Healthcare is NOT a Right…

Rights are inherent and are common to all human beings. There are only God given rights, rights cannot be granted by government, but they can be taken away. When people talk about healthcare being a “right” the first question we must ask is: if healthcare is a right, then the people providing healthcare are slaves. Otherwise, it can’t be a right. If a doctor or nurse is needed to provide healthcare then they can’t be forced to provide the service of healthcare.

People use the term “rights” in a way that riles up crowds of malcontents who have been persuaded they deserve something for nothing. You could call that leftism, modern liberalism, communism, or socialism, you choose. The reality is we only have a few true rights as human beings. I believe those to be, freedom to move, freedom to believe or not, freedom to speak, right to our labor, right to private property, right to privacy, right to be left alone, and the right to contract with others. Every one of those rights has one thing in common; they don’t rely on anyone else or expect something from anyone else.

Words mean things. When we use terms in society and politics it is important to use the proper terms. It is why the US Constitution was so brilliant. Just because healthcare is not a right, doesn’t mean it isn’t important. It doesn’t mean as a society we shouldn’t develop policies that help everyone to have access to good healthcare. We should use the same principles in healthcare as we do in other markets like the food industry where the growth and distribution have been able to feed the entire world. You can argue that food is just as important as healthcare. So why do we treat the distribution differently from the government perspective?

The federal government is not allowed to constitutionally do what it is doing in healthcare but it is because too many people are constitutionally illiterate, and we have a Supreme Court that has shunned its responsibility to protect it. We would be better off if we cut the funding for the federal government in half by going to a flat tax and eliminating the IRS, the Department of Education, Commerce, Energy, and Housing. That would leave plenty of money to provide for the poor and truly needy. At the state level we could decide what else we are willing to pay for as citizens. This way if we don’t like the policies we can move to another state.

The way things are we have no place to go. The freedom to move is a right that is no longer relevant when the federal government controls things they shouldn’t, like healthcare. Healthcare is not a right but it is too important to leave to an incompetent federal government…  

Egypt as an Example?

The rights of Americans freedom to assemble, and the right to petition our government are engraved in the Bill of Rights. As the President acts unconstitutionally, critics ask: “what can we do?” All we have to do is look to the example of the Egyptians that have decided they are done allowing an elected official turned tyrant to remain in power. They are assembling and petitioning and have forced this individual from the government.

This is exactly what the founders intended for our country. Thomas Jefferson was adamant about the people’s right to remove an unconstitutional government. He even suggested that future Americans would be forced to take up arms against their government and he was perfectly comfortable with that sentiment. But it would not take a violent revolution to put an end to the unconstitutional practices of this President. It would simply take Americans heading to DC to petition the government.

The President has been deciding which laws or pieces of laws he will enforce. This is unconstitutional. All of the Attorney’s General under the last five presidents agree that the way this president is choosing to enforce the laws is unconstitutional. He can’t pick and choose which parts of the law he will enforce, ignore, or change. His constitutional duty is to “faithfully execute the laws of the United States.” It doesn’t say he can pick and choose which part of or which laws he must execute faithfully.

There comes a time in every situation where action is the only option. Words, lawsuits, and op-ed pieces are being completely ignored by this president. In Egypt they have no real foundation for the actions they have taken except for the fact they know this was there only course of action. It was effective in the sense that when enough people come together the government must take notice. The numbers are overwhelming when you look at it. Three hundred million Americans marching on DC could get the attention and move this government to act according to the US Constitution.

It is not enough to talk about unconstitutional practices. It is time to march and make our grievances known. It is our constitutional duty as Americans and the defenders of our Constitutional Republic.

What will it take? How do we assemble under one banner? How do we convince our fellow Americans it is the right thing to do? How do we begin? What will be the 21^st century equivalent of the “shot heard around the world?”

The Supreme Court is Invalidating the Founder’s Intent

No matter what decision the Supreme Court reaches regarding Obamacare, the SCOTUS is and has been acting unconstitutionally for decades since FDR. The US Constitution is clear on the role of the court as are the Federal Papers and the many correspondences between the founders about its role simply as arbiter not legislator. Legislation and law were intended to be introduced and voted on in the House first and foremost. The Constitution is clear about who holds the law making responsibility. There is no alternative including interpretations of laws by the SCOTUS. They were only meant to validate or invalidate a laws legitimacy based on the founder’s intent.

Let’s start with the intent. The intended purpose of the Constitution was to limit Federal Power. The clearest and easiest evidence to understand and to support that is the Tenth Amendment. Why else would the founders/states have insisted on this addition if the intent was not to limit central power? The US Constitution would not have been ratified without the guarantee of the Bill of Rights which includes the 10^th Amendment. The Bill of Rights in total underlines the distrust the states and the people had for this newly formed central government. Today it is painfully apparent how little the power of the Tenth Amendment has been utilized in the fight to curb centralized programs, but it has seen a renewed commitment to make it relevant again.

The SCOTUS was intended by the founders to simply be the referee to ensure the legislature was only passing laws that met the limits and protections within the constitution. Madison believed the role would be utilized on a very limited basis and in the federal papers he insists the concern about precedence was unwarranted. He suggested that every case that came before the SCOTUS would be looked at from the perspective of the original intent and not subsequent cases. How wrong he was. The precedence of the SCOTUS has been used to rewrite original intent to mean whatever the court wanted it to mean. This has been seen with the Commerce Clause. Its intent was to make trade regular between the states so there was a “uniform” set of laws guiding how the states traded. The coastal states could have easily introduced additional tariffs and taxes to the other states due to their proximity and importance in the delivery of foreign goods. It was not intended to be used as a way for the federal government to force the states to comply with its wishes simply because they participated in commerce. It was more efficient to have one representative dealing with foreign governments and trade agreements so the states would not have 13 different sets of rules that could be used to divide and create mischief by foreign governments especially France and England.

There have been a number of torturous interpretations based on precedent and ideology that have slowly but surely undermined our freedoms and decisions as a people. The suggestion that if we buy something or make something that is considered “commerce” that that becomes a reasonable opportunity for the federal government to regulate it and tax it to pay for the regulation is a warped view of the constitution. There is no requirement of the SCOTUS to consider any previous cases. That is what they need to do in the Obamacare case. They need to read and look at the original intent of our constitution.

That is where the crux of my argument lies. We now have a completely politicized process that does not fundamentally begin with a review of the constitution; it begins from the ideological views of the justices. As a conservative I pray the more conservative judges begin with the constitution in this healthcare case. But no one person can argue that every decision of late that the SCOTUS has ruled on is based in politics. Yes they occasionally reference the constitution but too often reference precedence. Completely opposite of what Madison argued would be the case.

The growth and intrusiveness of the Federal Government is being refereed by a party (SCOTUS) that has a self interest in the growth of that same government. If President Obama gets to choose two or more justices for the Supreme Court does anyone believe it will be a legitimate institution to protect our founding document? We will have reached the point of a nine person dictatorship if the SCOTUS becomes all powerful in the making and determining our future laws and original intent of the Constitution.

The states and the Governors of those states along with the legislatures need to take up the cause of liberty and limited federal power. They can do that by nullifying the laws they disagree with and believe are unconstitutional. Nullification is a legitimate course of action found within the constitution. We can’t rely on the Supreme Court for much longer because it is already politicized but if this president gets a few more picks it will no longer be on the side of the people and the states.

It is time for the states and the people to read, understand, and protect the US Constitution. It is the greatest weapon in the fight for liberty. Much more reliable than any SCOTUS.   

Let’s Have a Real Debate About Faith…

If we are going to hammer the GOP candidates on faith, let’s also discuss the President’s propensity to glaze over the disturbing and violent aspects of the “Religion of Peace.” The president is apologizing for the burning of some religious books that were riddled with enemy communications, possibly communications that threaten the lives of our soldiers. In response to this act of common sense and security, we get the usual cry from the followers of “the religion of peace.” Two American soldiers are dead and still this president apologizes; outrageous.

This country was founded on Judeo Christian values and is the foundation of our civil society. We separate our religious institutions to protect them from government intrusion and meddling as we have seen recently in the mandate of religious institutions to do things that go against their conscience. Our country is the success it has been because the people of this country have always believed their rights come from a higher power than some King, dictator, or preacher. We are free because we have been endowed by our creator. We don’t follow our creator to dominate the world and kill all that do not adhere, we simply hold our government accountable through constitutional government and practice our religious beliefs in the manor we see fit. Our religious beliefs enhance our civil society by instilling virtuous values; we do not use religious beliefs to try to dominate the world.

The GOP candidates have every right to believe what they want in their religious lives, and they understand the constitutional restraints against imposing those views on civil society. But to separate living a moral life and the character we will see in the office of president are not realistic. We see a current president that has little moral grounding, and the results that he has given us in our civil society. He promotes partial birth abortion which almost every American cringes at. He supports the “religion of peace” even when they kill our soldiers over a book, fathers continue to kill their daughters and cite Sharia law, and the lunatics in the “religion of peace” are threatening to wipe every Christian off of the face of the earth simply because we are Christians. This president apologizes to them for us? Why? What have we done except try to bring some of these countries into the current century? Maybe that is our mistake that we should just allow them to treat each other the way they have since time began. Maybe we just move on.

The news media believes that by “exposing” the GOP candidate’s religious beliefs they will scare the voters back to Obama. But what are Obama’s religious beliefs? Let’s have a debate about the tenets of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. What does this president believe the role of religion is in our society? Does he believe in our founding as a Christian nation? Which founder cited Islam as a bases of our founding?

Is Islam a “religion of peace” or a violent movement to take over and dominate the world to comply with Sharia law? Is it really a religious movement or is it a political movement that needs to be treated as such? Is Christianity a danger to our civil society? If our candidates believe strongly in the 10 commandments, does that make them dangerous or desirable? Do the Jewish people pose such a threat to the world that they deserve the treatment they receive from the “religion of peace” followers?

I think we should have an open debate about the atrocities we are increasingly seeing throughout the world against the Jewish and Christian faiths. We should look very closely at how our next president perceives these threats and their feelings about the increase of Sharia law in this country. Let’s have the debate but a real debate that doesn’t gloss over the true threat of people following a “religion of peace” to the values we were built upon. Bring it on…

The Bill of Rights; A Shield Against Progressives

The “progressive” movement is a belief that as time changes the way government works must change as well. The problem with the movement is it is not founded in principle. It is not based upon any solid foundational principles which make it an enemy of individual liberty. How do we determine what needs to be changed if there are no principles?

If someone says they are progressive, ask them to define their principles of government, and how they differ from the principles in the constitution. What you will find is they have only a couple of principles and they begin with the end to your freedom. The first principle of a progressive is the belief there are people that know how to govern your life better than you. They do not believe we are all created equal or that there is a creator. They despise private property and due process. They squirm at free speech that disagrees with their free speech. They want everyone to get the same civics education; theirs. They despise history and our founders. These only scratch the surface of their contempt for you and liberty.

When you read the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments to the constitution) remember the “principles” of progressives and determine which movement has your best interest at heart; the constitutional movement or the progressive movement?

• First Amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How do you change a right to free speech for the better? Do we want the government establishing our faith? What would you change?

• Second Amendment – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is one of the most attacked amendments in the constitution. Progressives believe our rights to defend ourselves and freedom should be determined by the same government our founders feared so much that they included this amendment in the constitution.

• Third Amendment – No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Do we want to allow our military to invade our homes at will? I don’t think that principle has changed over time.

• Fourth Amendment – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This amendment is fundamental to keeping government out of our personal affairs, limiting their ability to search us without probable cause. I believe much of the Patriot Act has dangerously ignored this amendment. It is politically popular with conservatives until they read the act. When reading the Patriot Act a chill should run up your spine. 9/11 and fear has created an environment that has given pause to this amendment.

• Fifth Amendment – No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This is due process, double jeopardy, self incrimination, and eminent domain. Has the world progressed where these rights need to be changed?

• Sixth Amendment – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

• Seventh Amendment – In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

• Eighth Amendment – Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

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

• Tenth Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I ask you to honestly review these rights and determine what you would change. Be careful what you ask for; it may cost you your liberty from a progressive and over reaching federal government...