In the beginning of 2009 most of the main stream media couldn’t get enough of President Obama. They covered him 24/7, showering him with praise and commenting on how well he spoke to the people and to the press. Very little effort was given at dissecting what he said; instead the media focused on how Obama’s word made you feel (i.e. Chris Matthews: “I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg” As Obama Spoke). The honey-moon period has somewhat worn off now and the media is starting to see that Obama is one who avoids giving a clear direct answer; he is a typical Washington politician. He is our ‘Equivocator in Chief’.
Have you ever wondered how far Enviro-Libs would take their political or social agendas? With the news of the recent climate research unit hacking at the University of East Anglia, also commonly known as “Climate-Gate”, and with the constant flow of information showing us that global warming is a fraud or hoax based on cooked figures and data; it’s astonishing that the main stream media outlets have not reported the true findings to expose the hoax for what it is. Green advocates are supposed to be for a clean environment, so why do they peddle this garbage agenda onto everyone?
No we’re not talking about the Sci-Fi fantasy motion picture; we’re talking about President Obama’s recent executive order granting Interpol full diplomatic immunity from American law.
The Obama administration still has not publically commented on the order. However Interpol’s Secretary General, Ron Noble has issued an after-the fact-response to the order even though Interpol has not publically stated that American laws were interfering with their policing activities.
President Obama’s recent executive order involving INTERPOL and his visit to the ‘Copenhagen’ climate summit have sparked increasing interest into the ideas of internalnational law and how it can apply to the United States; more specifically how the Obama administration envisions how it can apply to the United States. Some critiques on the left would have us believe that international law is irrelevant and that only a sovereign states law really matters. If this was true and internal law is in reality useless, then it would make no sense as to why so many countries devote so much time, money and effort into negotiating new legal regimes and augmenting existing ones. It would make our arguments about the legality of such rules, especially here in the United States, irrelevant. And there would be no need for organizations like the United Nations to exist. The topic that many statists and supporters of international law dodge is how these laws affect a nation’s sovereignty, in particular America.
There are many speculations regarding President Obama’s secretive Executive Order 12425 that was made in the middle of the night on December 17, which grants full immunity to INTERPOL (the International Police Organization) on American soil. The order basically grants the foreign law enforcement agency some very broad powers to operate nearly unrestricted within the United States; exceeding even some of the most troubling aspects of the Patriot Act.
The first year of President Obama’s term is nearly over, and if you’re a Conservative there is a lot to be unpleased with. In fact if you’re a Liberal, there is a lot to be unpleased with as well. Looking back to the many campaign promises that bought the Liberal, Moderate and Independent vote, how has Obama faired overall? There are so many issues to discuss its mind boggling; the surge in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, Iran, Guantánamo, the economy, healthcare reform, etc. Probably the most obvious topic to talk about first is the disillusionment that the President and this administration has had with its own accomplishments.
It would seem that Wall Street just can’t do right in Obama’s eyes no matter what it does. Obama stated in an interview with CBS’s Steve Kroft for ‘60 Minutes’ that the motivation behind repaying Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was to be able to pay themselves bonuses. In reality the banks see the increasing regulation and restrictions coming down the pipeline and are trying to prepare themselves for the nation’s financial-regulatory apparatus overhaul in one way or another. A lot of people are joining the “hate Wall Street” bang wagon, but it’s really important to note that not all banks are bad and not all banks were involved in the sub-prime lending activities that caused much of the financial failures. There are many loopholes in the upcoming 239-page amendment to the U.S. House of Representatives’ financial regulatory overhaul on banks that will allow some banks to get away unscathed and other parts of that legislation will hurt or penalize the good banks with the bad ones indiscriminately. As it is now, this administration has already overstepped its constitutional powers by overtaking GM and other private businesses; where does this private sector takeover stop?
This week the bitter Senate debates started over the Obama/Reid/Pelosi health care program. Democrats call it a historic opportunity to insure millions of Americans who are uninsured, while Republicans see this as a government take over and a move towards a European flavored socialism.
The first attempt by a Republican amendment to stave off Medicare cuts and approved safeguards for coverage of mammograms and other preventive tests for women was rejected (voted 58-42 ) by the Democrat controlled Senate on Thursday. Any amendments will require 60 votes to pass, so this bill will be a true test to the unity and cohesiveness of the Democratic Party.
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” This phrase is more applicable now than ever. For months now Americans have been telling and often shouting what they want and don’t want to their elected representatives with little results. House and Senate Democrats have continued to tell the American public that they know what is best for Americans, regardless how many of us picket their local offices or Tea Party Washington. Bottom line is they don’t want to listen. This healthscare bill is not about helping Americans. It’s about power. If the Democrat’s can get the American public hooked on Healthcare and other social dependency programs, then they feel that they will be able to remain in power indefinably because if people are dependent on the government for life they will vote for the Democratic party. This Democratic controlled 111th Congress and the Obama administration have shown us time and time again with their words and actions over the last year that they see American sovereignty as something that is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, economic status and the well-being of the state. This is statism through and through, and it’s time that the rest of America wakes up from its brainwashed utopia.
It’s hard to understand why and how this administration can think that it has turned around our nation’s economy when the national unemployment rate continues its path towards double digits. Some state unemployment numbers are nearly double the national average (i.e. Michigan again recorded the highest unemployment rate among the states, 15.3 percent in September).
Okay, I admit I just used that title to pull you into reading this. Apparently it worked if you’ve read this far. If you have a computer and an internet connection, then you’ve probably read or heard about the many looming court cases and questions regarding Obama’s eligibility for President of the United States.
I guess this is the best that the White House can come up with; pretend that those who expose you for what you really are do not exist…I see this as a seriously lame attempt to discredit Fox News – the only non-state controlled main stream media outlet and to divert the attention away from issues like jobs and health care. Once again, this is a typical statist tactic of pressure and deflection. Lenin did this in the former Soviet Union; silence all the press, except the ones that support your agenda.
The fuzzy feel good ideologies of the Human Rights movement play on the human conscience and to us feel… warm and fuzzy. No one should go hungry, no one should go without shelter, no one should have to work for minimum wage (a different topic altogether, damn Keynsians), but most of all no one should have to pay for health care. Pay for health care?! How dare you even suggest such a thing. Top notch health care should be provided to everyone free of charge has been the rally cry of many staunch Progressives. Such calls play on the most basic human emotions and have their base in possibly the most impossible calls of the entire Progressive movement, namely equality. In calling for equality Progressives get themselves into a quandary, How is it equal to force one person to pay top dollar for something while giving the same thing to another for free? How is fair to take money from someone that has earned that money and giving it to someone that has done nothing (which is what government supported health care requires)? I want someone to explain that to me. Doesn’t equal mean that everyone has the same standards applied to them? Doesn’t fair mean that you get to keep the benefits of your hard work? Another thing that I find interesting is that the proponents of such reforms are the last to offer real help, the people that say the tax increase is worth it; are the last ones to cut a check (Obama himself until recently only gave close to 1% of his annual income). Michelle Obama in fact made huge sums of money working a an administrator at a hospital in Chicago, if she really cared about affordable health care wouldn’t she have voluntarily cut her income so that the money could have been used elsewhere? Looking at the Obama’s income tax returns it is easy to see what they really care about… themselves. But I regress.
What is a right? Well lets look at some “rights” that have been accepted since the founding of our country. Our founding documents point out several rights that the founders believed where endowed by the creator in all people. There are several qualities that differentiate a right from what the founders called “pursuit of happiness”.
First and foremost a right is inherently found in every individual. Upon birth we have the ability to express our selves any way that we feel inclined, though we may not have the physical ability to do so, the freedom to do so is there. The right to bear arms is the same way, all of us are born with the right, the permission, to bear arms. Both of these rights can be taken away, should we show that we are not using them properly. Dan Rather is a perfect example. During the second campaign of George Bush he ran a story about the President’s history with the national guard. Though he was warned the the facts where not checking out and that the story seemed, and would later prove to be, bogus; he ran the story anyway. As a result his ability to express himself the way he wanted was severely limited. He went from an unrestricted seat on the evening news to a relatively meaningless slot on the weekend desk. He eventually left CBS and is now suing his former employer.
Secondly the right can require nothing from anyone else except that they do not infringe upon the realization of that right in others. The 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution are again perfect examples. Even while I write this I am exercising rights guaranteed to me by the 1st Amendment. I have the freedom to write what I want. I can in fact even write and publish things that are slanderous and outright lies and no one could stop me, though I could be held liable if my words where found to have damaged someone and where also slanderous. The Second Amendment is the same way. Nothing is required of anyone else except that they respect my right to own a firearm. The right to keep and bear arms does not require someone to give me a firearm, nor does it require someone else to instruct me in the proper use of that firearm. But again misuse of this right will result in the removal of the right. Because of the permanency of actions with a firearm the consequences for misuse are comparatively severe.
For most it would be easy to see how the “right to health care” does not fit either of these qualifications. When we are born we do not inherently have health care, if we where left to sit upon entry into this world we would inevitably perish. In less prosperous parts of the world the elderly do not receive the care that they do here and as a result many parish do to lack of medical care. Health care is not something that we are born with it is something that we are given as a result of the conditions that we are born to, or the status that we attain. But some would argue that being human should guarantee a level of care, that people have the “right” to live a healthy life. What is wrong with that idea? My only argument is the classification of health care as a right. As members of the great human race we have a responsibility to help those that are less fortunate than ourselves a basic desire that becomes very apparent when looking at the amount of volunteer time and money that goes into the health care system. But having a desire for people to live a healthy life does not make it a right.
Where does health care come from? Do you care for yourself? Do you purchase health care and are then able to apply it as you see fit with no interference of help from an outside source? No, health care by nature requires the action of someone else. The list of people and resources that are tasked to health care is astounding. A simple doctors visit requires the assistance of several people, many of whom are highly skilled professionals. The appointment need to be scheduled, records have to be made, assessments need to be done on the patient, a doctor will conduct the appointment and a follow up appointment or referral will be made. All of this done in a facility specially built for the purpose of patient care most likely at a great cost. All of this requires the action of someone else for you to get health care and violates the core definition of a “right”.
Health care is not a right. Health care is a warm fuzzy, that we would like people to have, that we even volunteer so that more people can have but ultimately cannot be classified as a right. To force a doctor to see a patient, regardless of the compensation they may receive, is a clear violation of property rights. The Progressive movement is really old school communism, lets just call it what it is. They say “progressive” but what they mean is a society where everything is managed and planned by the government, everything from health care to auto manufacturing to energy, things that have become the commanding heights of the 21st century. The progressive movement is communism, it seeks to undermine the Constitution of the US by saying things like “health care monopoly” and “health care is a basic human right” here is what progressives think about our rights… (see you tube video on right)
(she doesn’t drop the bomb that free speech should only be for the educated, even though she only went to three semesters of college.)
By perverting the definition of what a right is they are making it easier to eliminate the rights that are harmful to their cause. It is important to know what rights are guaranteed us by the constitution as well as what a right is. By being educated on the important issues of the time that we live in we will ensure that those rights are protected, because we will know when those rights are being violated.
