I have been reading David McCullough's "John Adams." When reading this book, it's clear that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington had a unique understanding of human nature. Human nature, they felt, resulted in government encroachment on the natural liberties of the people. Government, not the people, should be constrained in order to provide the maximum amount of liberty to the people.

Thomas Jefferson once said: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

Notice that Thomas Jefferson wanted the chains on the government and not American citizens.

President Barack Obama does not want any limits whatsoever on his powers. He has not made any reference to the limitations on our federal government during his time as president. Even worse, prior to becoming president, he complained that the US Constitution acted to prevent government action, which he found problematic since he believes that it is the power and perogative of the government to involve itself in literally every aspect of our lives.

When listening to speeches and comments made by Obama, it's clear that he does not believe in the Declaration of Independent's clear reference to an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Every policy he proposes is intended to get in the way and block one's right to the pursuit of happiness. Just yesterday, Obama has proposed new limits on what higher level executives are able to make at their firms. Why does he propose this policy? Simple: He does not believe that individuals should pursue their rational self-interest by working hard and receiving a high salary to compensate them for their efforts. Rather than celebrate individual achievement, Obama believes in punishing it.

When you are in a hospital receiving care, do you often think, "If only the government would take control of this entire enterprise, the system would truly be effecient and run a lot better"? Don't laugh, that is the argument being made in Washington!

Do doctors think that things would improve in health care once Washington politicians, bureaucrats, and courts override the will of their patients?

No one thinks this way. Doctors don't think this way, and neither do patients.

Further, once the government takes over health care, it is aggressive in its attack against any alternative to the government-run monopoly.

Let's look at Canada for a moment. There is a movement in Canada to offer more privatized health insurance there. However, the "government-run" monopoly advocates are screaming at the top of their lungs that such voluntary, individualistic care is harming the government-run monopoly system.

"What it means is that people who have no money, who are chronically ill, disabled, who require medical attention frequently, are going to suffer dramatically," said Leslie Dickout of the B.C. Health Coalition, as quoted in the LA Times. In other words, the government-run system is not paying doctors sufficiently, and offers long lines to patients, but the private-sector alternative is able to lure doctors through better pay, and patients with less waiting times, and that's considered unfair. These government-run health care advocates do not care at all about health care. What they care about is control over doctors and patients in a totalitarian, government-run health care utopia.

http://www.playboy.com/articles/ayn-rand-playboy-i...

Ayn Rand - Playboy, Interview, Exclusive, Author

Shared via AddThis

Do Democrats want the government to take over coffee houses like Starbucks? Read my satirical report here.

Senator Kyl made a very good observation of President Obama's behavior recently. Senator Kyl said, “There’s a reason why the president has said ‘if we don’t get this done [nationalized, government-run health care] soon, it’s not going to happen."

“Why? Why does he say that? Because he knows that momentum will inevitably slow for something that’s extraordinarily costly, will deny people the coverage that they already have, will ration their health care, and could provide some kind of government insurance company that’s going to drive out the private insurance companies that provide all these options,” he added.

Yes, this is absolutely right. The reason why Obama continues to try to rush the debate on nationalized health care is precisely because he knows that he will not be able to win the debate on the merits. There is no way that Obama can win on the merits by saying that he wishes to move from a private-sector health care system to one that will be government-run. No one has a positive experience dealing with government-run enterprises. When people hear that when they are in pain and need medical help, that they will wait in long lines like those at the DMV and the post office, they will not tolerate this.

Obama's goal is to steamroll the opposition, pass this legislation really quick without any public debate, and to move on to the next destructive policy. We can stop him, though. An educated citizenry is the best check against an authoritarian government.

President Obama is trying to bully doctors into supporting his authoritarian health care proposals that would shift roughly 17% of the economy directly to Washington, D.C., to be decided by 535 elected officials and thousands of bureaucrats. The idea that this will improve health care is risible.

For routine, expected expenses, the best form of health care would be if the patient pays the physician directly, with no middle man (including insurance or the government). Thus, if you have a cold, and you want to visit a doctor, you should be able to shop around and determine who is going to charge the best rates. As the system would move towards a capitalist system, doctors would post their prices online and there even would be advertisements making their prices known. However, since doctors get most of their payments through third-parties--including both the government and insurance companies--most people are ignorant of the prices doctors charge, and doctors themselves have very little incentive to cut down costs to pass it along to patients.

Obama has the worst of the worst ideas. Rather than moving towards a system in which the patient pays the doctor directly, he wants the patient to pay taxes, which will be sent to D.C., wasted by hundreds of thoudsands of bureacrats, and then sent back to you with millions of strings attached in terms of how you can visit your doctor, when, how often, what type of treatment will be offered, and how and when your doctor will get paid. This will cause a nightmare. It is your job to oppose this. I am including a form letter that you can send to your member of Congress as well as both of your US Senators. I already sent my letter to them and now it is up to you to do your part. You can send a message to your Member of Congress by clicking here.

Here is the form letter that you may copy and paste and send it along to D.C.:

As your constituent, I urge you to oppose President Obama's health care schemes. Government-run health care does not work, and should be opposed.

I do not want the government to be in charge of health care. We have seen that the government-run systems in the UK and Canada do not work. Instead, I support private sector solutions such as deregulation, enabling citizens to buy health care policies from a company in any state, and to provide tax deductions for individuals to purchase coverage.

For these reasons, I strongly oppose President Obama's government-run health care ideas. I urge you to vote against these bills when they come for a vote in Congress.

Sincerely,

Sometimes we feel as though we are no longer in the United States of America. The greatness of America is that it is a nation that has a federal government with limited powers. Our Constitution does not grant the federal government unlimited power to do whatever it wishes. Rather, the federal government is limited only to protecting individual rights. Individual rights are another way of referring to liberty. However, we are seeing that these limits placed upon the federal government have steadily eroded over time.

We presently have a federal government that wants to intervene in every aspect of American life. Think about what starts in the beginning of the day: you eat breakfast, turn on the TV, and drive to work. Well, in every one of those areas, the government wants to intervene and change the way you live. First, the government wants to radically change your diet. It's hard to get Nancy Pelosi to come to your house to tell you what to eat, so the best way is by making certain foods more expensive so that you'd be forced to buy less expensive foods. Ostensibly, this means taxing "junk food," but it is not hard to conceive of Congress expanding far beyond this to coffee, beef, salt, etc, etc. Secondly, turning on your TV to catch the news will be far more expensive because the people in Congress have a hypersensitive and paranoid view of rising temperatures, which causes them to have the arrogant view that they, the United States Congress, actually have control over global temperature. (This actually reminds me of a documentary I rented recently. It was a documentary about pre-historic man. During one part of the documentary, it referred to the fact that ancient man believed that he could change the weather by chanting to the "weather god." Isn't this very similar, only that this time, Congress wants to force you to pay alms to this "weather god"?) Thirdly, driving to work will certainly be a lot more difficult in the future since Congress wants to design the type of car that you should be driving, impose substantial taxes on gasoline to make it harder to drive to work, and also, to impose policies that will make driving more inconvenient. For instance, Congress wants to shift gas tax revenue away from highway construction towards mass transit, which will result in more congestion.

As Americans, we must remember that our Constitution does not grant Congress unlimited majority rule. Our Founders choose specifically to limit the extent of Congress's powers. No matter who wins an election, there are some things that politicians cannot do. Politicians are to write laws to protect our individual rights; their job is not to abridge our rights.

Further, while we still have the freedom to communicate, it is essential to get the word out and let your fellow citizens know what President Obama has in store for America. Obama does not believe that Americans should have individual rights. Instead, he wants to ration rights and distribute it to his political allies and oppress those who are not favorable to him. It is important that we remain vigilant and continue to shed light on the harmful ideas and policies that Obama continues to bring forward.

[Send this to your US Senator to oppose Obama hack judge Sonia Sotomayor]

I oppose the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court.  

Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be very disconcerting given her hard-left record on the Court of Appeals, where she is recognized by practitioners as one of the more liberal judges.

Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decision making, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”


Only just recently, in Ricci v. DeStefano, Judge Sotomayor was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes for going to extraordinary lengths to dispense with claims of unfair treatment raised by firefighters. Judge Sotomayor’s panel heard a case raising important questions under Title VII and equal protection law, but attempted to dispose of the firefighter’s arguments in a summary order, until called out by Judge Cabranes. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.


Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.”


For these reasons, I urge you to vote "no" on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court.


Sincerely,


[Your Name]