Obamacare and the Supreme Court Oral Arguments

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

There's new found excitement from the conservative ranks today. As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments there's close observation of each justice's response. We hang on their every word excruciatingly squinting to read between their descriptive lines. If we listen closely and if we analyze critically we believe we can accurately predict how each justice will vote.

We ask ourselves, do their responses give us legitimate insight into how they think? Absolutely! The words that spew from our mouths generally come from deep inside our heart. Generally, but not always! Can we assess their statements throughout the three or four days of oral arguments and then draw an accurate conclusion? By reading their actions and reactions can we accurately predict which side of the constitutional mandate they will fall?

I would state a resounding "no way!" Just because Justice Roberts chose to go toe to toe with government council does not enable us clear vision as to how he will vote. Just because Justice Kennedy has offered descriptive and compelling arguments explaining the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate is not truly indicative of his innermost thoughts regarding the Accountable Care Act (ACA) and certainly does not provide us high predictive value into how he will vote. Especially knowing that Justice Kennedy purportedly holds the decisive swing vote.

Even though the highest court in the land is responsible for legal interpretation rather than political legislation, the reality is at this time in American history, the court has positioned itself as a body of politicians or legislatures, rather than a group of jurists. Seemingly they would rather shape and influence politics.

And therefore, I believe that Justice Roberts and Kennedy's statements are more similar to posturing or politicking, rather than a window into their intellectual soul.

I won't be surprised in the least if after all arguments are made, and our initial excitement or sense of security in the initial reaction from our US Supreme Court Justices with regards to the lack of constitutional authority for an individual health insurance mandate and after the parliamentary dust settles, we hear a loud and clear, "however"!

I'm expecting a response something like this from The Court in the near future..."However, even though Congress cannot impose mandates on essentially all products and services, health care is unique and therefore not like any other American product or service. Therefore, the American people must not look at this as our US government telling each of us that we must purchase health insurance. Instead we must reshape our thinking from a required mandate to a desired participation. We should think of this as being prescribed that distasteful medicine that we need to cure whatever disease is ailing us. Like that bitter cough syrup our old General Practitioner (GP) prescribed 50 years ago. We should want to participate in this national health plan because it will be good for us." this is the response I personally am expecting from The Court. And I think their explanation will go something like this..."And the most important thing to remember is that patients (American citizens) don't always know or appreciate what is best for them. Like a parent nurtures their child, or like a doctor treats their patient, the government knows better than we do, and therefore, we should want to participate in, say healthy eating, whether we like, say broccoli, or not, because it is good for us."

Thus, when one looks at how the Supreme Court is posturing regarding individual mandates, it's imperative to remember things are not often as they appear. Or, what you see isn't always what you get. Therefore, I for one, will not be surprised after all the Supreme Court dust settles, if there's a big "but" standing in the doorway claiming the individual mandate in this particular situation is acceptable, constitutional, but most importantly what is best for each one of us.

Also, don't forget, even though we are examining this issue critically this week, for the past two years the PPACA has been the law and much of it has already been implemented. If I'm wrong and the Supreme Court does decide this health insurance requirement is unconstitutional, the court can't simply snap their fingers and have the PPACA magically go away. And if your waiting for their opinion to be given at the end of this week, don't hold your breath, because they won't officially make their ruling until mid summer, which gives the politicians plenty of time to persuade The Court to change their collective mind.

View the original article here

The Failure of the Founders of The US Constitution

The formatter threw an exception while trying to deserialize the message: Error in deserializing body of request message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (30720) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 2, position 31348.
The formatter threw an exception while trying to deserialize the message: Error in deserializing body of request message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (30720) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 31547.

Several years ago I began to feel overwhelmed by all the reports coming from Washington, especially the magnitude of deficit spending and I decided to get involved. While reading the 'Five Thousand Year Leap', I began asking myself if the Founders may have overlooked something in the U.S. Constitution which may have prevented us from veering so far off track. It inspired me to explore further into the teachings of some of the early political philosophers and Founding Fathers. Let us look at what I discovered.

The treatise of the Founders of the U. S. Constitution are insightful testaments to the credence that they acknowledged and understood human nature and Nature's Law; but the divide currently observed in the general public provides evidence they failed to act upon one or more of these basic principles. To better appreciate this presumptuous proposition, I advocate an examination of a number of their convictions and the prevailing circumstance of the time. While some of the information will be a review, the justification for requesting your time is to introduce you to a number of concepts and historical events that I found absent in the education I received from public institutions.

The thirteen colonies that declared independence from the British Empire were in effect separate and independent nations. They did not begin as "The United States of America" and few were in favor of joining together under a single system of government. The Articles of Confederation which bound their alliance was approved by The Continental Congress in 1777; but it was little more than a "Committee of the States" with little influence and a complete absence of power to levy taxes. Its authority was undermined and contingent upon support brought about by the limited agreements among the states. Lack of proper funding for the military during the Revolutionary War and the failure to manage civil disobedience such as Shay's Rebellion revealed the necessity of a more influential and powerful administration.

Mindful of the trepidation of aggressive centralized power in conjunction with the requirement to enrich the Articles of Confederation and advance the coalition, delegates to the Constitutional Convention assembled in 1787 to explore the alternatives availed them. Equipped with the scholarly teachings of Polybius, Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu and others, they began their deliberations. To better understand the task assigned them, we must study the nature of the different forms of government from which they might choose; and examine the established societies amid the divergent colonies.

Our first task is to agree upon the definition of government and for what purpose it serves. Although it may be a little difficult to grasp, I introduce to you, John Locke's opinion in 'The Two Treatises of Civil Government', "To understand political power right,... we must consider, what state all men are naturally in... a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions as they think fit... without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man... A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdictionis reciprocal, no one having more than another... that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions". "Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good".

I advocate that every man is the ruler of his own dominion and that without interaction with other men he has no need of government; but when men gather together in societies, it is necessary to create statutes that govern the dealings among them.

Polybius introduced the theory that there exist six distinctive natural forms of government: despotism, monarchy, oligarchy, aristocracy, democracy andmob-rule (anarchy). An examination of these styles of government identified by Polybius will quickly classify three as unsatisfactory options when one considers a new constitution. However, before we eliminate these unacceptable choices from our inventory, I summit to you the similarity of attributes associated with these oppressive forms. In each instance, the virtue and morality of the sovereign is diminished to the extent that greed and covetousness become the motivating factors of behavior and force is the only way to retain power. It may also be observed that the converse of this proposal holds true for the remaining alternatives. The sovereign are obliged to maintain higher levels of nobility, sincerity and decency to sustain the esteem necessary to safeguard the administration and the citizens. It is also confirmed by the testaments of many historians that a democracy requires exemplary levels of morality in the sovereign. Baron de Montesquieu may have stated this best in 'Spirit of the Laws' with, "When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community".

To survive and remain prosperous, the most sacred principle that any government must recognize and hold fast is the protection of, or the complete domination and control of religious conviction; no government has long survived when it takes the middle road on this issue. Human nature does not appear to tolerate a "little" interference from government where freedom of religion is practiced. Nothing turns man's thoughts from the ballot box to the ammo box more quickly than attempts to suppress his theological beliefs.
Other principles acknowledged by cohesive nations are: governments do not grant human rights, these rights of liberty are granted at birth; each power delegated to government requires the surrender of one or more of these individual liberties. Government must hold the admiration of a majority of the people; it must strive to protect their interest and wellbeing; and not the promotion of its own subsistence.

The only reasons for government to exist are: to create laws or regulations that protect the safety of the citizens, promote the general wellbeing of society and provide for the common defense while seizing as few individual liberties from the people as necessary. It is as simple as that; there are no other essential duties governments need perform. Coinciding with these, it is necessary to impartially generate just enough revenue to carry out these duties as efficiently as possible without overdue burden on the people.

Keenly aware of the acceptable forms of natural governments and cognizant of the undesirable aspects of monarchies and aristocracies the founders were inclined to consider the advantages and disadvantages of democracies where the people hold the sovereign power. Let us evaluate some of the attributes of a Democracy.

A true democracy allows all citizens, who have been granted the right of suffrage, to participate in the policy making or creation of law which dictates the administration of the government. Democracies are limited by the capacity of people to physically gather together from time to time and debate a subject with civil discourse. By definition this constraint restricts it to smaller regions or populations. The idea of selecting council to represent the constituencies of multiple factions lessens this inadequacy and introduces the mixed form of government referred to as Republican. The Republican form of government also helps resolve one concern identified by Mr. Montesquieu, "As most citizens have sufficient ability to choose, though unqualified to be chosen, so the people, though capable of calling others to an account for their administration, are incapable of conducting the administration themselves". The Republican form leaves sovereignty in the custody of those that have the right of suffrage and borrows from the aristocracy the idea that the noblest of men will be selected to represent the community.

There is another principle that must be addressed to avoid the demise of a Republic and I shall call upon Mr. Montesquieu for his opinion, "The public business must be carried on with a certain motion, neither too quick nor too slow. But the motion of the people is always either too remiss or too violent. Sometimes with a hundred thousand arms they overturn all before them; and sometimes with a hundred thousand feet they creep like insects". To facilitate conscious reasoned actionon matters of significance by the sovereign; the Constitution provides the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech. Thus allowing continual discussion on matters of grave importance but then it limits the people's ability to take action while satisfying their need to do so by providing periodic elections; therefore necessitating extensive periods of debate to enact change.

In a Republic, as the people delegate their sovereign authority to their representatives the less they retain awareness of the decisions made on their behalf and the less they feel empowered; therefore, the closer these powers remain to the people, while harmony exists among the diverse societies, the more the people stay informed, involved and retain their mind-set of being empowered. Conversely, when conflict cannot be resolved locally, it is advanced to higher echelons of government, where calmer minds prevail, pending a solution. The founders recognized the inevitability of population growth and an increase in the numbers of diverse societies. The Constitution's intentional distribution of power from the people to local authority then to the States and lastly the Federal Government permits the citizenry to more closely monitor the activities of government and the restrictions it might impose on them. The Founders believed, the inherent role of central government to protect the security and freedoms of society should not alter with the changing needs of society and that the States or local authorities would resolve most of the civil conflicts.

I believe we can agree the Founders designed the Constitution including the Bill of Rights on basic principles of good government which has been previously discussed. Also built into the Constitution are many checks and balances to limit power allocated to the central authority, without endangering the autonomy of the states; and the Separation of Powers between the branches.
The House of Representatives will be selected by the general population. The Senate will represent the States and consist of two Senators. The President selected by an appointed body of electors; the process of appointing said electors resting with the individual state Legislatures. The Judicial Branch consisting of a Supreme Court established by the constitution and inferior courts established by Congress; with Justices, nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate. The House of Representatives is granted the power of Impeachment with the trial being conducted in the Senate. Revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Senate must confirm appointments to major departments, treaties and ambassadors. Both Houses of the Legislature must pass all bills before submitting them to the President. The President is granted the power of veto. Congress may override the veto with a two thirds majority in both Houses. Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution. Ratification of proposed amendments requires approval by three fourths of the States.

The United States of America now has a foundation upon which to build a new coalition and we've discussed the Founders' rationale behind the statutes in the document; now let us appraise their success.

A testament to the success of America came from an impartial witness from France, Alexis de Tocqueville when he authored 'Democracy in America' published in 1835; he recounts the conditions he observed during his travels, "The European generally submits to a public officer because he represents a superior force; but to an American he represents a right. In America it may be said that no one renders obedience to man, but to justice and to law. If the opinion which the citizen entertains of himself is exaggerated, it is at least salutary; he unhesitatingly confides in his own powers, which appear to him to be all-sufficient. When a private individual meditates an undertaking, however directly connected it may be with the welfare of society, he never thinks of soliciting the co-operation of the government: but he publishes his plan, offers to execute it himself, courts the assistance of other individuals, and struggles manfully against all obstacles. Undoubtedly he is less successful than the state might have been in his position; but in the end, the sum of these private undertakings far exceeds all that the government could effect".

The industrial revolution had begun and Mr. Tocqueville is amazed by what he has observed; he credits the productive environment to the vast freedom and liberty enjoyed by the common citizen. An additional concept of a productive society comes from Adam Smith and I am amused by his words, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest". It is in human nature where we discover that labors are maximized when the reward is greatest. In America we have mostly relied on the entrepreneur's self-reliance and self-interest to determine the direction of investment and the course of the economy. This course of action has served us well!
Another observation noted by Mr. Tocqueville, "Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country... In the United States the sovereign authority is religious... there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth... The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other".

As you may detect, I afford an abundant amount of ink to the observations of Mr. Tocqueville; this I do to illustrate the conditions that remain in America after five decades under the Constitution; but preceding the Civil War and the Progressive Era that followed. I suggest you not gloss over these annotations as it is imperative that you understand, except for the existence of slavery, all seemed well within the borders of America. Attempt to amend the history of this nation all you desire, but only a casual review of any transcript originating during this period will divulge that virtue and religion played primary roles in the development of American prosperity.

We have learned the Founding Fathers employed their understanding of several thousand years of human behavior including the strengths and weaknesses of previous and existing governments in their attempt to establish a new manner of government that might long last and allow divergent factions to coexist and prosper. Nevertheless, an analysis of the relations between the differing political and cultural factions in America today exposes antagonistic behaviors not witnessed since the Civil Rights movement of the prior century. If we consider these, one might infer the Founders deprived the Federal Government of some authority which would allow it to anticipate calamity and take action to prevent it. Let us investigate this premise.

The earth's ethnicity has altered in the past century as travel and communication have enlightened each of us to the other's customs and traditions. But one need only review migration patterns of mankind throughout history and behold the world population's trends and behaviors. As the old proverb asserts, "Birds of a feather flock together." The Constitutional Republic envisioned by our founders takes into consideration the need for different ethnic groups and religions to coexist under a central government. The States are allowed to differ one from the other and any impartial examination will disclose they do have countless differences. These differences are even more apparent as we consider the cities, towns, communities and neighborhoods around the country. When differing persons or factions are in conflict they should and must rely on government for peaceful solutions. The question is; at what level of government should they begin their search?

We read in The Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal", and some will assert the Civil War was fought over this. I will not totally disagree; because until after that war and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, this was not the law of the land. In fact, this issue was not resolved, in law, until it was escalated to the Federal Government and the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. This certainly was one 'Failing of the Founders' where we might agree. It is here we find an example of where it became necessary to delegate the people's authority to the highest level of government to ascertain a solution; but one legitimate example does not obligate us to delegate this authority for any other issue exposed within these borders.

Let us assume my neighbor and I have many cultural and philosophical disagreements and in fact can scarcely tolerate being in each others presence. To avoid daily conflict, are we not required to deliberate and discover common ground which will allow us to exist in some form of harmony or to seek mediation from a higher authority? Of course we are! Then, once we have reached agreement, should we expect all persons experiencing similar disagreements to accept the same solutions to which we have agreed? If you concur that we should not, then you must also agree that the closer to home a solution can be sought, the higher the probability of informed mediation and greater the chance of finding a satisfactory resolution.

For arbitration to have a final solution it is sometimes necessary to look beyond our own self-interest. John Locke alleged, "for, to be a good man, a good intention is necessary, and we should love our country not so much on our own account as out of regard to the community".

I assert that enough evidence has been presented thus far to illustrate, in a Republic, where the Sovereign authority resides with the people, each person, community or faction should be allowed to manage their own affairs so long as they do not interfere with the affairs of another. When conflict exist in society, it should be dealt with and resolved as close to the cause as feasible; this principle can be applied to any action of government. An issue originating in the interior-city of Detroit will probably not be resolved with the same solution as a similar issue found in a rural community of the same State of Michigan.

Let us investigate what has changed in America and the Constitution that may have had a profound effect on the behavior of society and government since Mr. Tocqueville documented his observations in 1835? For example, there have been thirteen amendments; and if time and space would allow we should probably examine each and every one to establish the effect it has had. Do not be alarmed; I have no intention of making this any more of an American History tutorial than necessary to determine the basis for the situation that currently exists.

The most active subject, suffrage, was addressed in six of these amendments and while it did significantly increase the percentage of citizens with the legal right to vote and according to Mr. Montesquieu may contribute to some of the discourse, I do not think it to be a major factor. The two amendments which I believe have had the greatest effect and removed some of the checks and balances that the Founders deemed necessary are the Sixteenth and Seventeenth. Before we investigate other influences, let us review these amendments in the reverse order of ratification.

The Seventeenth Amendment provided for the direct election of Senators by the people (Remember they were selected by the State Legislatures). Does this not negate the States' representation in the Federal Government and remove a major level of the Republic so carefully planned by the Founders? Even if a majority of the State Legislators oppose an edict imposed on them by Washington, what recourse do they currently have except through the expansive and lengthy path of the Judicial Branch? Before they can get a ruling, which often finds in their favor, millions and sometimes billions of precious dollars are wasted while thousands of lives may well have been negatively impacted by ill conceived laws and regulations.

The Sixteenth Amendment was approved by Congress in 1909 when it was widely promoted the country was becoming insolvent; the nation was over 2.6 billion dollars in debt and had been suffering deficits for most of the previous fifteen years. The amendment provided, for the first time, the authority of the Federal Government to impose a direct tax on incomes with the anticipation that the people would hold it accountable for the quantity it would be inclined to collect. This anticipated control may have received additional debate and consideration had Congress been as knowledgeable as the Founders were of Mr. Montesquieu: "the people, whose nature is to act through passion... we often see them as much inflamed on account of an actor as ever they could be for the welfare of the state. The misfortune of a republic is when intrigues are at an end; which happens when the people are gained by bribery and corruption: in this case they grow indifferent to public affairs, and avarice becomes their predominant passion. Unconcerned about the government and everything belonging to it, they quietly wait for their hire".

Since the ratification of the sixteenth amendment, the amount of annual spending by the Federal Government as a percentage of GDP has increased from 3.4 in 1930 (first available record according to Office of Management and Budget ) to a record 25.2 in 2009. Imagine, prior to Social Security in 1935, and other social programs that followed, the Federal Government was able to fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities using less than 3.5 percent of GDP. You must concede; the Federal Government has been procuring massive amounts of power and influence for the past century while abducting individual liberties from the people and the States.

It is reported that forty-seven percent of American households paid no federal income tax in 2011; is this helping the poor or buying votes? The answer depends on who you ask. I have not read where forty-seven percent of households in America are beneath the poverty level; therefore, I tend to lean toward the "buying votes" side. Tocqueville warned, "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money".

Additionally, ease of transportation plus advancements in technologies provide us with copious amounts of news and information; which make each of us unusually aware of issues, conflicts and suffering that would have mostly gone unnoticed in an earlier time. I contend that because we are more aware of these issues; we, as caring beings, wish to assume some responsibility to provide a solution. Helpless in our individual capacities to provide a desirable resolution, we are willing to delegate this mission to higher influences of society. To help ease our conscience, we may even demand solutions at the ballot box; where we find politicians, who, ready to capture additional power, are eager to oblige. I do not propose society overlook these issues and suffering; I merely suggest we examine each solution to determine where it might be managed in the most efficient method possible. If we continue to search for answers from the Federal Government, we must also lower our expectations and understand we will receive generic answers for specific concerns.

It is as if the current generation has lost all common sense. And speaking of 'Common Sense' let us observe a few words of wisdom from Thomas Paine, "The more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered". Mr. Paine advises us to seek simple solutions where possible; the more complicated the process, the more difficult the modifications and/or repairs.

Additional warning came from Mr. Tocqueville, "When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education... the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint... it is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold... they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters". We've passed our responsibilities from our neighborhoods, churches, communities, cities and States; we have allowed the horses to wander far from the barn and it will not be easy to gather them and return them to their stalls. It will be necessary to search in the thickets, briars, brambles and swamps; there will be cuts, scrapes and adversity. This suffering must be endured now and for the sake of future generations; we are the undisciplined generation that became so self-absorbed and ignorant of our duties.

We must recognize and correct the mistakes that have been made. The seventeenth amendment extinguished the States' representation in the Halls of Congress and moved the balance of power too far in favor of the Federal Government. This amendment must be repealed; there is no other solution for the mistake that was made. I have recently heard discussion to rid the nation of another imposition place on us by the Founders; some wish to abolish the Electoral College and choose the President by a majority of the popular vote. Before we slither into a Democracy, let us look back to the lessons handed down through antiquity.

The sixteenth amendment rewarded the Federal Government with enormous authority to collect excessive amounts of revenue without proper controls. Using these unwarranted monies, it has implemented many programs in the name of Social Justice. Government should protect and safeguard equality on the playing field; not fix the game to guarantee the outcome will be a dead heat. There exist numerous possible solutions for this mistake but I believe this amendment must be repealed or we must approve additional amendments which will link the amount of revenue collected to a percentage of the GDP. This topic also needs to end the Federal Government's tradition of collecting revenues in excess of what is required to carry out the limited and carefully defined powers delegated and set forth in the Constitution. It must abolish the practice of collecting revenues and then returning said monies to the States with regulations and/or mandates. If repair of a common ill is required; let it first be addressed at the lowest levels of government and only escalated forward until the infirmity has been medicated or eradicated.

The Founders had nothing to do with the ratification of the sixteenth amendment but they were keenly aware and did foresee the possibility of Congress bribing the public with the public's treasury. I contend this oversight was a 'Failing of the Founders'.

I also wish to bring attention to the ability of private businesses to influence public policy and contracts. A business that feeds from the public trough should operate under similar rules as a 501(c)(3) organization. It can not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns or lobby at any level of the public domain in a partisan way. This also applies to public employee unions. Unions that negotiate for wages and benefits of public employees should not be allowed to contribute to the election of officials who then in turn reward them with the public purse. Why such a business or union is be permitted to contribute to the coffers of a politician's campaign, while it is illegal for a Church to do the same, is beyond me; and to allow them this capability defies all relationships with common sense.

Mr. Paine also advised, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right." These failed principles have long been set in place and we have come to accept there is no other action to provide the results we desire. We must return to the traditions founded upon our Judeo-Christian values. You are not required to be "foolish" enough to believe in The Devine Creator but you can not possibly be foolish enough to believe man can live in societies where virtue and morality is void. Allow the Churches to return to the public square; and teach the doctrines and moral values upon which all virtuous nations have constructed their foundations.

There are other topics we can bring up for consideration but I believe many of these will find their own solutions when we return to the convictions of our Founders and become involved in the management of our affairs. I leave you with a thought from Calvin Coolidge about the Constitution, "It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions".

About the Author

Larry W. Davis is an active member of the TEA Party Movement in Texas. Since 2008 he has been working with like minded patriots to bring the over reaching federal and state governments back to the Constitutional principles of the Founding Fathers.
If you would like additional information about getting involved in this movement, check out TeaParty911.

View the original article here

Obama Administration's Proposed Budget Is Pandering for Votes From the Socialist Leaning Masses

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Over the years, I've been completely critical of various presidents and their proposed budgets. It seems to be a trick of the executive branch to put in budget proposals for all of the voting groups, and all of the major industries, even if the proposed budget is completely out of line with reality. Then the president in question, whether it be this one, the last one, or the three before that can always blame the U.S. Congress for not passing their budget, and tell all the voters in all those various industries and voting block groups that is not their fault, that they were going to bat for them, and that they were on their side.

Still, this sort of pandering for votes is rather alarming, and when President Obama put forth his most recent budget I noted that it was $1.3 trillion above and beyond the total amount of money that the federal government expected to collect from the US taxpayer. That's not a budget, that's not helping America, and if this is some store of a stealth stimulus package to keep the economy going strong until President Obama can get reelected, it really shows a disdain for the obligations of leadership in the highest office in the land, and the leader of the free world. I am not amused, I am not impressed, and I am highly troubled by this type of political pandering.

We cannot keep blowing money on nonsensical things and expect the Federal Reserve to continually take stuff off of one side of their balance sheet and carefully place it on the other. If businesses or corporation did that they would be jailed for fraud. Our federal government, and specifically the executive branch is forcing the Federal Reserve to engage in this sort of activity. Further, the reason that our economy is not firing on all cylinders right now is quite simple. It's because our federal government has grown too large, and is stifling free enterprise at every turn with abusive power grabs, infringing regulations, and crony capitalism.

Socialism is wrong for America and a populist president engaging in socialist behavior promising the masses things which the government cannot afford, and should not afford will destroy America if we let it. We are proud nation, a strong nation, and we should be a fiscally responsible country. We ask our citizens to be responsible with their finances, and our government should do the same. Our federal government's number one job is to protect the American people all this other nonsense may sound good, but we are making industries weak with corporate welfare, and we are making our citizens weak with social welfare. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Politics in 2012. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here

Real Wealth Ends Depressions

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

In reality, government spending and provision can never end a depression. A depression can only be ended by real wealth creation through supply and demand, by finding a need and finding someone who has the means to meet that need with real wealth, not printed money. When the government provides, it must eventually print money, which causes inflation, leaving the nation worse off in the long term. Why? Because feeding money into the economy without labor to provide supply, coupled with driving up wages beyond the supplier's ability to pay for supply always drives up prices.

There are no free lunches in creating true wealth. Even the scriptures states, those who are not willing to work should not eat. The wealth of a nation does not come through giving men fish, but rather, teaching men to fish and giving them opportunity to fish for themselves.

Ungodly politicians know this, they are banking that the people never come to the understanding of this truth, so they can continue to trade provision for votes.

The poor nor the government cannot end depressions, the rich must end depressions. But the ungodly rich use depressions to get richer, instead of using wealth to end depressions.

So, it is left up to the godly rich to end depressions according to the scriptures. If the godly rich see a need, meet that need, expecting nothing in return, but the return always comes and a much bigger one at that.

If the real truth were to be revealed, we would most likely see that it is the ungodly rich who start depressions to get richer, and it is the godly rich who must end depressions, because it is the right thing to do.

What caused the stock market crash of 1929, which led to deep depression? Was it not the greed of the ungodly rich driving up stock prices through speculation? Out of 90 million Americans, there were never over 1 million stock investors in the market at one time during the 1920's.

What caused the 2008 housing depression? Was it not the greed of the ungodly rich, selling shady housing loan bundles to the greedy? Did they not both fall into the ditch? Was it not because of government's intervention and greed of the ungodly rich, allowing those who could not afford houses to buy houses with loans which could not be paid back, then bundled and sold to those who desired to make a quick gain?

If the government wants to end a depression, as it tried to do in the Great Depression, it must get out of the way, if government wants to start a depression, just keep printing and spending money to provide for the poor.

The only way a nation can truly prosper is for the godly rich to bare rule. It is impossible for the poor to rule over the rich, except it be through governmental control. Redistribution of wealth, as a governmental process, will cripple a nation. The blind cannot lead the blind and neither can the poor lead the rich.

A nation cannot come to great wealth when the poor rule. If the poor knew how to get wealth they would not be poor. The godly rich must lead a nation into great wealth. The ungodly rich will lead a nation down the path to hell. Only the godly rich can lead a nation where it needs to go and that is into great wealth. Even the scriptures state, "A righteous man will leave an inheritance to his children's children and the wealth of the wicked is laid up for the just."

Today in the United States of America, we are not leaving an inheritance for our grandchildren. We are doing just the opposite, by spending our grandchildren's inheritance. The number one reason this nation is where it is today is because the godly rich have not been in control. It has been the ungodly rich in control of this nation for many decades. If they continue to be in control of this nation, the future will be much worst that the present. Proverbs 29:2 states, When the righteous are in authority the people rejoice, but when the wicked bare rule the people mourn.

How many of today's politicians do you know who seek the vote of the godly rich? It is the ungodly rich whom they seek. How many of today's ungodly rich do you know who seek the hand of godly politicians? It is the ungodly politicians whom they seek.

It is time for the godly rich to rise up, and seek the help of godly politicians and together lead this nation back to its destined course of great wealth.

The scriptures state that the godly rich of this world should be willing to distribute and communicate. The godly rich, not only should be willing to distribute to the needs of the poor, but communicate to them how not to be poor and give them opportunity not to be poor, but well off.

The ungodly rich will not do this with pure motives. Their motive is to get more gain, thereby piercing themselves and others with many sorrows, because the love of money is the root of all evil. However, the proper use of wealth is the answer to poverty of a nation and its people.

How do you determine the ungodly rich from the godly rich? By their fruits you shall know them. I Timothy 5:25 states, Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid. Find out rich men's motives for what they do. Are they content with the riches they have, or do they seek more? Godly riches with contentment will lead to even more gain.

It is not so with the ungodly rich. I Timothy 6:9 states,But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

If history is not studied, it will surely repeat itself. Today in 2012, we see the same things happening with government intervention and big spending as we did in the 1930's. It was not the answer then, and it cannot be the answer today.

The poverty mentality must be rooted out of the heart of men and then given opportunity to prosper among men. The government cannot do this, but the godly rich can.

In the elections of 2012, it is not about Democrats or Republicans, but it is about the godly rich coming into authority and leading this nation back into the great wealth that it is destined to have from God.

The founding fathers of America were godly men of means, who had a fighting desire to be free from the control of the ungodly. They founded a nation where every individual had the right and freedom to get wealth.

Even in the beginning of this nation, ungodly power hungry men tried to bring this young nation back into the bondage from which they came. The ungodly rich want themselves to be free, but they seek bondage of those whom they rule. They rule from high hills and big offices, handing out just enough provision to keep the poor living on "barely get along street" in exchange for their votes.

Each individual has the power of one vote to stay free from governmental control to create godly wealth. Make yours count, remembering that the poor cannot rule the rich, neither can they recover a nation to its wealth. The godly rich are the only answer.

As a final thought on depression and unemployment, wars always bring down unemployment because the soldier's civilian job must be filled, but they also leave a nation bankrupt, the greater the war the lower the unemployment, but the greater the nation's debt. During World War II, this nation's unemployment was 1.9 percent, down from 25 percent at the height of the depression. Peace is the only answer. Peace comes through strength, and strength comes through godly wealth.

God is looking for godly men and women, whom He can make rich, to save this nation from its own self-destruction and greed. To the youth of this generation, be aware, God may tap you on the shoulder and say, "I desire to use you, follow me." God is always looking in each generation for youth whom He can show Himself strong through. It is the godly youth of today that will lead this nation back on course to its destined wealth.

The Apostle Paul instructed Timothy, who was a young man, to not despise or waste his youth. When God called Jeremiah, the prophet, at a very young age to be his servant, Jeremiah said Lord, I am but a child, and the Lord answered him back and said, Say not that I am a child, you shall go and do all I have called you to do. God put Joseph second in charge of Egypt as a young man. David was called to be king when he was a lad, and began his reign at the age of thirty.

Youth of today, it is your time now. Step up and do what you have been called to do. Your life is not a rehearsal that shall be played out tomorrow. Your life is in real time and is moving fast before you. So don't miss it. Get involved today and do your part to lead this nation to its destiny. The founding fathers of America did what they did, so you can do what you must do. Don't let them down. Stand up, speak out, and get involved in the future of America. This is your New Deal. Do it Now, your children's children will be thankful. The generation that lives completely unto itself will be the last generation of freedom.

Visit The Story of America, where the American story is shared from its beginnings in concise segments at: http://thestoryofamerica.org/.

View the original article here

Finding Work in the Post Obama Era: How to Create a New Career After Fifty

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

There are so many American workers that are over the age of 50, that are looking for work after the Obama election era. Yet, they are not ready for retirement. Most are too young for social security. Some are still healthy, vibrant, experienced and have tons to offer in the workforce. But, let's look at what really happened. Yes, we had a housing market crisis and many mid-level managers and middle-class workers got laid off or their jobs were eliminated altogether. When did corporations decide that the workers over 50 years old were not useful any longer? They certainly can't collect a social security check for years. What happened to the mature workforce? Where are they now?

During your job search after 50, you might think it's just you. You don't want to believe that you're not being hired because of your particular age group. But the numbers bear out something totally different. When over 50 workers go out to find other work, they're asked to fill-out a verification form or a simple form that allows the company to check a credit report. What's the second thing that they ask you for after you sign your name, it's your birth date? It looks extremely innocent and it seems like it's about checking your credit or for job verification purposes. But, is it really being used for that purpose or is it being used to invalidate people over 50 that might be seen to have health problems or demand more money.

One job board listed good jobs that paid well over $55,000 a year. But they were seeking candidates with 2-3 years of experience. If you only have 2-3 years of experience couldn't they hire a person for $45,000--probably so. If they just graduated from college, a new graduate would be happy to take $45,000 annually to start paying back their student loans. Right!

If the verification is for the purpose of learning their ages then are companies trying to eliminate worker's that are more likely to cost the company more in health premiums. We have to look at those angles. Because if the company can save millions on premiums to insurance companies by cutting older workers out of the pool vs. hiring younger workers that are rarely sick and premiums are much lower-who wouldn't want that deal? What's amazing is that no one is writing about this or talking about this. Is it discriminatory to hire based on age. Or did that law get pushed to the back burner? Does age discrimination exist in the post Obama election era?

It makes perfect sense that when you call the Human Resources department, or they call you, they're listening for cues in your voice about what you have to say regarding your work experience. If your work experience is noted back 20 years and you mention that you graduated in 1970, then you have just solicited your age. Any resume book will tell you never ever mention high school graduation. If your college degree is outdated they say you might not want to mention dates for that either. The best advice is to visit the local library and start reading all of the updated books they have about resume writing for today's job market.

The competition in the workforce is fierce. Especially when you want a job that pays over $50,000 dollars a year, which is over the poverty level. Companies might not want to pay a 50 something worker that type for money for old and outdated skills. If you don't know the computer it's even worse. What if you don't have a profile on LinkedIn, does that indicate that you really have old-fashioned propensities. It could indicate that you're not comfortable online. I've known people over 50 that don't use Facebook or Twitter. They're very uncomfortable with social media highways.

Use of social media networks can be seen as for the Next Generation bka the post Obama generation work force. Although not one media outlet has touched on the subject, the dirty little secret is out there. Jobs are checking ages prior to hiring. Depending on how you format and state the skills on your resume-you might have told your whole life story-only to learn you're not seen as eligible for the job based on your age. Due to the rise in healthcare premiums they're checking to see what age group you might fall; in order not to have to pay higher monthly premiums. If you're 25 years old--premiums are normally allot less expensive.

If you're running into that type of dilemma and you feel discouraged-keep going. It'll get better over time. Once in a while you might need to take a break from the job hunt if you're feeling frustrated. Like one famous person said, "nothing beats a failure but a try." Read a book about positive career change or reinventing yourself for a new career goal. The book, "What Color Is Your Parachute," is another great resource for recreating a new mission for your job search. Older workers have to find their second niche in life after the big fifty. It can be beneficial to find work you've always wanted to do--for fun more than monetary reasons. Good luck in your job search.

Our packages are pre-priced with elements of marketing, social networking, press, promotions and public relations in them. The concept of PR50 Media Group, is to offer cost effective, quality, creative and innovative public relations for any small to mid-size business. We offer elements of public relations and marketing that will help you to grow your business. With social media taking front and center in b2b and b2c, we build your business around social media functions.

Without SEO and networking, your company or organization will be in the shadows of other companies that use these functions successfully to garner attention. Public relations is an essential part of any thriving business. Marketing is a useful and necessary tool for advancement of controlling revenues. Our consultants will help you gain the notoriety and awareness that you deserve. Our exceptional writer's, marketing professionals and public relations consultant's will advise your business on the best media plan for your mission and goals.

Contact email: info@PR50MediaGroup.com
Website: http://www.pr50mediagroup.com/
Twitter Page: http://twitter.com/PR50mediagroup
Business Phone: 888-600-0211
Tracy T. Brittain
CCO/Online Entrepreneur
Freelance Public Relations Services

View the original article here

Graceless Candidate, Graceless Exit

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Rick Santorum was a graceless presidential candidate, so it is not surprising that he made a graceless exit.

The fight for the Republican nomination was effectively decided when Mitt Romney won the Florida primary. Neither Santorum nor Newt Gingrich, the two challengers who still had viable candidacies at that point, was ready to quit. Nor was Ron Paul, whose candidacy has never been viable, but who continues to run anyway.

Fair enough. The four-man field slogged through nearly two dozen additional states as Romney predictably widened his delegate lead. As the front-runner and inevitable standard-bearer for his party, Romney avoided personal attacks on his rivals (though his proxies and supporters were not so chivalrous) and focused his criticism on President Obama, whom virtually every Republican wants to defeat in November. Gingrich and Paul, though less well-endowed with money and proxies, likewise mostly stayed within the bounds of party decorum.

By Easter Sunday, Gingrich was ready to admit that Romney's nomination was inevitable (though he has not yet dropped out of the race), and he promised to support the GOP ticket in whatever way he was asked.

Not Santorum.

The affable front he put on before his campaign gained traction soon fell away as the field narrowed and he was left standing as Romney's chief challenger from the right. To some extent, Santorum was understandably frustrated, because Gingrich's refusal to withdraw continued to split the anti-Romney vote, which worked to Romney's advantage. But since he could gain nothing by alienating Gingrich, Santorum vented his spleen on Romney instead.

He did not attack Romney's positions on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, because those positions are not very different from Santorum's positions; he attacked Romney's sincerity. Santorum also attacked Romney's business success and resulting wealth, as though personal accomplishment should be a disqualifier for public office. He attacked Romney's fitness to head the Republican ticket due to his support for Massachusetts' health insurance mandate, which became a model for Obama's federal law. Never mind that the chief Republican objection to the Affordable Care Act is that it injects federal bureaucrats into matters constitutionally reserved to the states.

By the time Santorum stepped before the cameras yesterday, he had burned most of the political bridges he had yet to cross, and he seemed intent on finishing the job.

Santorum did not endorse Romney, or commend him for a well-planned and well-run campaign. It was not Romney's fault that Santorum lacked the organization necessary to secure a place on a vital primary ballot like Virginia's. Nor was it his fault that Santorum lacked the political common sense not to declare that President John F. Kennedy's comments on separation of church and state made him want to "throw up." JFK, the first Catholic president, is a political icon in many of the homes that any presidential candidate needs to carry in order to win.

Yet Santorum did not even mention Romney's name yesterday. Neither did he pledge to support the GOP ticket, as Gingrich had, though Santorum did say he would try to defeat Obama. While we can still expect Santorum to eventually issue a belated and grudging endorsement of Romney, yesterday was the time to bury the hatchet.

Santorum mentioned that he decided to "suspend" his campaign over the weekend, when he was home celebrating Easter and tending to his very ill 3-year-old daughter. But he apparently only got around to telling Romney on Tuesday. The delayed notice would have caused Romney to waste precious money against a Santorum non-candidacy in Pennsylvania, except that Romney had the decency to pull his negative TV ads out of respect for his rival's family situation.

Some of Santorum's allies in the religious right made noises yesterday about gaining a high place for the Pennsylvanian in a Romney administration. The New York Times reported that Richard Land, an official at the Southern Baptist Convention, speculated that Santorum might be a Romney appointee as health and human services secretary. (1)

My bet is that Santorum stands a better chance of being appointed to the College of Cardinals by the pope. Romney's business background emphasizes discipline and teamwork; his personal demeanor is modest and thoughtful. As much as they are politically similar, these two men could hardly seem more personally different, apart from their devotion to their families. Assuming Romney wins the election, which is quite an assumption at this point, putting Santorum in his cabinet would be sure to cause a ruckus sooner or later over social issues - probably sooner. This would hardly be a smart move for a chief executive who wanted to focus on the economy. Romney usually makes smart moves.

So as Santorum retires to lick his wounds, and the Republican nominating process goes through the motions of deciding something that has already been decided, we can turn our attention to other matters. Obama and Romney will engage in trench warfare from now through the summer, each digging into his political foxhole, taking opportunistic potshots at one another. The parties will rally their bases at their summer conventions, and the handful of uncommitted voters in the handful of swing states that will determine the election's outcome will start to get serious in the fall.

The opening act is over, and only the actors with the leading roles will return to the stage. It's intermission.

Source:

1) The New York Times, "Santorum Suspends Presidential Campaign"

For more articles, please visit the Palisades Hudson Financial Group LLC newsletter or subscribe to the blog.

Newsletter: http://palisadeshudson.com/sentinel/

Blog: http://palisadeshudson.com/current-commentary/

View the original article here

Holographic Virtual Reality Hologram Technology for Presidential Diplomacy

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

The annual Coachella Festival is in full-swing, sold-out again, and this time they doubled up the event, 2-weeks instead of one. If you think this is all about Woodstock West re-runs of hippies, drugs, and free-love, guess again. This year's music was very computerized, techno, and had some high tech features that would blow you away - they even brought back a Rapper from the dead - well almost - they brought back his hologram. Yah, that was cool. Okay so let's talk shall we?

In case you missed the news or the viral videos of this high-tech show, you might wish to go to YouTube and search "Tupac and Hologram" or go read the article online on the Wall Street Journal Website titled; "Rapper's De-Light: Tupac Hologram May Go on Tour," by Ethan Smith. Well, I'd say that title says it all and that we haven't seen the last of holographic projection on the music stage, in fact, this is only the beginning. Indeed, I've been predicting for years the holographic era of entertainment.

Did you know that IBM is spending $5 Billion on Holographic and Spectral Imaging Research as we speak, and that Google X-Labs, Apple, Microsoft, and countless other tech sector companies are also thinking about this future? Hollywood and the entertainment industry are hardly alone in these endeavors. Still, I'd like to reiterate a concept I had spoken about years back at our think tank - which is in line with the whole concept of holographic meetings and communication - a takeoff of the Star Wars hologram cell phone device that debuted in the Trilogy Series.

You see, recently there was an unfortunate scandal in Columbia as our nation's chief executive visited the Americas Summit meeting of 2012, no the commander in chief was not in danger, but it left many wondering about the reality of his safety during such diplomatic events. In case you missed the news of that ordeal, please read; "New Details in Secret Service Case - At Least 20 Women Involved, Chief of Agency Tells Congress; Questions Arise About Earlier Trips," by Evan Perez and Jose DeCordoba.

Now then, what if we simply eliminated the need for the President to be there in the first place, we'd save 100s of millions of dollars yearly in tax payer's money. Is that even possible? Absolutely it is. This is why I am calling for a solution - Holographic Virtual Reality Hologram Technology where the leader of our nation can send in his virtual holographic self in place of his human body. We merely send in the Secret Service to set up the equipment;

Mylar Screen
High Definition Projector
High Speed Satellite Relay

The President remains at home, safe, and meets with the foreign leaders saying a ton of taxpayer's money and travel time so he can work on important things such as making good on all the promises he's made and fulfilling his duty to ensure that the government runs efficiently and not burdened media scandals of improprieties or wasteful partying. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Hologram Music Entertainment. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here