need an ID to drive, go through airport security and even get a library card? Yet, the Justice Department seems to think that we don’t need an ID to vote for president of the United States?
Again, interesting.
ENR
- Justice Department Files Objection to Texas Voter ID Law
- Requirements of other democracies
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Trample Away
I’m never surprised when I read a liberal’s interpretation of the Constitution, wishing it would say one thing and not the other. The attack on our “pre-modern” document began long ago, and of course, continues today.With the help of a New York Times article yesterday, my explanation of the liberal’s viewpoint does not need to go too in-depth.
The author is remorseful of the fact that the US Constitution does not even guarantee the “entitlement to food, education and healthcare.” Furthermore, a professor is quoted as saying, “Nobody wants a copy of Windows 3.1.”
Statements such as these are the entire basis for the declaration of a federal government that is out of control (see 'Tea Party'). I’ll keep preaching this till it sinks in, but the US Constitution was designed to be vague and restrictive (to the federal government) in nature. The rest is deferred to the states. State’s rights are essential to understand when interpreting our Constitution. Changing the structure of this document would favor the federal government, blurring the line between consent of the people and further allowing administrations to simply decree universal truths for all states to follow, no matter what.
Then again, this administration seems to be blurring the lines in more than one way, even between the church and state.
Trample away.
ENR
- Picture Credit: "The Forgotten Man" by Jon McNaughton
Thursday, August 11, 2011
The Entitlement Mentality
London's on fire. Greece is in chaos. Spain is on the brink.
Socialized Europe as a whole is in turmoil.
Take a closer look at these riots and you'll see exactly where the liberal vision for America will eventually take us.
From a post back in 2009 about Obamacare, I pointed out that when we start to depend on our government for handouts, we lose the ability to take initiative for ourselves. Europe is seeing the consequences of that entitlement mentality right now with people demanding their "right" to free money and government services treasuries can't cash. In response, looters and thugs take to the streets, stealing what they can as if they're entitled to their bounty in compensation for government failing them. It's a ridiculously flawed notion that inherently denies the gratification and pride of self-sufficientcy.
It's a sad state of affairs, but one we can still avoid here in America.
I posted this earlier in the year, and it's worth reading again, if only to bring home a point that big government is never the answer. Europe is proving that to us now through people who have delusional and extreme ideas for the role of government.
Will America follow Europe? I hope not, but unlike Europe, we still have a chance to prevent it, i.e. November 2012.
ENR
Post: The Money Tree Runneth Dry - Welcome to Reality
Socialized Europe as a whole is in turmoil.
Take a closer look at these riots and you'll see exactly where the liberal vision for America will eventually take us.
From a post back in 2009 about Obamacare, I pointed out that when we start to depend on our government for handouts, we lose the ability to take initiative for ourselves. Europe is seeing the consequences of that entitlement mentality right now with people demanding their "right" to free money and government services treasuries can't cash. In response, looters and thugs take to the streets, stealing what they can as if they're entitled to their bounty in compensation for government failing them. It's a ridiculously flawed notion that inherently denies the gratification and pride of self-sufficientcy.
It's a sad state of affairs, but one we can still avoid here in America.
I posted this earlier in the year, and it's worth reading again, if only to bring home a point that big government is never the answer. Europe is proving that to us now through people who have delusional and extreme ideas for the role of government.
Will America follow Europe? I hope not, but unlike Europe, we still have a chance to prevent it, i.e. November 2012.
ENR
Post: The Money Tree Runneth Dry - Welcome to Reality
Culled:
Monday, August 08, 2011
"Pre-revolutionary" and AAA No More
American's are in a "pre-revolutionary" mood according to a new poll, and here's everything you need to know about our AAA downgrade.
So much for $2.6 trillion worth of QE stimulus.
ENR
DJIA: -634
So much for $2.6 trillion worth of QE stimulus.
ENR
DJIA: -634
Monday, July 11, 2011
Border Crisis Rising
Many years ago, I remember walking along the U.S.-Mexican border in the Valley of south Texas with my dad, examining old relics from a wild west era long gone. Peaceful and calm, it was a great morning walk with my dad many summers ago.
I'm not sure I'd take that same walk today.
Today, Los Zetas and other drug cartels stretch all along the border, from Monterrey to Juarez to Tijuana, the border is riddled with violence, tragedy and grief on a daily basis. In a recent Time article, an alarming statistic jumped out: over 40,000 lives have been lost in the past five years that is directly related to drug trade. To comprehend that figure, that's more than the lives we've lost in Afghanistan and Iraq combined (6,026 as of June 5, 2011).
Think about that and you'll begin to understand the gravity of a situation much closer than a world away.
Over the Fourth of July holiday one of my aunts conveyed an interesting story which reflects the dangers of border life.
Driving home late one evening to her home just north of Eagle Pass, TX, she drove by a man in a ditch, crawling and alone. Knowing that cartels set roadside traps (yes, even on our side of the border), she drove on, leaving the man to his own fate. Luckily, she stopped a truck just up the road and asked the workers to check on this seemingly stranded individual. This is after all on the edge of the Chihuahuan Desert.
It turned out that the man was exhausted and had collapsed from the heat, but it could have easily gone the other way around.
This underscores the need for action. When violence expresses itself so close to home and influences your everyday decisions, a line must be drawn and decisive action must be taken.
The White House and Department of Homeland Security however claim all is well. Stay calm; everything is under control they say. Their response to rising violence is to send an insulting amount of National Guardsman to assist an under staffed Border Patrol.
The time for half-ass measures and political posturing is over. The American people are disgusted with Democrats placating to a potential 2012 voting block that tends to be more conservative than they realize. We're tired of hearing from Republicans that a long, vast fence is the fix all to end all. We're tired of hearing about immigration reform as if that will somehow curb ongoing violence. We have a national security and terror threat at our back door and all Washington seems to care about is politics.
Note to D.C.: Screw politics and actually do something you know to be in the best interest for a plurality of the American people.
As for a solution? Mexico needs help in containing this violence. As a result, I would suggest bringing back the days of the U.S. Marshal and Texas Rangers who so efficiently cleaned up the unruly west of the American frontier in the late 1800's.
Violence begets violence, but sometimes turning the other cheek only encourages the status quo. In Mexico's case, crushing the cartels along the border with overwhelming and suffocating force via Special Forces and other U.S. military assets might the best and only answer. After that, extend the operation into Mexico with the assistance of the Mexican government.
A firm hand worked in taming the wild west, why not now?
ENR
Time: Day of the Dead
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Money Tree Runneth Dry – Welcome to Reality
Burdensome entitlements, big government guarantees and a crippling debt. This is the current and unsustainable path that our government is on.
I’ve said this before, but it’s worth saying again. Our Declaration declares that we are, “. . . endowed by their [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
This unalienable right to pursue happiness is a gift given to us from our Creator to individually attain honorably, not a guaranteed right provided by an overbearing government.
Our Constitution – a document that is restrictive in its nature toward government – opens by proclaiming that:
These basic services in which our Union provides its citizenry gives no guarantees of financial stability, no assurances of a big government safety net through bailouts and no promises of healthcare bankrolled through onerous taxes. It only declares that we have the right to live peacefully, secure in the knowledge that our Union will maintain a robust infrastructure and strong national defense.
The social programs which have amassed over the past and current century are accelerating toward a breaking point. Reformers like Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin are demonized by the nannie state supporters and big union thugs for making hard and needed choices. Why? Because like a smoker in need of a fix, free money can be intoxicating, but over time, that fix becomes a debilitating disease that cripples the people receiving it.
These generous handouts are subsidized by the tax payer, and our ranks are much larger than any labor union demanding a free ride. Our redistributed dollars can only go so far. And at the cost of roads, border security and national defense, our guaranteed entitlements are ruining those proclaimed “Blessings of Liberty” while increasing and accommodating the desires of people in need of a fix through the transfer of wealth.
Knowing this, I think we can all agree that painful cuts and reforms need to be made. We need to step back and look at the reality of the situation. After all, money doesn’t grow on trees.
ER
I’ve said this before, but it’s worth saying again. Our Declaration declares that we are, “. . . endowed by their [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
This unalienable right to pursue happiness is a gift given to us from our Creator to individually attain honorably, not a guaranteed right provided by an overbearing government.
Our Constitution – a document that is restrictive in its nature toward government – opens by proclaiming that:
"We the people of the Unites States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Unites States of America."
These basic services in which our Union provides its citizenry gives no guarantees of financial stability, no assurances of a big government safety net through bailouts and no promises of healthcare bankrolled through onerous taxes. It only declares that we have the right to live peacefully, secure in the knowledge that our Union will maintain a robust infrastructure and strong national defense.
The social programs which have amassed over the past and current century are accelerating toward a breaking point. Reformers like Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin are demonized by the nannie state supporters and big union thugs for making hard and needed choices. Why? Because like a smoker in need of a fix, free money can be intoxicating, but over time, that fix becomes a debilitating disease that cripples the people receiving it.
These generous handouts are subsidized by the tax payer, and our ranks are much larger than any labor union demanding a free ride. Our redistributed dollars can only go so far. And at the cost of roads, border security and national defense, our guaranteed entitlements are ruining those proclaimed “Blessings of Liberty” while increasing and accommodating the desires of people in need of a fix through the transfer of wealth.
Knowing this, I think we can all agree that painful cuts and reforms need to be made. We need to step back and look at the reality of the situation. After all, money doesn’t grow on trees.
ER
Middle East Turmoil Map
With more and more mid-east countries joining in on anti-government protests, it's becoming more difficult to keep track of what's going on over there. The Washington Post has put together a graph and timeline of the current turmoil.
- Washington Post: Middle East Turmoil
- FoxNews : Crude on the way up
ER
- Washington Post: Middle East Turmoil
- FoxNews : Crude on the way up
ER
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Disgrace that is NPR
NPR (National Public Radio), a supposed forum of free speech, tires “to create a more informed public - one challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas and cultures.”
That is, until you waiver from its extreme, liberal ideology.
Juan Williams, a left-leaning NPR host and Fox News contributor was fired for voicing his first amendment rights during this appearance on The O’Reilly Factor:
NPR, who has a history of being ultra liberal, showed its true colors in taking this action late Wednesday evening.
Juan Williams, an individual who is highly respected and who is also an acclaimed civil rights author was merely stating his opinion on a very controversial topic: Muslims vs. Muslim Extremists. By making that distinction, is that not a challenge to a deeper understanding of the greater Islamic culture? Presumably not. Instead, an individual gets canned (mission statement be damned) for stating a truth that already exists.
Juan spoke a hard reality that is still a very real fear in a lot of American’s minds. Rather than opening and examining this post 9/11 reality, NPR and like-minded organizations would rather turn and look the other way in the name of political correctness.
What is NPR trying to say to its audience by making this move? What are they trying to convey? Are they really trying to examine “a deeper understanding and appreciation of events” that shape our lives, or would they rather promote some elite, liberal agenda?
Overall, the core of this entire debate should not be whether NPR is ultra liberal (duh – it is) or if it should continue to be publicly funded, but rather is NPR really the open forum in which it is supposed to represent?
It seems that it is not. If a subject is uncomfortable or controversial in any way, discussion must be discarded and stifled quickly.
Juan said it best on The O'Reilly Factor by saying, “Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.”
Or should that say "afraid" to address reality?
ER
That is, until you waiver from its extreme, liberal ideology.
Juan Williams, a left-leaning NPR host and Fox News contributor was fired for voicing his first amendment rights during this appearance on The O’Reilly Factor:
NPR, who has a history of being ultra liberal, showed its true colors in taking this action late Wednesday evening.
Juan Williams, an individual who is highly respected and who is also an acclaimed civil rights author was merely stating his opinion on a very controversial topic: Muslims vs. Muslim Extremists. By making that distinction, is that not a challenge to a deeper understanding of the greater Islamic culture? Presumably not. Instead, an individual gets canned (mission statement be damned) for stating a truth that already exists.
Juan spoke a hard reality that is still a very real fear in a lot of American’s minds. Rather than opening and examining this post 9/11 reality, NPR and like-minded organizations would rather turn and look the other way in the name of political correctness.
What is NPR trying to say to its audience by making this move? What are they trying to convey? Are they really trying to examine “a deeper understanding and appreciation of events” that shape our lives, or would they rather promote some elite, liberal agenda?
Overall, the core of this entire debate should not be whether NPR is ultra liberal (duh – it is) or if it should continue to be publicly funded, but rather is NPR really the open forum in which it is supposed to represent?
It seems that it is not. If a subject is uncomfortable or controversial in any way, discussion must be discarded and stifled quickly.
Juan said it best on The O'Reilly Factor by saying, “Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.”
Or should that say "afraid" to address reality?
ER
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Gov. Perry's Letter
For those that are interested, the link below is a PDF of the letter given to President Obama by Gov. Perry during their brief meeting on the tarmac at Bergstrom International Airport in Austin. The letter highlights the need (again) for greater federal involvement along our southern border, more specifically, Texas.
Remember this statistic: “Since 2006, this [drug] war has taken 28,000 lives.”
- Gov. Perry's Letter (PDF)
ER
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
A Hell of a Mess
If you look at the US, Mexico border today, you see a political drama playing out that is somewhat reminiscent of Tom Clancy’s Clear and Present Danger.
Brutal drug cartel car bombs detonating in Ciudad Juarez. Gun battles in Nuevo Laredo. Cartel lookout posts on mountain tops – in US territory. Etc . . .
The issue which is the southern border of the United States can be described simply as this: one hell of a mess.
Washington seems to be turning a blind eye to the national security implications, or should I say, doesn’t care and even obstructs in the security of our southern border.
What was the federal response to Arizona’s time of need? File suit in federal court (with a ruling expected this Thursday) to block the right of a sovereign state to defend itself. Compound this with federal law enforcement agencies (ICE) blatantly threatening to turn away any request of federal resources is a frightening bluff (or is it) that shows the serious disconnect of D.C. and the rest of America. Oh, and by the way, maybe we should ask the Department of Justice to file suit against “sanctuary cities” like San Francisco for harboring illegal immigrants.
Raise your hand if you think that will ever happen.
And let’s not forget about the non-profit organization that is the ACLU. It is taking up the mantle of preserving the human rights of those illegally crossing our border. In the ACLU’s Immigrant Rights Project, it states that, “The fundamental constitutional protections of due process and equal protection embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to every "person" and are not limited to citizens.”
Realizing that the ACLU is one of the most influential non-profit organizations in Washington D.C., let the statement previously declared above sink in for a moment.
While you contemplate the ramifications of that, let me offer this in reply: The United States Constitution is not some new world order, all encompassing government document. It is uniquely American and applies to its citizens, not the citizens of a foreign country.
Back in May, Peggy Noonan wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal making the case of securing the border first before dealing with any other issue. Logically speaking, how can you argue against that? For the sake of our sovereign identity, shouldn’t that be the first step to comprehensive reform?
Politics aside and whatever voter base the left or the right try to appease, do what is right for a change, Washington. Do what is right for America and realize that US citizens thousands of miles away need you to do your job.
Secure the border first; the rest will fall into place.
ER
Brutal drug cartel car bombs detonating in Ciudad Juarez. Gun battles in Nuevo Laredo. Cartel lookout posts on mountain tops – in US territory. Etc . . .
The issue which is the southern border of the United States can be described simply as this: one hell of a mess.
Washington seems to be turning a blind eye to the national security implications, or should I say, doesn’t care and even obstructs in the security of our southern border.
What was the federal response to Arizona’s time of need? File suit in federal court (with a ruling expected this Thursday) to block the right of a sovereign state to defend itself. Compound this with federal law enforcement agencies (ICE) blatantly threatening to turn away any request of federal resources is a frightening bluff (or is it) that shows the serious disconnect of D.C. and the rest of America. Oh, and by the way, maybe we should ask the Department of Justice to file suit against “sanctuary cities” like San Francisco for harboring illegal immigrants.
Raise your hand if you think that will ever happen.
And let’s not forget about the non-profit organization that is the ACLU. It is taking up the mantle of preserving the human rights of those illegally crossing our border. In the ACLU’s Immigrant Rights Project, it states that, “The fundamental constitutional protections of due process and equal protection embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to every "person" and are not limited to citizens.”
Realizing that the ACLU is one of the most influential non-profit organizations in Washington D.C., let the statement previously declared above sink in for a moment.
While you contemplate the ramifications of that, let me offer this in reply: The United States Constitution is not some new world order, all encompassing government document. It is uniquely American and applies to its citizens, not the citizens of a foreign country.
Back in May, Peggy Noonan wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal making the case of securing the border first before dealing with any other issue. Logically speaking, how can you argue against that? For the sake of our sovereign identity, shouldn’t that be the first step to comprehensive reform?
Politics aside and whatever voter base the left or the right try to appease, do what is right for a change, Washington. Do what is right for America and realize that US citizens thousands of miles away need you to do your job.
Secure the border first; the rest will fall into place.
ER
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Simple Truth
This health care “reform” passed by an unruly House on Sunday is not reform at all. When the president signs this bill into law today, it will do nothing to promote ingenuity in the health care industry, nor does it make health care better. What it does do is make entitlements more addicting, which in turn, raises the expectations of those chronically addicted to the drug of free government handouts.
Mandating insurance to a people whose only requirement is to be an American is something which infringes on our rights granted to us in the Constitution.
What have we become and where do we go from here? Enter socialism.
ER
Mandating insurance to a people whose only requirement is to be an American is something which infringes on our rights granted to us in the Constitution.
What have we become and where do we go from here? Enter socialism.
ER
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Boston Tea Party . . .
- Scott Brown (GOP) - 52%
- Martha Coakley (Dem) - 47%
AP: Epic Upset
Fox Nation: Dems Running from ObamaCare
ER
Friday, January 15, 2010
Question:
If this health care reform bill is so great for the American people, why are so many representatives, groups and states getting bought off in order to secure its passage?
ER
ER
Sunday, January 10, 2010
In One Ear . . .
Does anyone in Washington listen?
What good is a Republic if our representatives don’t listen to a majority of the populous? Isn’t this a majority rule society? We elected them to speak for us, yes? To push policy which is out of touch with the constituency it represents, D.C. exudes the feel of a forum for elitist ideology rather than rational practicality of the common man.
The most recent examples:
For the current Majority in D.C.:
Overall Approval:
ER
What good is a Republic if our representatives don’t listen to a majority of the populous? Isn’t this a majority rule society? We elected them to speak for us, yes? To push policy which is out of touch with the constituency it represents, D.C. exudes the feel of a forum for elitist ideology rather than rational practicality of the common man.
The most recent examples:
- Healthcare Reform
- A Majority Favor Racial, Ethnic Profiling (National Security)
- The Use of Full Body Scanners
For the current Majority in D.C.:
Overall Approval:
ER
Thursday, December 24, 2009
America, Exit Left
We all know that over the past year, one of the President’s major objectives dating back to his campaign was an overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system. An all inclusive, government run system was preached as the answer to all of our problems for the insured and uninsured alike (which is unfortunately coming to fruition). According to Obama, our healthcare “crisis” will come to an end when Washington dictates how people should be given care (because government knows best, right?).
Against the wishes of a majority of the American people, a vote was finally brought to the Senate floor this morning, passing the Reid version of Obamacare down party lines.
Now, the big hurdle for healthcare “reform” is about to begin.
The leadership in both chambers will begin to merge two very different bills that a majority of people haven’t even read and a majority of Republicans have been left in the dark about.
Many Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, conservatives and independent thinkers have said all along that if you really want to reform the healthcare industry, work on making insurance companies more competitive. Capitalism is a good thing and competition breeds lower costs. It’s a Laissez-faire model that our country was made to emulate. Making a government umbrella to guarantee coverage for most Americans takes the U.S. one step closer to a socialist banana republic, granting citizens social services countries can’t afford. However, if we keep government away from private industry (healthcare, banking, car industry . . .), the markets will always take care and correct themselves. It’s the nature of Capitalism.
This government spends too much, period. Over the decades, it has slowly been going down a path of expansion and intrusion. It was and is the catalyst that inspired the grassroots movement of today’s Tea Party. Even though this new incarnation of the original movement isn’t based on the ideals of the first, it is of the same principle and spirit. In a representative’s eyes on Capitol Hill, it’s easy to spend money when it’s not theirs. And what happens when they spend too much? They make up for these deficiencies in spending by auctioning off bonds to communist countries so our treasury can continue to fund government expansion and entitlement programs with foreign-backed debt.
When we start to depend on our government for handouts, we lose the ability to take initiative for ourselves. Socializing medicine and allowing the federal government to take more control of our lives will do nothing but encourage dependency.
All what is happening now in Washington may be the easy way out of a problem that without question needs to be addressed, but in my experience, taking the easy road is never the right road.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not a guarantee in any venture, healthcare included.
ER
Against the wishes of a majority of the American people, a vote was finally brought to the Senate floor this morning, passing the Reid version of Obamacare down party lines.
Now, the big hurdle for healthcare “reform” is about to begin.
The leadership in both chambers will begin to merge two very different bills that a majority of people haven’t even read and a majority of Republicans have been left in the dark about.
Many Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, conservatives and independent thinkers have said all along that if you really want to reform the healthcare industry, work on making insurance companies more competitive. Capitalism is a good thing and competition breeds lower costs. It’s a Laissez-faire model that our country was made to emulate. Making a government umbrella to guarantee coverage for most Americans takes the U.S. one step closer to a socialist banana republic, granting citizens social services countries can’t afford. However, if we keep government away from private industry (healthcare, banking, car industry . . .), the markets will always take care and correct themselves. It’s the nature of Capitalism.
This government spends too much, period. Over the decades, it has slowly been going down a path of expansion and intrusion. It was and is the catalyst that inspired the grassroots movement of today’s Tea Party. Even though this new incarnation of the original movement isn’t based on the ideals of the first, it is of the same principle and spirit. In a representative’s eyes on Capitol Hill, it’s easy to spend money when it’s not theirs. And what happens when they spend too much? They make up for these deficiencies in spending by auctioning off bonds to communist countries so our treasury can continue to fund government expansion and entitlement programs with foreign-backed debt.
When we start to depend on our government for handouts, we lose the ability to take initiative for ourselves. Socializing medicine and allowing the federal government to take more control of our lives will do nothing but encourage dependency.
All what is happening now in Washington may be the easy way out of a problem that without question needs to be addressed, but in my experience, taking the easy road is never the right road.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not a guarantee in any venture, healthcare included.
ER
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
