Light of Liberty

The dangers of Obama Care

Mon, 6 Jul 2009 00:01:00 -0400

This video speaks for itself. If you care about health care, then heed this warning concerning Obama Care.

[COLUMN] Census an unwarranted intrusion

Sun, 5 Jul 2009 00:01:00 -0400

The United States is on the eve of its decennial invasion of privacy: the 2010 census.

I am not opposed to a census. After all, that is how we are best able to determine the division of representation.

The constitutional mandate is clear. "[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

The reason for the census is also clear. The preceding sentence in the same clause (section 2, clause 3) says, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

The SOLE reason for the census is to determine the correct distribution of representation to the federal Congress.

Nothing more.

However, if you have ever filled out a census form, you understand the source of my consternation.

There is some good news, sort of, this time. When the census rolls around April 1, there only will be 10 questions.

Of course, the government never gives you good news without corresponding bad news.

The bulk of the most egregious questions, things such as how we get to work, whether we have trouble bathing, how much money we make, etc., have been rolled into an annual survey known as the American Community Survey.

Instead of asking those questions every 10 years, the federal government now asks them every year.

The Census Bureau has taken a one-line mandate in the Constitution to count the people every 10 years and turned it into the largest data collection scheme in history, now doing it annually.

This information, frankly, is none of the government's business.

Even this year's census form, with only 10 questions, is nine questions too many.

I intend to answer only one question on the form: "How many people live in your home?" That is the only question the Constitution requires and the only one for which the government needs an answer.

The purpose of the census is to make an accurate count of Americans for apportioning congressional districts. The government does not need to know my race, age or sex to make that determination.

It wants that information, of course, to redistribute $3 trillion in wealth based on the answers to the census and the American Community Survey.

Moreover, the question about race is unconscionable. Americans will never get beyond race so long as the government continues to collect racial data and uses it as the statistical blueprint for race-based government programs.

Some might think it harmless to answer the questions.

However, in the 1940s, the U.S. government used census data to identify and roundup Japanese Americans, German Americans and Italian Americans and put them in prison camps.

Last month, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told Fox News she was only going to answer question 1.

"And I know for my family the only question that we will be answering is how many people are in our home," she said. "We won't be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that."

Of course, the Census Bureau rejects her claim citing the "Necessary and Proper" clause of the Constitution, which, along with the Commerce Clause, is perhaps the most abused of the clauses.

That clause says Congress can do whatever is necessary to carry out its constitutional duties.

Unfortunately, that argument only holds water if you believe that redistributing $3 trillion in wealth is constitutional in the first place. I have yet to find the Wealth Redistribution Clause or the Entitlement Programs Clause.

While I rarely encourage lawbreaking, and not fully answering your census form is a crime punishable with a $100 fine, the best way to stand and be counted is to stand and refuse to give the government anything it doesn't need to count you.

I just wonder if the government will take a check for my $100 fine.

America is indeed a beautiful country

Sat, 4 Jul 2009 13:30:29 -0400

An awesome video.

Check it out:

From Lucianne.com
http://oldbluewebdesigns.com/mybeautifulamerica.htm

Fourth of July solution to budget problem

Sat, 4 Jul 2009 00:27:51 -0400

Happy Fourth of July!

Enjoy this video of an errant bottle rocket solving the nation's budget problem.

Happy Independence Day!

Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:58:01 -0400

It was on this date 233 years ago that the United States was born. On July 2, 1776, the congress, in closed session, approved the resolution of independence.

John Adams thought today would be the day that Americans would celebrate independence based on that vote. On July 3, 1776, in a letter to his wife Abigail, Adams wrote, "The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more."

Of course, public opinion is sometimes hard to predict. From the very beginning, Americans chose to celebrate independence on July 4, the date shown on the Declaration of Independence.

However, regardless of the date, we need to remember the ideas behind the Declaration of Independence. We were declaring ourselves independent of overbearing government. It marked the beginning of the greatest experiment in self-government in history. The ideas expressed, while not new, were still profound. It set in motion the idea that humans are capable of, and by right should, govern themselves and that the citizens, not subjects, should be free to pursue their dreams, wants and desires so long as they do not interfere in the rights of others to do the same.

Somehow, along the way, we have forgotten that. Our Framers would be aghast of how overbearing today's government has become. And it becomes larger and more intrusive by the day.

Hopefully, Americans will take this Independence Day to reflect on what it really means and how relevant, especially today, the words of the Declaration of Independence are and make a renewed effort of returning our government to our founding ideals.

An uncertain future in Iraq should not sway U.S. departure

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:47:00 -0400

This photograph by Khalid Mohammed of The Associated Press shows a jubilant crowd in the streets of Baghdad, Iraq, on Monday, celebrating the U.S. military's departure from the nation's major urban centers. In addition, fireworks colored Baghdad's skyline and thousands of people attended a party in a city park where singers performed patriotic songs.

The departure of U.S. forces is a small step toward the ultimate goal of leaving Iraq by the end of 2011, which is still a longtime away.

The reaction by Iraqis, however, is telling. It shatters the Bush administration's contention that the Iraqis wanted us there and saw the Americans as liberators.

In fact, they wanted us so there so badly that the day we left their major cities, they created a national holiday. If we were truly liberators rather than invaders and occupiers, would they have not made a national holiday for the day Saddam Hussein was deposed?

Still, the move is a good one, though the schedule for complete withdrawal is excessively slow.

I am not completely confident, however, that this is a permanent withdrawal. It is easy to see how a few bombings could be an excuse by the United States to move back into the cities, especially if the current regime is threatened.

However, that should not be our concern. The United States has done all it can and more than it should have to prop up the Iraqi government. Time to let the bird fly the coop, so to speak.

If Iraq falls into civil war, then so be it. Let the people of Iraq determine the nation's destiny. It is not for us to enforce peace in Iraq.

As Christopher A. Preble of the Cato Institute said, "For decades, the United States has been in the business of doing for other governments what they should be doing for themselves. Now would be a good time to start to change this pattern.

"Iraq is a test case for this change. Nothing that happens there should divert us from a new course."

[COLUMN] Time to consider congressional term limits

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:01:00 -0400

Even before Barack Obama was sworn in as president of the United States, one of the very first bills the Democrats introduced in the new Congress was one to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits presidents to two terms.

After all, when your messiah is elected you cannot have that annoying Constitution prevent him from staying in power.

To be fair, U.S. Rep. José E. Serrano has introduced the bill at the beginning of every Congress since Bill Clinton was president. In fact, many similar bills have been introduced in Congresses dating back to 1956, shortly after the amendment's ratification.

There are some strong arguments against term limits for presidents and that is part of the reason it has bipartisan appeal, though this most recent bill has yet to attract any co-sponsors and will likely die in committee.

Perhaps the strongest argument against presidential term limits is the loss of the people to decide at the ballot box whether the president should continue in power. In other words, the argument goes, it is undemocratic. Term limits, as U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, once said, demonstrate "a fundamental lack of faith in the common sense and good judgment of the voters."

While a good argument on the face, it crumbles under real scrutiny.

The 22nd Amendment was approved by the American people in a wholly democratic way. First, it passed both houses of the Congress by a two-thirds majority in each. Then, three-quarters of the states approved the proposed amendment.

What is more democratic than that?

Besides, term limits actually increase voter choice. After all, what politician is going to run against a popular president who is running for his or her third or fourth term? In states where term limits have been applied to legislators, the result has been more candidates running for office.

Proponents of term limits also like to argue that the Framers intentionally refrained from putting a limit on the terms of the president and representatives. They point to President George Washington's decision to step down after two terms as a personal decision based on his age rather than some philosophical opposition to running for a third term.

While that might be true, many of the other Framers and Founders were supporters of term limits.

For example, Thomas Jefferson was a strong advocate of limiting the term of the president. Originally, he wanted one seven-year term, but later thought the idea of an eight-year term with the ability to remove him after four years was the better way to go.

In 1807, he wrote to the Vermont Legislature, "If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution or supplied in practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance."

He even suggested a constitutional amendment to add a presidential term limit.

In 1805, he wrote to John Taylor, "General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years. I shall follow it. ... Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution."

Instead of tampering with the 22nd Amendment, the Congress should be creating a new amendment to institute term limits for its members.

The Framers envisioned a citizen legislature with routine rotation in office. The idea of a professional political class controlling the country runs counter to the idea of self-government.

Term limits have been placed on 15 state legislatures, eight of the 10 largest cities in America adopted term limits for their city councils and/or mayor, and 37 states place term limits on their constitutional officers. In each of those places, the term limits have proved successful in increasing the number and diversity of political candidates.

That members of Congress do not want to limit their terms and give up their power is evidence enough that term limits are needed.

As Jefferson predicted in that 1805 letter to Taylor: "The danger is that the indulgence and attachments of the people will keep a man in the chair after he becomes a dotard, that reelection through life shall become habitual and election for life follow that."

Barack Obama to save the day!

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:44:35 -0400

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

Another great video from my friends at JibJab!

[COLUMN] No more government 'solutions' for health care

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:01:00 -0400

Invariably, whenever I argue with some weak-minded liberal (I know, redundant) about health care and why it is a profoundly ignorant and potentially dangerous idea to let the government take over, i.e., socialized medicine, I am given some bleeding-heart sob story about the number of uninsured in the country.

Turns out, however, that argument is a straw man and it is time to put it to rest, thanks to Dr. Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan. On his Carpe Diem blog (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/), Perry quickly dispatched this liberal argument.

In 2007, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that 45.6 million people were without health insurance. One argument against the figure is that many of those people are only temporarily without health insurance. While the figure remains fairly steady, the actual people without insurance changes often.

However, another argument, the one put forth by Perry, is that a large number of those people are voluntarily without health insurance.

For example, of that 45.6 million people, the Census Bureau said that 9.1 million, or 20 percent, were living in a household earning more than $75,000 per year. Certainly, the vast majority of those 9.1 million people could afford health insurance if they wanted it.

An additional 8.5 million, or 18.6 percent, were living in a household earning between $50,000 and $74,999 a year. Many of those people could also afford health insurance.

That means nearly 40 percent of those 45.6 million people are living in households that could afford health insurance.

In fact, only 13.5 million, or 29.7 percent, are living in households earning less than $25,000 per year.

The problem seems quite a bit less pervasive when you break those numbers down.

The truth is that many people choose to self-insure. They have discovered there are better ways to insure themselves than buy into the government-mandated health care plans provided by their employers.

As Perry writes, "Given the widespread availability of more than a thousand convenient and affordable retail health clinics around the country at Wal-Marts, Meijers, CVSs and Walgreens, these households could easily be on the 'pay-as-you-go' model of self-insurance for health care."

In the end, it is simply a bad idea to let the government take more control over our health care system.

The system has its problems and needs reform. However, most of the problems are rooted in previous government "solutions."

For example, the HMO Act of 1973 (thank you, Sen. Edward Kennedy) requires all but the smallest employers to offer coverage. Additionally, the tax code allows businesses - but not individuals - to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums.

This has created a system where health insurance is tied to employment, which means the unemployed often end up without insurance.

The HMO Act of 1973 was the "solution" to fix a problem created by an earlier government "solution": the 1965 enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, which resulted in millions of Americans no longer having to be responsible for the financial ramifications of their health care decisions.

Of course, this "free" care led to increased health care use, which pushed up medical costs. Between 1965 and 1971, physician fees increased 7 percent and hospital charges jumped 13 percent. During that same period, the Consumer Price Index rose only 5.3 percent. The nation's health care bill, which was only $39 billion in 1965, jumped to $75 billion in 1971, according to congressional testimony.

The last thing our fragile health care system can afford is another government "solution." Estimates predict the reform plan emerging in Congress will cost more than $1 trillion during the next decade.

We don't need to take another step down the Marxist path of doom. Even Pravda, the mouthpiece of the old Soviet Union, thinks we have gone too far:

"The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. ... If this keeps up for more than another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Weimar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

"... The proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker."

Open letter to Barack Obama

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:50:43 -0400

This is a letter written by Lou Pritchett, a former vice president at Procter & Gamble, to The New York Times.

As of Thursday, the Times has not published this letter, but it has been making the rounds on the Internet.

Snopes and other hoax-watching sites have confired this is a legitimate letter written by Pritchett. It states succinctly what many Americans are feeling these days.

I thought I would share it:

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

By Lou Pritchett

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, "Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat."