As I watch President Obama and his administration succeeding in systematically setting up the destruction of this country (no mean feat considering he’s been in office for only 41 days) and so little being done to stop it, my thoughts return again and again to the story of the Pied Piper.

Most people know this as a children’s story.  As it goes in the most simple of picture books, a small village found itself with a terrible infestation of rats and its elders were at a loss as to what to do.  One day a piper came ’round, claiming he could rid them of the rats.  The elders agreed to pay the pay the piper a handsome sum and so it was a deal was struck.  The piper pulled a fife from his pocket and began to play a tune.  As if by magic, the rats came out of all their hiding places, swarms and swarms of them,  and all the while continuing to play his tune, the piper slowly led them into the river where the rats all drowned.

And the village rejoiced.

This, then, is rather like the coming of Barack Hussein Obama.  A small village called America, having a serious rat problem, finds the man who claims he can play a tune to rid them of the rats.  Full of hope, they have agreed to pay him a very high price.

But, as the late Paul Harvey liked to say, here’s the rest of the story.

Once the problem with the rats had been resolved, the people of the village began to regret the high price they’d agree to pay the piper.  They hedged and they stalled until finally the piper left in anger.  The people of the village heaved a guilty sigh of relief but their relief was short-lived.  The piper returned, but now dressed for hunting.  He began to play his fife again, but this time it wasn’t rats who were entranced and so called out, but instead it was the children of the village.  All of those over the age of 4, including the mayor’s grown daughter.

The piper played and the piper led the children away into a cave in the side of a nearby mountain, and none were ever seen again. 

This, then, I believe, is the future for those who still believe in the audacity of the President’s hope.  Those who already regret having hired this piper and are speaking out find themselves facing the administration’s anger towards their criticisms when continuing blind adulation was the anticipated payment.  The campaign rhetoric continues like some mad, enchanting tune, and it is our children, in the guise of our Constitutional freedoms, that are being spirited away.

In what some are calling a “preemptive strike” against the unpaid union debts owed by the new administration, a bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives that would shoot down the legitimacy of any union where a secret ballot vote to organize hasn’t taken place.

H.R. 1176 is a Very Good Thing, no matter how much union leaders and beholden Democrats might whine.  You see, the human being is, for most intents and purposes, very much a herd kind of critter, a “sheeple”, if you will.  Finding safety in numbers, they are hard-pressed to make a solo stand against the perceived opinions of the majority, especially when the majority happens to be their own flock.  P.T. Barnum is famous for his exploitation of this idea; union organizers (and most used-car salesmen) know it, too.  The “crowd mentality” is exploited on a daily basis by advertisers and others with good or not-so-good intentions every day.  Heck, it’s pretty much the way Congress does business.

But a truth is that what people say in front of members of their flock in order to be seen as “going along” and what they really believe are often two very different things.  And it is to protect that free will choice to cast ballots in secrecy and anonymity for which this bill is designed.  Intimidation and coersion have no place in business; they have no business any place, for that matter.

While I am on the record as being no fan of big government, the right to choose union representation freely is one fundamental right that should be set down and made clear once and for all. 

Kudos to the 103 co-sponsors on record.  It’s pathetic to see that there isn’t a single Democrat – those self-annointed “defenders” of the “little people” – among the lot.  Not even one those still in Congress who once told the Mexican government (in writing):  “We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.”

Just when you thought the world was safe from the “fairness” of special interest groups, please read this carefully.  I see this as as another clear shot across the bow that our freedom of speech is under attack. 

And I am absolutely furious. 

 

S.Amdt. 591: To encourage and promote diversity in communication media…

To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest.

An amendment to S. 160: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009.

Offered: Feb 26, 2009
Sponsor:  Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Actions: Feb 26, 2009: Amendment SA 591 proposed by Senator Durbin.
Feb 26, 2009: Amendment SA 591 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 57 – 41. Record Vote Number: 70.

For more information, see the the official record on THOMAS for S.Amdt. 591.

Text of amendment
SA 591. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 160, to provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives; as follows:

At the end of the bill add the following:

SEC. 9. FCC AUTHORITIES.

(a) Clarification of General Powers.–Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:

“SEC. 303B. CLARIFICATION OF GENERAL POWERS.

“(a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required.–The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.

“(b) Construction.–Nothing in section 303A shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.”.

(b) Severability.–Notwithstanding section 7(a), if any provision of section 2(a)(1), 2(b)(1), or 3 or any amendment made by those sections is declared or held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the amendment made by subsection (a) and the application of such amendment to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by such holding.

(As printed in the Congressional Record for the Senate on Feb 26, 2009.)

 

Guess what?  This is just a sneaky way to invoke the Fairness Doctrine one more time.  Section (B), for all its double negatives, spells it out quite clearly. 

Not that any stifling of free speech should even warrant discussion, but I want to know exactly WHO who is going to define “public interest”?  U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit (where else?) claims it should be The Federal Communications Commiczars.  But for the most part, right now and quite rightly, that definition comes from advertisers spending their money during broadcasts that have viewers in numbers and type that match their target markets.

Which is just as it should be in a FREE MARKET system.

But those who are fearful of and still wish to silence people like, say, Rush Limbaugh because they lack the intelligence to change the dial on their radio station are now running to Big Daddy O to make the change for them.  They can’t stand a different opinion, nor can they bear to be criticized.  And, of course, in order to continue to roll the country down the hill into the hellhole of Socialism, it’s critical to have real control of the media.

One Washington insider to this stifling of free speech is Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps, conveniently hand-picked by President Obama for this role until a permanent replacement is named.  Mr. Copps  says he doesn’t support the return of the Fairness Doctrine, but he does think government has a role in enforcing media “diversity.”  That role includes re-examining licensing and other regulations for radio stations — including AM stations dominated by talk radio — to make them “more reflective” of public interests.
 
The fight over the Fairness Doctrine is “yesterday’s fight,” Copps told CNSNews.com earlier this month. But he also stressed the need to make radio broadcasts more “reflective” of the public interest.  Copps also said that when markets fail to produce a media which reflects the country’s diversity, government must step in.
 
“If markets cannot produce what society really cares about, like a media that reflects the true diversity and spirit of our country, then government has a legitimate role to play,” he said.

This is all so wrong on so many levels.  And burying it in the D.C. vote bill is dispicable.  Maybe President Obama can’t be bothered to read the bills he signs, but I can assure him that I do.   

And I will make sure that I tell everyone just what wickedness this way comes.

Here’s how the Senate vote went.  Do you see your elected rep here?

Grouped by Home State

Alabama:	Sessions (R-AL), Nay	Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska:	Begich (D-AK), Yea	Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Arizona:	Kyl (R-AZ), Nay	McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas:	Lincoln (D-AR), Yea	Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California:	Boxer (D-CA), Yea	Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado:	Bennet (D-CO), Yea	Udall (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut:	Dodd (D-CT), Yea	Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware:	Carper (D-DE), Yea	Kaufman (D-DE), Yea
Florida:	Martinez (R-FL), Nay	Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia:	Chambliss (R-GA), Nay	Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii:	Akaka (D-HI), Yea	Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho:	Crapo (R-ID), Nay	Risch (R-ID), Nay
Illinois:	Burris (D-IL), Yea	Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Indiana:	Bayh (D-IN), Yea	Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa:	Grassley (R-IA), Nay	Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas:	Brownback (R-KS), Nay	Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky:	Bunning (R-KY), Nay	McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana:	Landrieu (D-LA), Yea	Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine:	Collins (R-ME), Nay	Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Maryland:	Cardin (D-MD), Yea	Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts:	Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting	Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan:	Levin (D-MI), Yea	Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota:	Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi:	Cochran (R-MS), Nay	Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri:	Bond (R-MO), Nay	McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana:	Baucus (D-MT), Yea	Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska:	Johanns (R-NE), Nay	Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada:	Ensign (R-NV), Nay	Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire:	Gregg (R-NH), Nay	Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
New Jersey:	Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea	Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico:	Bingaman (D-NM), Yea	Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York:	Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea	Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina:	Burr (R-NC), Nay	Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota:	Conrad (D-ND), Yea	Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio:	Brown (D-OH), Yea	Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma:	Coburn (R-OK), Nay	Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon:	Merkley (D-OR), Yea	Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania:	Casey (D-PA), Yea	Specter (R-PA), Nay
Rhode Island:	Reed (D-RI), Yea	Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina:	DeMint (R-SC), Nay	Graham (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota:	Johnson (D-SD), Yea	Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee:	Alexander (R-TN), Nay	Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas:	Cornyn (R-TX), Nay	Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah:	Bennett (R-UT), Nay	Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Vermont:	Leahy (D-VT), Yea	Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Virginia:	Warner (D-VA), Yea	Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington:	Cantwell (D-WA), Yea	Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia:	Byrd (D-WV), Yea	Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin:	Feingold (D-WI), Yea	Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming:	Barrasso (R-WY), Nay	Enzi (R-WY), Nay

 

The House version of the D.C. Voting Rights bill has no such amendments, by the way so reconciliation isn’t going to be easy.  While I personally believe the D.C. Voting Rights bill is unconstitutional, it is time to let all those elected representatives know that pork under shadowy cover of infringing upon our basic freedoms is still pork and to make sure this illicit “Fairness Doctrine” nonsense goes by the same wayside as the properly-named attempt.

Long before I was even the slightest bit politically savvy, I came across this piece and found its humorous truths to be so self-evident that I contacted the (real) author to request permission to share it.  Such permission was readily forthcoming, and though the link back no longer works, I will forever thank you, Lewis Napper, for the fit of pique that caused you to set down what most people think but so few are willing to voice.

I honestly believe that, along with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, this should be required reading for every American.  Especially those we elect to serve in Congress.

 

The Bill of No Rights*
Lewis Napper

We, the sensible of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden delusional, and other liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I
You do not have the right to a new car, big-screen color TV or any other form of wealth.  More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II
You do not have the right to never be offended.  This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone – not just you!  You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III
You do not have the right to be free from harm.  If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all of your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV
You do not have the right to free food and housing.  Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V
You do not have the right to free health care.  That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI
You do not have the right to physically harm other people.  If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you.

ARTICLE VII
You do not have the right to the possessions of others.  If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII
You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience.  We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like.  However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX
You do not have the right to a job.  All of us sure want you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities in education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X
You do not have the right to happiness.  Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness – which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those around you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

 

  

* – This is the original version penned by Mr. Napper in 1993 in response to (ironically) hearing Hillary Clinton’s proposed national health-care plan on the radio.  This is not to be confused with the email version that often includes additional articles whining about illegal immigrants, God, and other such special interests added by those for whom this was written.

My grandfather used to say, “If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democrat.”  God bless his dear, departed soul but I don’t think he foresaw American society becoming so entrenched in a Democratic party “step down” into entitlement.  Back when my grandfather voted regularly, Democrats were seen to provide opportunity so it makes sense that if you voted for them, you’d get more opportunity to advance your situation.

For my grandfather and the rest of his generation, those opportunities meant advancement by dint of hard work.  Work, entrepreneurship; through your sweat came rewards.

But with the boom of technology and the mantra of “better living through chemistry” society has somehow changed and the rugged individualist is no longer the norm.  Instead we’ve become a society of Little Orphan Annies, blind and unable to function without a continuing stream of pablum from Daddy Warbucks.  (The irony of that analogy should not escape you.)  And now we’ve put Robin Hood and His Merry Band in charge and they are taking from the “rich” as fast as they can to give to the alleged “poor”.  But while Robin Hood’s mission was actually rather noble, in that it was cheats he put in his sights, this Democratic administration IS the cheats, and there is nothing noble whatsoever in their cause.

Our government was founded “of the people, by the people, for the people”.  Our elected representatives serve – a privilege, mind you – at the people’s pleasure.  The current state of government – trillion dollar deficits spinning further and further out of control, special interests, millions spent on lobbying, etc. – speaks volumes about the dangerously slacking mindset of our society.  There is so much blatant hypocrisy in government today I am at a loss to understand the lack of equally blatant outcry, both through our free press and through our votes.  This complacence is not the America envisioned 222 years ago, nor is this complacence part and parcel of the America in which I grew up.

Again and again I find myself returning to the Founding Fathers.  Returning to the documents that birthed a country once seen as the light of the entire world.  I do not claim to be as wise as those who risked everything to give life to such a dream, but I am wise enough to understand that to sustain that dream means we must cleave to it with all our might.  We do not toss it in the trash simply because it wasn’t created to provide instant gratification for some overblown ego.

Indeed, one of the most remarkable things one finds in the origins of America is the inherent ideology of checks and balances.  The Founding Fathers knew only too well the consequences of concentrating power in the hands of a few and at every turn they moved to keep the power of this country in the hands of its people.  Their dream was for an independent people where the government oversaw only the minimums needed to benefit the collective.  It was never their intention that government be the sole provider of…everything.  I believe Thomas Jefferson when he said, “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Yet that has, for all intents and purposes, become the role of the America’s government.  Part Daddy making sure the children have toys, part Mommy refereeing every little squabble in the sandbox; handing out allowances and timeouts because we – we, the people – seem to no longer be able to think for ourselves.

Yes, I’m painting with a broad brush.  But nitpick all you want, the net result remains the same.  Instead of demanding that government perform only its intended, limited role and no more, by our individual vote we have, collectively, chosen to hand over our power to a few and it is most apparent they do not have the best interests of this country at heart.  We have elected a President who does not believe in the basic tenets of this country and we – we, the people – have given him and others like him our collective nod to make a mockery of those tenets.  Indeed, we have collectively given them the nod to take this country straight into the arms of fascism.

The problems that we, as a people, face today are really no different than those that faced the Founding Fathers 222 years ago.  But there is a deep and painful irony in the realization that the enemy is no longer without; today the enemy is within and as deeply entrenched as the tyrannical monarchy that spurred the birth of this nation.

I, for one, did not sign up for this little trip to hell in a “hope and change” handbasket.  I know there are many others who feel the same way but the question becomes:  are there enough of us left to make a difference?  I choose to make my voice heard, by writing here and by writing my elected representatives and questioning them at every turn.  I vote regularly, both at the polls and with my dollars.  I take responsibility for the choices I make and accept the consequences of my actions.  Do you?  Or do you find it all too much a bother and just assume someone else will take care of it for you, thereby fulfilling that ironic definition:  “ass – u – me”?

Silence is no longer an option.  We, the people, must insist – loud and long – for a return to basic principles.  It is no longer as simple as making a choice between Democrat and Republican, the choice is now for the existence of America herself.

I’ve been doing some reading tonight.  Very interesting reading.  In my search for truth, I have been reading the Federalist papers, particularly the writings of James Madison in #43, in which he addresses the Constitution’s designation and purpose of our nation’s capital.

It causes a great sigh tinged with a little amazement to realize that his words show us just how far we’ve moved away from the original intentions for this country in a mere 220 years.  How the original, inherent independence of authority (government) has eroded into an entitlement mentality; how we have regressed from being freedom fighters to mere slaves in chains and dependent upon the good will of a drunken master.

For shame, America.  For shame.

I do not believe that our Constitution is a “flawed” document.  Indeed, it contains far more wisdom than those running around Washington sporting smurks of Ivy League superiority could ever hope to grasp during three of their greedy lifetimes.  The current resurrection of debate over allowing the people who live in the District of Columbia voting representation in Congress is a good example of the distortions – for personal gain – that now run amock with giddiness through the corridors of Congress.

On this matter, however, I believe our Founding Fathers were quite clear.  And, unlike Big Daddy O’Hopey-Changey, their answer was “no”.  Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution states:

[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.

This is how a real father, a Founding Father of the United States, and the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, describes it:

“The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it.  It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy.

“…as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated.

“The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, etc. , established by the general government, is not less evident.  The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, requires that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State.  Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it.”

This is an early admonishment against what we, today, call a conflict of interest.  One made for all the same, right – very right – reasons.

Dare I point out that the District of Columbia has NEVER voted for a Republican presidential candidate?  Dare I point out that to then allow this obvious bias a voting seat in Congress will only add to a current majority that is already gleefully doing everything in their power to wrest away our individual rights and freedoms under the soothing lullaby guise of “hope and change”?

I have nothing against Democrats, per se, mind you.  What I do dislike and will fight against as long as I live is the deliberate creation of inequality.  If that means defending the Constitution, then so be it.  If that means being called “conservative”, then so be it.  I’m not afraid to type it out loud:

To give the District of Columbia voting rights is a clear – and dangerous – conflict of interest.

Apparently finding something that doesn’t take too long to read, President Obama has turned away from the mirror for a moment and is considering a review of the Bush administration’s rule that strengthened job protections for doctors and nurses who refuse to perform abortions for moral reasons.

Whether you are for or against abortion (or birth control, or self-control, for that matter), federal law already prohibits discrimination against health care professionals in this area.  If a doctor or hospital does not wish to perform abortions, they do not have to do so. 

But if you are a nurse or other type of health-care worker and you – personally – do not want to participate in such a procedure, then don’t go to work for a doctor who does perform them. 

And that, boys and girls, is the beauty of living in a free country.  Don’t like the way someone runs their business?  Then don’t go work for them.  If you feel you have no other choice, then suck it up and keep your mouth shut until you can go elsewhere.

It doesn’t get a whole lot more simple.

Though I suppose if the concept of “personal responsibility” is foreign to you, you won’t get it.  So let me put it another way:  To expect your employer to cater to your opinions and adjust their scheduling, etc. is ludicrous and selfish and ends up costing everyone money.

And I, for one, am sick of paying for these attempts to legislate morality.

Here’s a little brain teaser for you.  Pair up the following appropriately: 

Free speech.

Free market economy.

Fairness Doctrine.

Fascism.

Give up?  The first two have everything to do with the foundation of this country.  That is, letting the individual American choose what they want.  The third, however, is nothing more than yet another call for “change” being voiced by those who see opportunity in the socialistic proclivities of the new administration. Which in turn is a foundation for the fourth.

For you and me and Joe Blow down the street, what it means is even more insidious ecroachment on our Constitutional rights.  Why?  Because a few blithering liberal idiots who can’t drum up enough listeners to make it worthwhile for radio stations to carry their ravings now want the government to step in and force radio stations – independently-owned, market-driven businesses, mind you – to give them air time. 

Just so those who aren’t listening to them now can have yet another opportunity to tune them out.

In this technology-driven, freedom-of-information day and age where anything anyone could ever want to know is available at the push of a remote-control button or through a few quick taps on a keyboard, it is the height of arrogence for anyone in our government to think it is best for us to have the “opportunity” to listen to anything.  Seems to me that back in 1930s Germany another smarmy little Messiah-wannabe once thought the very same thing.

And we all know how that turned out.  It was another “F” word.

Within hours of the 290-135 vote in the House of Representatives for the $32.8 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, approved by the Senate last week, President Obama signed the bill into law. 

SCHIP is designed to help working families who cannot afford private health insurance but earn too much to qualify for Medicaid healthcare coverage for the poor; on the surface it sounds good but with flexibility at the state level in determining income qualifications, the result has been many families who can afford health insurance drop out and use the Medicaid system instead.

I suppose if all you want is for children to have health insurance, then it doesn’t matter.  But just where is all the money going to come from?

Since he is now in a position to well-afford it, our sometime-smoking President is using a 61-cent increase in the per-pack federal tax on cigarettes to help pay for this bill.  That’s a $6.10 per carton price increase, effective immediately.  The new bill also taxes all other tobacco and tobacco-related products, and redefines “roll-your-own-tobacco” to include cigars or cigar wrappers.

Now, if you have a bit of land and think maybe growing your own might not be a bad idea, forget it.  There’s an immediate tax on “any tobacco products, cigarette paper, or tubes produced in the United States at any place other than the premises of a lawful manufacturer of such products”.  Which means, of course, you are no longer free to do as you wish in your own home (that place from which the new Attorney General would like to remove your guns) or on your own property (even though owning tobacco plants isn’t illegal).

But I digress.

Apparently our elected representatives are about as good with financials as Geithner and Daschle.  The published financial impact analysis of this bill “estimates” that it will create a reduction in our unfathomable 10.7 TRILLION DOLLAR deficit of maybe a couple billion dollars.

I want some of what those beancounters are drinking.  As the number of smokers continues to decrease, so, too, will this new-found revenue.  Sure, the cost of health care spent on smoking-related illnesses will drop by some small amount, but the costs associated with cancer and heart disease and obesity continue to rise no matter the decline in the number of smokers, and we’ll continue to insure more and more children who already have coverage, thereby moving the business of healthcare right into the hands of those who’ve been humping for socialized medicine all along.  Replete with the government telling you what it will and will not pay for from a laundry list of what it (and its special-interest medical lobbyists) considers “cost-effective” treatments.  Your health-care choices will no longer be driven by what you or even your doctor wants, even if it’s only a quality of life matter, but by what brings the biggest revenue to a few corporations.

Oh, and by the way, the costs of SCHIP are shared by the states, so while non-smokers are already paying twice for this wonderful program with their state and federal taxes, smokers get to pay for it three times.   As a minority 21% of the U.S. population, that smacks of discrimination, too.

When The Union Leader, a New Hampshire newspaper, reported in 2006 on psychology Professor William Woodward’s opinions about U.S. leaders and 9/11, U.S. Senator Judd Gregg is quoted as saying that “there are limitations to academic freedom and freedom of speech” and that “it is inappropriate for someone at a public university which is supported with taxpayer dollars to take positions that are generally an affront to the sensibility of most all Americans.”

Senator Gregg, President Obama’s choice for Commerce Secretary, was among those New Hampshire Republican politicans who wanted the University of New Hampshire to fire Professor Woodward. Apparently they don’t agree with the Supreme Court (or several appellate courts) repeatedly upholding academic freedom as a First Amendment right.

Now, while most of us eventually come to learn that discretion is the better part of valor and eventually learn to state our opinions in such a way that others don’t feel like we’ve just run them over with a short bus, the fact remains that those who don’t share our opinion(s) are still allowed to speak their mind.  Personally, I feel that this is one of the major blessings bestowed upon this nation by our Founding Fathers, who wisely realized that open discourse, even if it rankles, is the only means by which the safety of the collective may be assured.

As a lawyer and an elected official for 30 years, Senator Gregg should be intimately familiar with this and though that might well be the case, that he would choose to silence those who voice an opinion with which he doesn’t agree ought to strike as much fear into your heart as does having an Attorney General who doesn’t believe citizens have the right to own guns.

I’m not the only one questioning President Obama’s…ummmmm…judgement in light of his selecting what is fast becoming a litany of tax cheats and liars  for some of the most key positions in his cabinet.  Though admittedly it’s not a bad way to start filling the government coffers, what should now be becoming at least a little obvious is an insidious pattern in the mindset of those with whom he is surrounding himself.

The First Amendment is bad.

The Second Amendment is bad.

Translation:  They don’t want you to talk (think) and they certainly don’t want you to carry a gun. 

Of course this is wrapped up in pretty words delivered with great skill so the unsuspecting won’t see it coming.  That’s the real purpose of  “community organizing”  when following the methods taught by the late Saul D. Alinsky.  Does any of this sound familiar?

“There’s another reason for working inside the system.  Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most.  Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people.  They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.  This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.  To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971].  They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat.  They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging.  If we fail to communicate with them, if we don’t encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right.  Maybe they will anyway, but let’s not let it happen by default.”  (Emphasis mine.)

Saul Alinsky wrote these words in the prologue of his final book, “Rules for Radicals”.  And it was this that President Obama learned and it was this that President Obama taught others while working for Gerald Kellman’s Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s far South Side.

And it was this upon which President Obama based his election campaign.

While there are certainly things that need changing right here and now, to do so by voluntarily dumbing down, by surrending our sovereignity and our weapons isn’t the way to go about it.  There are far better ways to use that frustration and turn the future into something more viable than blindly follow those who wish our Republic become a socialist regime, to go – and pardon the mixed metaphors – as lambs to a slaughterhouse where those who now glibly blather on and on about unfairness do so only in order to get their own greedy butts to the top of the pigsty.

It’s surely an ill wind that blows across Capital Hill these days and I truly fear we’ve not yet seen the worst of what is possible.  My crystal ball tells me the stimulus bill is little more than smoke and mirrors to hide from us an upcoming power ploy whose sole purpose is to drive those who choose to remain oblivious into deeper blind admiration, and hence subservience.  The better to steal our freedoms with, my dear.

We would all do well to ponder these eerily prescient words penned by Joan Baez back in 1975:

“Idols are best when they’re made of stone,
A savior’s a nuisance to live with at home.
Stars often fall,
Heroes go unsung,
And martyrs most certainly die too young.”