Newt Gingritch Just Doesn't Get It

"The news wasn't all good last night.

Both conservative activists and Republican leaders need to think long and hard about the only bad result of the night in New York's 23rd congressional district.

The Democrat beat the conservative candidate 49 percent to 44 percent, with the Republican getting only 5%.

Conservatives can take comfort in having driven a liberal Republican out of the race. But everyone on our side has to be troubled that a Republican seat went to a Democrat and Speaker Pelosi is one vote stronger because of our division."

~Newt Gingritch

HEY NEWT! DO YOU THINK SCOZZAFAVA WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED WITH THE DEMOCRATS ON EVERY MAJOR ISSUE?!?! NEWS FLASH: SHE WAS AS LIBERAL, IF NOT MORE SO, THAN THE DEMOCRAT!

And what is this division within the Republican party you speak of? We are not divided. We are more united behind Conservative principles than we have been in a long time!

Furthermore, I doubt Speaker Pelosi is one vote stronger, but rather a great deal votes weaker as many Blue Dog Democrats will look at these election results and think twice about voting for her radical leftist agenda.

Retraction

In my last post I wrote the following:

"The Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."
~Barack Obama in his thesis, "Aristocracy Reborn", at Columbia University.

After further research, I discovered that the original source for this quote was a satire peace in a blog. Barack Obama did not write this.

Obama's Problem With the Constitution

"The Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."
~Barack Obama in his thesis, "Aristocracy Reborn", at Columbia University.

As you can imagine, I have several problems with this statement.

First... "The so called Founders"?!

Second... How can you have economic freedom when someone is taking away your wealth in order to give it to non-achievers?

Hey President Obama, perhaps the "so called Founders" didn't mention redistribution of wealth because they didn't believe in it!

Here is Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6th, 1816: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address, March 4th, 1801: "A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

Thomas Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Governments of the United States of America, 1787: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

If Adams is right, we are closer to anarchy and tyranny than ever before. Could it be that it is all by design?


Note: After further research, I discovered that the original source for this quote was a satire peace in a blog. Barack Obama did not write this.

Nobel Peace Prize or The Neutering of Our President?

Whether President Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize is not my concern. What concerns me is why he got it. Why did the world decide to bestow this upon our President at such a time as this? The following is what John Pedhoretz of the CONTENTIONS blog with Commentary Magazine had to say on the issue:

I can’t agree with my colleagues here on CONTENTIONS that a) Barack Obama should reject the Nobel Peace Prize or b) be embarrassed by it. The Nobel Committee chose him wisely because he does, in fact, represent the organization’s highest ideals.

He is an American president queasy about the projection of American power. He is an American president who rejects the notion of American exceptionalism. He is an American president eagerly in pursuit of legitimacy to be granted him not by those who voted for him but by those who do not cast a vote and who chafe at American leadership. It is his devout wish that America become one of many nations, influencing the world indirectly or not influencing it at all, rather than “the indispensable nation,” as Madeleine Albright characterized it. He is the encapsulation, the representative, the wish fulfillment, the very embodiment, of the multilateralist impulse. He is, almost literally, a dream come true for the sorts of people who treasure and value the Nobel Peace Prize.

It’s the most obvious choice, once you think about it, since Michael Moore won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine.

Unfortunately, I think John isn’t too far from the truth. The world does not like the idea of America as the lone superpower. Why is that? It is because a strong America threatens and undermines the many aspirations of tyranny and thuggery around the world. A weak America stands in no one’s way.

John brings up the idea of American exceptionalism. What is American exceptionalism? Is it a nationalist thing similar to the nationalism that arose in Germany under the Third Reich? Is it a dangerous idea and something that should be shunned? The short answer is, “No”.

American exceptionalism recognizes that, in the history of a world dominated by tyranny and oppression, America is the one exception to that rule. While other nations go to war to conquer, we go to war to liberate. When other nations have defeated their enemies, they rape, pillage, plunder and enslave their people and resources. When America defeats her enemies, she rebuilds their cities and lives. America’s military might is unrivalled in history. If she wanted to, she could conquer the world, but she doesn’t want to.

American exceptionalism recognizes that in her short history, the United States has become the most dominant economic power ever and has, in the process, exported economic advancement and opportunity around the world. Our economic system does not take from other nations, but trades with other nations. Our economic system does not redistribute a finite pie, but rather expands the pie with a rising tide that lifts all boats.

American exceptionalism recognizes that Americans, as a people, are no different than anyone else. We are not better human beings. Our DNA is no different. We are not a superior race. In fact, we are not even comprised of a single race but we are a melting pot of all races. How then, in our short history, did we become the most powerful nation both economically and militarily in the history of nations?

It is our founding documents and the ideas behind them that made this possible. The idea of individual liberty and freedom which is endowed by our Creator and which government cannot infringe upon has unleashed the unlimited power and potential of individuals pursuing their dreams and aspirations. That is why America is an exceptional nation; it is because we are free to do be exceptional.

However, this idea of freedom and liberty is a threat to the norm. It is a threat to the tyrannical thugs and dictators that have dominated the history of mankind. It is a threat to those who oppress the individual in order to lift themselves up. It is a threat to evil.

So, the world finally has an American President who agrees with them. He agrees that America should not have such a dominant role. He agrees with them that America is the cause of the world’s problems, not the solution. America and the ideas behind her are standing in the way of tyranny and oppression. If she could just be cut down to size, the dictators of the world would have nothing standing in their way of achieving what they desire. There would be no one to stop them.

The world has sent a message to President Obama. First, they rejected his presentation for Chicago’s Olympic bid. “This isn’t about you”, they said. “It is about what we want.” Then they award him the Nobel Peace Prize. “Don’t even think about upping the ante in Afghanistan. You can’t accept the Nobel Peace Prize and then send more troops to conduct America’s imperialistic war. And while you are at it, continue to placate the Achmadinijads, Hugo Chaves’, Fidel Castros and Kim Jung Ills around the world in the name of peace.”

How can President Obama now take a stand for the American people on anything? Here is a man so consumed by his ego that he will not even consider jeopardizing his reputation as a peace-maker in the eyes of the world leaders he loves so much. Iran is now free to nuke up and go after Israel. North Korea is now free to go after South Korea. Russia is now free to entertain its aspirations for Georgia and the Ukraine. China is now free to finally go after Taiwan. Hugo Chaves is now free to do anything he likes in South America. America will not stand in their way. Her President will not ruin his image as a Nobel Peace Prize winner. President Obama, who only had one ball to begin with, has just been neutered by the world.

Do We Have Servant Leadership in Washington Or Are We Serving Leaders in Washington?

I recently read an article that talked about the different traits of servant-leadership. They include, listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community. Our leaders in Washington need to do some reading on servant-leadership with all the free time they have from not reading the massive legislative pieces they are rushing through.

Servant-leaders listen. Rather than listening to the American people express their concern over HR3200, many in Washington brush them off as organized unruly mobs.

Servant leaders are empathetic. While they claim to be empathetic, many of our leaders in Washington refuse to empathize with the unborn, the poor who are held back by government programs, and the individuals and companies paying high taxes to fund their pet projects.

Servant-leaders promote healing. Many of our leaders in Washington promote racial and class divisions every chance they get in order to further their political aspirations.

Servant-leaders persuade. If I was a Congressman with a bill that I believe whole heartedly in, I would hold as many town hall meetings as I could, be informed of the bill that I believed so passionately in, and would do everything I could to show the American people just how good it is. Many of our leaders in Washington are refusing to even hold town hall meetings or are stacking them with paid supporters.

Servant leaders conceptualize. I wonder if our leaders in Washington actually think about the bad consequences of their good intentions. For example, the cash for clunkers program forced dealers to destroy perfectly good used cars, reducing the supply and thus driving up the price for the poor who cannot afford a new car.

Servant leaders demonstrate foresight. Most of our leaders in Washington lacked the foresight to see how forcing banks to provide mortgages to people who couldn’t afford it would negatively affect the housing market and the economy as a whole (or if they did see it, they didn’t care, which is worse).

Servant leaders are stewards. We are trillions of dollars in debt with trillion dollar deficits over the next ten years. Need I say more?

Servant leaders are committed to the growth of people (the world’s smallest minority is the individual). Our leaders in Washington are committed to growing government, not people.

Finally, servant leaders build community. The family is the fundamental building block of communities and society. Our leaders in Washington tear down and destroy the family. For example, most government assistance programs promote single parenthood, contributing to the destruction of African-American community, the very group these programs were intended to help (see also foresight and conceptualization).

I think it is high time the American people remind Washington just who it is they work for. Can anyone say, “Term limits for Congress”?

When Do We Get an Apology?

Since President Barack Hussein Obama refuses to produce a birth certificate to shatter once and for all the growing hopes that he is not a citizen of the United States, and thus violating the Constitution in yet another way, he can technically make his name be anything he wants it to be. In that spirit, let us name him appropriately. Hell, we can add on as many last names as we want, as far as I see it, because we don’t really know what his name is. So I hear by declare his name to be Barack Hussein Marx Chaves Nifong Chamberlain Fonda Obama, which I believe is quite fitting. The great thing is we can always add more names on as needed.

As Barack Hussein Marx Chaves Nifong Chamberlain Fonda Obama loves to go around the world apologizing for America, I have compiled a list of people that he actually needs to apologize to. First, President Barack Hussein Marx Chaves Nifong Chamberlain Fonda Obama should apologize to all police officers and law enforcement personnel for making their already tough job even harder, calling the Cambridge Police stupid without admittedly knowing the facts of the case. For the President of the United States to even weigh in on what is a local issue and then take a side without knowing what happened - it is more than irresponsible - it is downright criminal. By doing so, he has reinforced the attitude of many criminals that cops are corrupt, racist thugs. His actions are disgusting and despicable. He should apologize.

Second, Barack Hussein Marx Chaves Nifong Chamberlain Fonda Obama should apologize to all service men and women who are fighting for our freedom. He recently stated that victory is not his objective in Afghanistan. Well Mr. President, I can guaran-damn-tee you victory is the objective of every single soldier, airman, sailor and Marine in harms’ way. If victory isn’t the objective, then why are we over there? Not only should you apologize to the troops, you should apologize to the wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, children, and siblings of all who have gave the ultimate sacrifice fighting to achieve victory over groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. I do not know if you realize this or not Mr. President, but there can be no peace or security without victory. It isn’t like Al Qaeda and the Taliban have a collective bargaining agreement and will go on strike on a predetermined date if their contract isn’t renewed with certain concessions from Allah, such as a guaranteed pension and health benefits. It’s not like they are all going to retire in 2012. Any Commander in Chief who states that victory is not his objective in a military operation should be impeached. You should apologize.

Third, President Barack Hussein Marx Chaves Nifong Chamberlain Fonda Obama should apologize to the 47% of Americans who did not vote for him, who did not want his “hope and change.” He certainly has not even given their concerns a passing thought as he has rammed through the Porkulous Bill, and is trying to ram a health care take over and cap and tax initiative which will devastate the U.S. economy. Less you have forgotten, Mr. President, you are the President of all Americans, both those who voted for you and those who did not. Your arrogant attitude that your narrow, ACORN aided victory gives you carte blanche to do whatever you please, the people be damned, is far from presidential. Rather, it is reminiscent of every dictator and totalitarian that has walked the planet. You should apologize.

Fourth, President Barack Hussein Marx Chaves Nifong Chamberlain Fonda Obama should appologize to the nation's doctors, who dedicate their lives to saving and improving the life and health of others, for accusing them of unnecessarily removing organs of children for profit. Mr. President, evertime I think you can't stoop any lower, I am unpleasantly surprised the next time you open your mouth. Do us all a favor, Sir, and let that bumbling idiot of a press secretary do all the talking from now on. Heck, even Vice President Biden's perpetual foot diet would be a welcome relief to having to listen to the whining, complaining, demonizing, and false rhetoric spewed forth from your mouth every day. You should apologize.

Barely seven months have gone by in your administration and you have succeeded in apologizing to everyone but those who truly deserve an apology from you. I haven’t even mentioned the Founding Fathers and every American who has worked to make this nation what it is today, the greatest nation on earth, the nation that you want to change. You better get busy Mr. President. You’ve got a lot of apologizing left to do.

International Norms?

What's with Obama referring to "international norms" when reasoning why the Iranian government is out of line? If Hitler had prevailed in WWII, or if the Soviet Union won the Cold War, or if militant Islam gets it's way, international norms would be quite different from what they are today. Obama can't bring himself to recognize that we as human beings are endowed by our Creator with certain unailenable rights, including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. For Obama, rights are whatever he or government says they are.

The Healthcare Solution, Personal Responsibility or Tyranny?

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ~ C. S. Lewis

It is alarming to think that the United States is on the verge of such a tyranny. Should President Obama succeed in passing socialized health care (no matter what he calls it), there would be nothing standing in the way of government bureaucrats regulating any behavior on the basis of keeping health care costs down. From the kind of car you drive, to the type of food you eat, to your recreational activities, nothing will be immune from regulation, taxation, and red-tape hassle. It would indeed be a tyranny of the worst kind.

There is an alternative to socialized medicine that would actually work, would actually bring costs down, and would make health care more affordable to all. It’s is something that this nation was founded upon and helped make us so great. It’s called personal responsibility.

Safeway, for example, believes that well-designed health-care reform, utilizing market-based solutions, can ultimately reduce our nation's health-care bill by 40%. The key to achieving these savings is health-care plans that reward healthy behavior. As a self-insured employer, Safeway designed just such a plan in 2005 and has made continuous improvements each year. The results have been remarkable. During this four-year period, Safeway kept their per capita health-care costs flat (that includes both the employee and the employer portion), while most American companies' costs have increased 38% over the same four years.

TORT Reform would dramatically reduce costs as doctors would no longer have to administer every inconceivable test under the sun when a patient comes in with a headache out of fear of frivolous lawsuits.

The ability of insurance companies to offer lower coverage, less expensive plans to healthy young people would dramatically lower premiums. Instead, insurance companies are forced to include hundreds of procedures that most people never use in their plans, making insurance unnecessary for some and unaffordable for many. People would be able to choose coverage that works for them, not the unnecessary coverage that is currently forced on them by our benevolent government.

However, none of these steps are being proposed or even considered in Washington. This should come as no surprise. Steps like these would mean that the government has less control over individual behavior rather than more. What's wrong with that? After all, it’s for our own good, right?

And Justice For All...

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs commented Wednesday on some of the controversy surrounding President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. “I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation.”

Thus I urge you, if you wish to discuss the following with anyone, please take precautions. Close the blinds. Go into the bathroom. Shut the door. Turn on the shower. Speak in hushed tones. In fact, read no further until you are sure that you were not followed, you have swept the room for bugs, and are certain you are alone.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled that ownership of a gun is not a constitutional right. Let me repeat that. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled that ownership of a gun is not a constitutional right.

I think even a second grader in our public school system understands the 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.”
Sonia Sotomayor is hailed as being empathetic by the Left. Empathy is the last quality you want in a judge. Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason. Justice does not know whether you are rich or poor, white or black, tall or short, male or female. Justice demands that all are held accountable to the law and all are equal under the law. This is not Sonia Sotomayor’s position.

Her position is that her experience as a female Latino leads her to better decisions than say a white guy. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” Can you imagine Justice Roberts stating that his experience as a white male leads him to make better conclusions that a Latino woman? He would immediately be targeted as a racist, and rightly so.

We should not be surprised that such an outright racist, anti-constitutionalist was Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court. After all, he sees the Constitution as a constraint and the “fundamental flaw” of our nation.

Obama: “As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution at least as its been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that… I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and -- and -- and that the framers had that same blind spot. I -- I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

Thomas Jefferson did not see restraints on government as negative. To him and the rest of the Founders this was essential in order to protect individual liberty! “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

Obama: “This woman is brilliant. She is qualified. I want her confirmed. I want her walking up those marble steps and starting to provide some justice” For President Obama, the Supreme Court has yet to provide justice because justice would be “redistributive change.” Justice would be taking wealth from those who have worked for and acquired it and giving it to the poor. For President Obama, justice is siding with one side because of race, gender, or social status regardless of the law or the Constitution. For President Obama, justice is whatever he and Jeremiah Wright determine it to be.

The Founding Fathers would be saddened today, but not shocked. They predicted the era we now live in. Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to Charles Hammond August 18th, 1821. “It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary;... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

The Morality of Dissent

“I want him to fail!” With these words radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh sparked a nationwide controversy. But has anyone who is condemning his remarks stopped for a minute and asked themselves why Mr. Limbaugh or anyone would want the President of the United States to fail? Furthermore, is it wrong to want President Obama or any leader to fail or should we always support our leaders one hundred percent?

The first thing one needs to ask is what does President Obama succeeding mean? If it means that the federal government will take over a vast majority of the private sector, then one would be right in hoping that President Obama fails in implementing the agenda he set out to achieve. Government running anything never works. History is replete with examples of this. So far it has been barely one hundred days and the federal government now has major stakes in all aspects of our economy, from housing, to the banks, to the auto companies. Do we seriously think that federal bureaucrats will be able to run these industries and companies better than people who have been doing so all their lives?

Before you hastily point out that we are in a recession precisely because the private sector failed, consider this. The private sector has not been running their businesses and industries for years. Instead, the economy has been indirectly run by Washington lawmakers through their erroneous regulation. Let’s look at every aspect of the economy that failed, igniting the recession we are currently mired in, starting with the collapse of the housing market.

During the Carter administration Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.), designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation.

In other words, banks were forced by law to make loans to people who could not afford them. In order to get the monthly payment down to where they could qualify banks came up with all sorts of sub-prime, interest only, ARM mortgage options (referred to as “predatory lending” by the very people who passed the law requiring it). Suddenly, there was a tremendous influx of people who could now “afford” to buy a home. This created a false demand in the housing market, which made housing prices skyrocket. (Ironically the CRA was passed with the intention of making housing affordable. In the end, it did just the opposite). As long as the “values” continued to rise, those loans were “worth” something. People could borrow against them, sell them, or what have you. But when the payments started to rise dramatically, suddenly the bottom fell out when thousands could no longer afford the monthly payments and simply stopped paying. The false demand went away and housing values plummeted or reset to where they should have been all along.

At the same time, the domestic auto companies were starting to struggle. For years they had built cars that Americans wanted, cars that met individuals’ needs or egos. Americans have a love affair with their cars. It comes with the American spirit, that yearning to be free, to be self reliant, to be independent rather than dependant on anything, especially public transportation. The reasons Americans buy cars are as diverse as the people themselves. Some buy muscle cars because they like to go fast. Some buy trucks or SUVs to haul their family, groceries, or a boat. Others use their vehicles for business, some purely for pleasure. No matter how they use their vehicles, one thing remains consistent. The majority of Americans buy vehicles, not as simply a means to get from point A to point B, but primarily as a statement of their individuality. Your car says something about you and for years the Big Three made cars that said something about the people that bought them. They designed cars that the consumer wanted and they designed cars based on the premise of a cheap, abundant source of fuel.

But then the government started to get involved. CAFÉ standards, emissions, and fuel economy regulations were passed, but it didn’t end there. Every year new regulations came out and the auto makers had to redesign their cars to comply. Every year the federal government refused to allow oil companies who are experts at exploring and drilling for oil explore and drill the vast quantities of oil that resided under our land and off of our coasts. We became dependent on foreign sources from nations that really didn’t like us very much for any number of reasons. Finally, the day came when supply could not keep up with demand and gas prices shot through the roof. Americans stopped buying as many cars. Gas was expensive and their mortgages were becoming difficult to keep up with. Besides, who wanted to go through all the hassle and frustration inherent when dealing with the DMV to get another license and registration? (Imagine healthcare being run like that).

President Obama has said he wants to “return the nation’s wealth to its rightful owners.” What does he mean by this? If the first one hundred days are any indication, he wants to confiscate it from the people who earned it and give it to those who did not. For example, the bondholders who invested in Chrysler to the tune of 25 billion dollars were forced by the Obama administration to give up their claim on their investment to pennies on the dollar and got ten percent of the company. The federal government invested about 10 billion and received 35 percent. The UAW, who didn’t hold any bonds, received 55 percent of Chrysler. Is that fair? Is that right? Who is going to ever trust a bond again?

The Obama administration has meticulously attacked the private sector in the United States. Executives are now scared to fly their private jets for fear of PR repercussions. Orders for jets are being cancelled. People who work for Lear or Cessna are losing their jobs. Companies are afraid to throw conventions or getaways for their employees or customer to thank them for their hard work or loyalty because of PR repercussions. The hotel and travel industry is laying off hundreds of thousands as a result.

Do I want this to fail? Absolutely! I cannot support something that I know will not work. I cannot support something that I know is causing harm to millions of Americans. I cannot support something that I know will saddle my children and grandchildren with massive debts and tax burdens.

I do not want Obama to continue to implement policies that are destroying the foundation of this country so that he can “remake America.” He does not have the Constitutional right to do so. I do not want people to continue to lose their jobs. I do not want government to run our economy into the ground any more. Centralized planning never works. Just ask Russia. After seeing what he is doing, it would be immoral and illogical to not oppose President Obama. Yet, like cultists blindly following their leader, millions of Americans refuse to ask whether what President Obama is doing is actually good for them and their family.

I believe it was Hillary Clinton who said “we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.” Where is that cry now? There are not many out there with the guts to declare it.

Red Envelope Day

Friends:

This is a great idea. I hope all will follow and join in the effort. It doesn't require much effort or money but the impact will make our President think.

RED ENVELOPE DAY
March 31, 2009

Get a red envelope. You can buy them at Kinkos, or at party and office supply stores. On the front, address it to:

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington , DC 20500

On the back, write the following message:

"This envelope represents one child who died because of an abortion. It is empty because the life that was taken is now unable to be a part of our world."

Then mail the envelope on March 31st, 2009.

President Obama has pledged to support and sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which will essentially "undo" every law currently in place to limit abortion in the U.S. , i.e., parental consent laws, parental notification, waiting periods, prohibition of transporting a minor girl across state lines to obtain an abortion, etc.

It may seem that those who believe abortion is wrong are in a minority. It may seem like we have no voice and it's shameful to even bring it up. Let us show our President and the world that the voices of those of us who do not believe abortion is acceptable are not silent and must be heard.

An empty red envelope will send a message to President Barack Obama that there is moral outrage in this country over this issue. It is a quiet, but clear message of protest.

Please forward this message to every one of your friends who you think would send one too. I wish we could send 50 million red envelopes, one for every child who has died before having a chance to live since Roe v Wade legalized abortion in the US 36 years ago.

Debating Dissent

Rush Limbaugh’s comment that he wants President Obama to fail has led to a firestorm in the mainstream media. But is anyone talking about how perhaps the President should fail if his policies would be bad for the nation? It seems like the only one saying this is the icon of Conservative talk radio himself. Everyone else is caught up in the notion that a successful president translates into a successful country. If you debate and disagree with the President, suddenly you are unpatriotic.
Where have I heard that line before? It seems so eerily familiar…

Oh! That’s right! Hillary Clinton uttered something like that… where did I put it? Ah! Here it is!

“I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this [Bush] administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration!”

Where is this now? Where is the questioning of those in authority? It certainly isn't happening in the media. What was intended to be the watchdog of government by our Founders has become the guardog of government and the lapdog of Democrat politicians. Where is the debate and dialogue that can only help implement the right solution for this so called crisis? We should be bringing all ideas to the table if it is as bad as they say. Suddenly it is unpatriotic to do anything but bow down or bend over, whichever you prefer.

Bill Sammon points out this hypocrisy in his latest article. He is spot on.

How The President and Democrats in Congress are Killing Jobs

Washington politicians, including President Obama, have recently taken to using McCarthy like tactics to demonize corporations who host conventions and parties for their employees or customers or spend money on other “frivolous” activities. Bank of America, who along with several other banks, was forced to take bailout money by then Secretary of Treasury, Hank Paulson, recently came under fire for hosting a lavish Super Bowl party. Citigroup refused delivery of a new jet after pressure from the White House. AIG came under fire for spending $125 million for the priviledge of having its logo appear on the British soccer team, Manchester United’s uniforms. Merrill Lynch was ridiculed by the White House for spending $1.2 million renovating its corporate office.

The question is, when a company like Merrill spends $1.2 million renovating an office, what does that do, what happens? The answer is quite simple, STIMULUS. Stimulus happens. A contractor, decorator, drywallers, carpenters, and painters were hired. A furniture company was able to sell its products. The little guys, the very ones who the Obama administration and Democrats claim to stand for, benefit from these “lavish excesses”. What happens when corporations stop throwing conventions or lavish parties for their employees and customers? Lawrence Geller, President and CEO of Strategic Hotels and Resorts recently shed some light on the damage being done by our benevolent leaders in Washington.

“The hyperbole and rhetoric was notched up to gigantic levels during this recent political debate season. The bookings of our meetings have cut down drastically. We've lost an awful lot of major businesses, and it's not just those receiving government bailouts that are affected, but there's a general fear of criticism by people not only making the bookings but people attending these conferences so it's really got out of hand because the meetings and conference business is absolutely essentially to this nation. We lost 200,000 jobs last year. We thought if things went the same way we'd lose 240,000. This year, since the hyperbole got ratcheted up to these levels, we're on track to lose 350, 400,000 jobs. The ripple through the economy is gigantic, lodging and tourism is the third largest retail business in the country.”

You may be thinking, “Well, it’s the rich that goes to these things anyway, so why should I care?” The fact of the matter is the rich, except maybe the hotel owners, are not directly affected by this trend. The people that do these meetings are stopping because they are afraid of criticism from the president of the United States. The president of the United States personally is shutting down a large part of the travel and leisure industry in this country, purely on the basis of class envy. But who is really getting hurt? Aside from the hotel owners, who works at hotels? Who works in the travel and leisure business? It's the very little guy that the Obama administration and Democrats claim to stand for. If there are no guests arriving, if there are no conferences being held, if there's no food being prepared and consumed, if there are no hotel rooms being occupied, then there's no work for the maids and there's no work for the kitchen personnel, there's no work for any of the staff in the hotel and they get laid off. This is the grim reality of Obama’s politics that everyone is ignoring.

President Obama, you claim that you want to save jobs. You can start by putting an end to the class envy game you are playing because it is costing a lot of little guys their jobs. For some reason, I don’t think you really care about that. Maybe it is because you have not demonstrated that you do. You talk a good talk, but your actions speak louder than words. Is it because the more people who are out of a job and have to depend on the government to get by are all the more people who will vote for your government programs, and ultimately, you? This isn’t hope and change Mr. President; this is sick.

How President Bush Returned to the Founders' Intent

The 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush, has come under fire from both ends of the political spectrum for his Constitutional record in regards to his administration’s conduct in the ongoing war on terrorism. Indeed, over these past eight years the country has witnessed the growing collection of journalistic and legal literature cataloguing the alleged trampling of the United States Constitution. The examples are numerous. On December 16, 2005 The New York Times declared that “Bush lets U.S. spy on callers without courts.” USA Today affirmed that the “NSA has [a] massive database of Americans’ phone calls… [which] reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans – most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime.” The Washington Post leaked the news that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was operating secret prisons around the world at which an unknown and unidentified group of prisoners was being held. The country also learned that the CIA and Treasury Department, “[u]nder a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism… gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States.” Numerous lawsuits, challenging the Bush Administration’s counterterrorism policies are moving up through the U.S. court system ranging from groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Even the Cato Institute, a renowned conservative think tank and public policy research foundation, bashed President Bush’s Constitutional record. “Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad…”


Has President Bush trampled the Constitution or has he acted in accordance with what the Founding Fathers intended for the Executive Branch? In the following pages, we will endeavor to answer this very question. For our purposes here, we will only be examining the Bush record in regards to his administration’s actions concerning foreign policy and the war on terrorism. To be able to pass judgment on President Bush’s Constitutional record we must first understand what the Founders intended for the Executive Branch and how it fit into their view concerning the role of government as a whole. This will be done through a thorough examination of some of the Framers, such as George Clinton, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, their writings in regards to the Executive Branch and the Constitution, the Presidential selection process they chose, and, where applicable, how those Framers who held the highest office in the land conducted themselves.

Some of the Founders understandably feared any amount of executive power; they had just emerged from under the tyranny of King George the Third. One of these men was George Clinton. Clinton was extremely active in securing independence from Great Britain and establishing a new government. He was elected to the Continental Congress, voted for the Declaration of Independence but was called into service as a brigadier general under Washington before he could sign it, served as the first governor of New York, voted to ratify the Constitution, was the Vice President under both Jefferson and Madison, and is credited with being the pseudonymous author, “CATO”, of the Anti-Federalist Papers, a collections of essays which appeared in New York newspapers during the ratification debates.

In the Anti-Federalist Papers no. 67, Clinton compares the executive branch provided in the Constitution to the King of England. “And wherein does this president, invested with his powers and prerogatives, essentially differ from the king of Great Britain (save as to name, the creation of nobility, and some immaterial incidents, the offspring of absurdity and locality)?” He warns of the dangers of amassing power in the hands of one man. “It is, therefore, obvious to the least intelligent mind to account why great power in the hands of a magistrate, and that power connected with considerable duration, may be dangerous to the liberties of a republic. The deposit of vast trusts in the hands of a single magistrate enables him in their exercise to create a numerous train of dependents.”

At first, Clinton apposed the newly drafted Constitution mainly based upon his concerns regarding the Executive Branch and the power of the federal government as a whole. In the end, however, he voted to ratify the Constitution. What changed? The answer is simply the Bill of Rights. This is an important point because it underscores what the Founding Fathers, even those who apposed a stronger, more centralized government than that provided by the Articles of Confederation, saw as the primary purpose of government, the protection of individual liberties. The Declaration of Independence, which states the Founders’ reasons for separating from the government of England, declares, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The preamble to the Constitution proclaims, “We the People, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” For the Founding Fathers, rights were not granted by government; they were unalienable. Thus, government, which is established to protect those rights, must recognize them. The inclusion of the Bill of Rights fulfilled this requirement for men like George Clinton.


Most of the Founding Fathers did not share Clinton’s concerns regarding the Executive Branch. Many of them feared the power of an unchecked legislative branch even more. One such man was Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, political philosopher, and among the first to call for the Constitutional Convention, although his role was somewhat limited. Due to his outspoken support of a strong, independent executive, Hamilton acquired the reputation in some circles as a monarchist. His main achievement is arguably his role in co-authorship, along with John Jay and James Madison, of The Federalist Papers, which “are more often cited than any other primary source by jurists, lawyers, historians and political scientists as the major contemporary interpretation of the Constitution.”

In The Federalist Papers no. 51, Hamilton declared that “in republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” The remedy was to divide the legislature into two competing branches, but for Hamilton, that was still not enough. “It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.” Hamilton is arguing that a stronger executive is needed to check usurpations of legislative power.

Another Founder who shared Hamilton’s views regarding the role of the executive was James Madison, who served as the fourth President of the United States, became known as the Father of the Constitution through the strong role he played in the Constitutional Convention and the ratification by the states. Though Madison was a shy man, he was one of the more outspoken members of the Continental Congress. Madison's draft of the Virginia Plan and his revolutionary three-branch federal system became the basis for the Constitution. Finally, Madison authored the Bill of Rights, which he intitially apposed for several reasons. First, “a specific bill of rights remained unnecessary because the Constitution itself was a bill of rights.” Furthermore, it was unnecessary, since it purported to protect against powers that the federal government had not been granted; it was dangerous, since enumeration of some rights might be taken to imply the absence of other rights; and at the state level, bills of rights had proven to be useless paper barriers against government powers. However, in order to get the support of Anti-Federalists like George Clinton, Madison eventually authored and supported the Bill of Rights.

Madison also was very outspoken against he dangers of amassing too much power in the legislative branch. In his Federalist Papers no. 48, Madison talked about “the danger from legislative usurpations, which, by assembling all power in the same hands, must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations.” Like Hamilton, he agreed that a strong, independent executive was needed in order to guard against legislative usurpations. They feared a tyranny of the masses just as much, if not more, than the tyranny of one. For the Founding Fathers, individual freedom and liberty must be protected above all else, even from the people themselves. After all, a right is not unalienable if it can be voted away. Protecting individual freedom and liberty and preserving it for future generations was, for them, the primary purpose of government.

The question now arises, if the Founders were so jealous of individual liberties and distrusted government so, why would they even set up a strong federal government? The answer to this question lies in their secondary purpose of government, to provide for the common defense. A weak government, while it may not be able to infringe as easily upon individual liberties, cannot effectively protect the nation as a whole from attacks and foreign invasions or civil insurrections, thus, leaving vulnerable the very liberties it was established to protect. However, a strong government is better suited to infringe upon liberty. The solution to this “Catch 22" situation was to separate the power within the federal government, assigning different primary powers, functions, and responsibilities for each branch, making them accountable one to another by each, in essence, competing for more and more power. In his book, The Rhetorical Presidency, Jeffrey K. Tulis illustrates this very point.

"Ensuring the protection of liberty and individual rights was one element of effective governance as concieved by the founders, but not the only one. Government was also needed to ensure the security of the nation and to implement policies that reflected popular will. These three governmental objectives might conflict; for example, popular opinion might favor policies that violate rights. Seperation of powers was thought to be an institutional way of accommidating the tensions between governmental objectives."

The three objectives were mixed among the branches, but each one was given a priority. Congress was to implement policies that reflected popular will. The Court was to ensure the protection of liberty and individual rights, and the Executive was to ensure the security of the nation. For example, if Congress passes a law that infringes upon individual liberties, the Court is supposed to dispassionately strike it down. If the President oversteps his bounds, Congress holds the power of impeachment and the Court can render his actions unlawful. The Court is checked through nomination and confirmation and the ability of the people to override a court decision via constitutional amendment. In essence, the Founders set up a strong government with institutional roadblocks, obstacles, and an innate ability to accomplish seemingly nothing except when it came to one thing, national defense.

In Article II of the Constitution, the Founders outlined the role of the President of the United States, vesting in him the power to adminster the laws passed by Congress and to be “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”, thus making the President’s primary objective the security and defense of the nation. This role is further emphasized in the Presidential Oath of Office also articulated in Article II. All government officers swear to defend the Constitution, but only the President swears to the “best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This oath highlights the energy the Founding Fathers envisioned for the Executive branch. The President was to do everything to the best of his ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and ulitimately the nation.

This primary obligation of the President is reenforced even further by the means of selection the Framers chose. They chose indirect selection by electors over direct popular election in order to insulate the President from the pressures of fickle popular sentiment. James W. Ceaser in Presidential Selection: Theory and Development, summs up the properties the Founders viewed as ideal in a President.

"The Properties in the executive sought by the Founders can be summarized as follows. In negative terms, they wanted to prevent the president from defining himself and from being looked upon as a populae favorite. The president might earn the people’s respect, but he was not to solicit their favor. In positive terms, the Founders looked to the president ot lend “energy” i.e. firmness and competence, to the government and to provide a source of statemanship."

Another reason the Framers sought to insulate the Presidency from popular opinion was to guard against the dangers of demagoguery. “The possibility of a national demagogue was one of the greatest fears of the Founders and literally frames The Federalist, being mentioned in both the first and the last numbers.” In order for a President to effectively defend the nation, he may have to do things that are unpopular. Hence, he should not base his entire presidency, his existence, on seeking good opinion poll numbers or job approval ratings. Shying away from rhetoric and populism would enable him to not rely on popular sentiment but truly use his judgment when it is needed most.

We have established thus far that the Founders believed government should protect individual liberty, implement policies that reflect public will, and provide for the common defense. The President’s primary objective was to provide for the common defense. The Founders set up, not only in the institutional form of government, but the means of selection of the different branches, a method they believed would best serve to promote the obligations of each branch and the type of individual they felt most qualified to fulfill the role of the President. But what happens when a President is faced with a situation that requires him to overstep his bounds, to break the law in order to protect the nation? If he chose to do so, would this be an egregious act of executive usurpation and a trampling of the Constitution, or would it be in keeping with his primary obligation? The answer to this question lies in one of the most famous and revered of the Founding Fathers, perhaps second only to George Washington.

Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States and the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. He viewed the Presidency as the ultimate representative of the people. Jefferson believed that the law of self preservation trumps the Constitution, even though the Constitution did not address this question. It is better to beg forgiveness than ask permission would have been a mantra that Jefferson lived by when he governed as a governor and the President. The President, whose primary obligation is national defense, may have to operate outside the framework of the Constitution when an extreme threat. He took this logic even further when he applied it to the Louisiana Purchase, arguing not that it was good for national security, but that it was a good deal for the country. “It is the case of a guardian, investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory; and saying to him when of age, I did this for your good.” Jefferson believed that as an executive, he had the prerogative to act on behalf of the people of whom he was the chief representative, using his judgment which the people had placed their confidence in via election, while keeping Congress informed. In 1810 Jefferson penned his clearest view of presidential prerogative in a letter to John B. Colvin.

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."


Jefferson’s view of executive prerogative has been adopted by Presidents ever since when faced with extreme threats to the Union. With the outbreak of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was forced to pursue Jefferson’s higher obligation. In response to the secession crisis that began when Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, Lincoln raised armies and borrowed money on the credit of the United States, both powers that the Constitution gave to Congress. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus in many places even though most constitutional scholars, then and now, believed that only Congress could do this. Lincoln imposed a blockade on the South without specific Congressional approval. He imprisoned thousands of Southern sympathizers and war agitators without any charge or due process; and he ignored a judicial order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to release a prisoner detained illegally. Yet Lincoln’s defense of his arguably unconstitutional actions was rooted in the Constitution itself.

"I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution?"

Nearly eighty years later in the months preceding and the years during World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt applied this same doctrine of self preservation. In a move that has been condemned by history, Roosevelt rounded up thousands of American civilians of Japanese descent along the west coast and placed them in detention camps. When eight hapless Nazi saboteurs, one of whom was an American citizen, roaming the streets of New York were captured, Roosevelt had them tried via military tribunal; six of them were executed. This all happened within six weeks of their capture. His Destroyers for Bases Program, now hailed as crucial to saving Great Britain and ultimately the West, was bitterly opposed at the time in strikingly similar rhetoric to recent outbursts over President Bush’s different actions.

During the 1970’s, Congress, in obvious reaction to President Richard Nixon’s use of national security assets to spy on political opponents, waged an all out assault on the Executive branch, passing the War Powers Resolution, which cut off presidential uses of force abroad over sixty days and the Budget and Impoundment act to eliminate the modest presidential power to curb wasteful spending. Last but not least, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act requiring federal agencies to get a warrant from a special court to conduct wiretapping for national security reasons. This resulted in a tremendous shift of power from the Executive to the Legislature. Instead of an energetic executive able to quickly sift through and decipher critical information and making the tough decisions, Congressional committees were now trying to manage day to day policy, passing vague mandate after vague mandate and handing them off to the Court to interpret.


The reality facing the Bush Administration on September 12, 2001 was grim and terrifying. No one knew when the next attack might come, but no one doubted that it would. With intelligence agencies hampered by the walls and barriers erected by a paranoid Congress, President Bush and his team set about the task of rebalancing the Executive. John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, explains the Administration’s logic.

"[T]he president has broader goals than even fighting terrorism – he has long intended to make reinvigorating the presidency a priority. Vice President Dick Cheney has rightly deplored the “erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job” and noted that” we are weaker today as an institution because of the unwise compromises that have been made over the last 30 to 35 years.” …A reinvigorated presidency enrages President Bush’s critics, who seem to believe that the Constitution created a system of judicial or congressional supremacy. …But the Founders intended that wrongheaded or obsolete legislation and judicial decisions would be checked by presidential action, just as executive overreaching is to be checked by the courts and Congress."

Was Yoo right in his assessment of Presidential prerogative? In light of the previous discussions of the Framers’ intent for the Executive, the Constitution, and government as a whole, the answer would be a resounding “Yes!” Effective government fulfills three obligations, protecting individual liberty, implementing policies congruent to the public will, and providing for the common defense. The Constitution established the framework, the institutional structure, which would enable government to best fulfill these obligations while reducing the possibility of usurpations and eventual tyranny by separating the powers of government into three branches and assigning obligations to each one. The Founders’ intended the Executive to provide a check against the encroachments of the Legislature, make critical decisions based on judgment and experience rather than popular mandates and sentiments, provide energy to the government, and, above all else, secure and defend the nation, even at the expense of the law itself.

No one can argue that President Bush has not fulfilled his highest obligation. During the two decades leading up to that fateful day on September 11, 2001 the United States was hit by over twenty major terrorist attacks at home and abroad. Since then, not even a minor attack has been carried out, due not to lack of motive or intent by America’s enemies but rather in large part to the controversial policies of the Bush Administration. It can be argued that President Bush’s actions have grown the Executive and infringed upon liberty, but even his critics cannot deny that he has kept America safe. Like Lincoln and Roosevelt before him, in keeping with Jefferson’s higher obligation, and viewing the Executive as the Founders ordained, did what he deemed necessary to protect the nation. It would indeed be foolish to sacrifice the nation in scrupulous adherence to the law. To do so would be to sacrifice the law itself. If the nation falls, freedom falls with it. A fallen America cannot protect the liberties of her people or the people around the world for whom America is their last best hope. As Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, when speaking of America, asked, “Who else can stand up for liberty in the world?”

From the Land of the Free to the Land of the Dependant

Robert Jefferson Stacey Almirante once said, “I am thankful to God for giving us Wilson and FDR. They were necessary outcomes of the experience of TR. But even TR was antiquated in his approach. In order for us to catch up to history we needed a new brand of president. America is better off, but the revolution still is not finished.” Almost a century has passed since Wilson and FDR. The policies that they began have been continued by Presidents like LBJ and Jimmy Carter. So, is America really better off? Well, the answer to this question for you depends on your definition of the American dream.

When you think of America, what do you think of? Do you think of, liberty, the land of the free, the ability to pursue a dream or your life’s calling? Do you think of a place where each individual has the ability to pursue happiness as defined by them? Or do you think of a place where equality refers to economic or social standing, where people aren’t truly free unless they are no longer in need and no longer fear the future?

If you answered the latter, then perhaps America is better off. After all, we as a nation have come to the place where economic equality is enforced through an income tax which targets the wealthy and redistributes those funds back into programs which benefits those in the lower tax brackets. If you can’t afford to buy a home, there are government programs and legislation designed to make that possible for you. If you want to go to college, don’t worry about the rocketing tuition prices; there are government student loans available. If you get sick, don’t worry; hospitals by law cannot turn anyone away because of an inability to pay. Even in an economic recession you do not have to worry. The government is big enough to help your company not go under so you won’t lose your job.

All the above sounds great unless you are of the persuasion that the American dream is about the ability of individuals to pursue happiness as defined by each. For you, it is the market that should set prices for things. If people see a value in the product or service you provide, they will be willing to pay a certain price. If you are asking a price that is greater than people are willing or able to pay, you will either have to lower your price or go out of business. For example, if you are an institution of higher learning, you would either have to lower tuition rates to levels people are willing and able to pay, or you go out of business. Instead, we live in a country where tuition can always be raised because people can always take out another student loan. Thus, the snowball of rising tuition keeps rolling. If you are a hospital or doctor, you either charge rates people are able to pay, or you go out of business. Instead, hospitals have to provide services, so they charge more for those who can pay or have insurance to cover the costs for those who do not. Thus, the snowball of rising healthcare costs keeps rolling. If you are a homeowner, would you rather be in a stable market where prices are set by supply and demand, or would you rather be in a volatile market where government programs and enforced sub-prime mortgages create a false demand that goes away once those individuals can no longer afford the rising interest rate? As we saw recently, that snowball found the precipice; the others may not be far behind.

If you define America as the Founders defined it, a place where freedom and individual liberty is protected via limited government, then America is much, much worse off because of Teddy, Wilson, and FDR. We now have a large, ever expanding government that taxes success and subsidizes failure, creates false demands and enables rising prices, making it much harder for you, as an individual, to pursue your dream. Thanks to TR, Wilson, and FDR, we have created an environment where there is more incentive to fail, to be mediocre, than there is to succeed. Why toil endlessly to better yourself when the government will take most of it away anyway? Why put all the work into starting, developing, and maintaining a successful business only to see the government bail out your failing competition? Don’t bother and don’t worry; the government will take care of you.

For My "Sweet Thing"