Now we see the violence inherent in the system!This has been burning in me all day and it has to come out. My name is Walter. I am named after that good looking guy with the dog. I come from that couple in the cheap photo. They are my grandparents. Good hard working, hard living people. Always ready to help, always willing to pitch in. Sadly neither made much of a dent in this world. They did not leave a load of money to my parents, and my parents will not leave me a load of money, or business to run, or investments to live off of. I hope this is no surprise to my children, but I ain't got nothing to leave them, nor does the future look much better.
Yet there are an awful lot of people (and sometimes they are indeed an awful lot) who have benefited greatly from those that went before. As Bill Murray said in the movie Rushmore..."they were born rich and they will die rich". It is hard to loose a race when you have a head start, yeah some can come close to catching up, there are rags to riches stories. But the REAL DEAL in America is you are lucky to have what you have and damn lucky to improve much. Don't beleive me....step off the track for a month, can you do that?...didn't think so.
Yes, my parents improved on their parents life, and I think I have improved on my parents life, and I HOPE my children have a better life, but we are not talking about leaps and bounds here.
Now, I will try to get back to my thread, back to my point. In the days of the Nobles, Kings and Queens very few controlled very much. And their courts consisted of some that got to eat from the table as long as they pledged their allegiance and did the dirty work. And then there were many that lived horrible lives and lived in the muck.
Western Nations have improved upon that premise. But we still resemble the model more than we think. Lately (since the 80's) we have begun to embrace greed again and there are some on this planet that have now exceeded Kings and Queens. It stuns me when I hear of the select few that control billions and billions and yet there is so much of the world that have so little.
And this week I watch the Tea Party people screaming at rallys for freedom? What, freedom to keep oppressing others? Freedom to keep what they got and turn their backs on others?
And I see these people and I think, what are they afraid of loosing. They do not look like they have that much. It seems the MAN has convinced them that sharing means the table scraps that have fallen to them will be shared with the huddled masses while the super rich will remain unchanged.
I call to you Knights of the Teaparty (think of the Nobles in Braveheart that sold William Wallace out to Longshanks) loose your allegiance to the King. Join us and really know freedom.
Freedom of conscience. Sleep tonight knowing that this abundant world is being shared. Sleep tonight knowing that some poor bastard (yes he will still indeed be poor) will now be able to get ONGOING medical care.
Yes ongoing. Not pain killers but actual LIFE EXTENDING treatment. He will not have to beg in the emergency room. Will not have to hear a diagnosis for a treatable condition for which he cannot afford treatment. No. Sleep tonight knowing he will be able to get the same treatment as you. He is your equal, no matter what the banks think, no matter what employers think, no matter what the fat cats think.
8 comments:
It's certainly interesting to hear you describe the leftist or progressive movement as one of freedom. There is no freedom in forced sharing, because in order to share the item in question must be split up and divided equally. Thus there is no freedom as it calls upon individuals to sacrifice what they earned and give it to someone who could not accomplish the same. If people choose to do this, that's fine, but to force them is not an example of freedom.
Furthermore, this health care 'reform' bill that was 14 months in the making, and has over 2700 pages will do more to limit care than advance it. Boeing, Caterpillar, and Verizon have all said this will cost them more to operate under. That's not political, that's common sense. Obama promised to fight off the "evil" insurance companies, and yet this plan requires individuals to purchase insurance from them! To make matters worse, they can't refuse coverage, which means higher premiums and higher costs of care! Not only that, but there's a good chance it violates the 10th amendment (I for one believe that it does.) There is a scary belief going around on the left that constitutionality doesn't matter, if "we" vote it in then it is reasonable and constitutional. A sort of selective use of the constitution, treating it as a "living breathing document" open to interpretation. That's dangerous, and is exactly the tyranny that Jefferson warned against. The slow usurpation of power by a fringe group that do not represent the people.
If you want to pay more, that's fine. You can go down to the IRS Seattle office and write them a check, they won't turn you down. Or, you can decide for yourself where the money goes. You can give it to someone who you think needs it, donate it to a charity who will use it to help many, or keep it. The choice is yours!....for now.
That's freedom.
Peter - you sound pretty sure in your belief, which as someone who loves you and would like to keep loving you, is why I would prefer to never ever hear your political opinion again, but you may want to read this for some expert opinion about the consititutionality of it at least:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011483297_healthdebate31m.html
Melissa - just because we disagree on a political issue we should not stop loving one another. I say political because our intent is the same, to make health care affordable for all. I as a citizen of this country do not like being told what is fair without my opinion or collective opinion of others being considered. What's taken place here is that a small group not representing the collective will have forced their way upon the people. Republicans have been guilty of this too, I don't like what my country has been doing these past ten years. It's not republican democracy in action, it should be the people enacting government, not government telling the people how to live.
I'm not sure where or how hard the UW looked for their experts as there are a lot of constitutional lawyers who would argue the counter point. Steve O'Ban is one...If you read the constitution and the federalist papers you'll see that the constitution was set up with separate branches to limit the ability of government to grow. The idea being that with separation of powers and two houses of congress it would be difficult, if not impossible for a small group to have the run of the place.
As far as the article is concerned, I think what McKay is saying is that under the current interpretation of the commerce clause the lawsuit will not win. That may be so, but I still think it is important for checks and balances to occur and for a court to answer the issue. There are some Democrats that disagree but understand the validity of the argument.
On a separate note, I find it ironic that Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, and other Democrats are all on record in 2005 stating that reconciliation is unconstitutional; yet they used it to pass their bill. Much like dissent being patriotic when a Republican is president, but it being racist and un-American when a Democrat is in office.
Check it out: http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/
Why does government have to be the option? People are too dependent upon government, we are a country founded upon independence, both nationally and individually. That is coming to an end and I don't like it. People should depend on on themselves or friends and family, not the anonymous overpowering government.
I find it most interesting that, now under the impression that their constitutional argument will not hold up, that the tea bag movement now wants to amend the constitution.
Yes, lets amend the constitution to preserve what the founding fathers had in mind.
Does THAT make ANY sense?????
Dad - Where did you hear that? I don't agree with that either, and if they want the country to go back to the constitution why amend it? Can you send me the link?
Otter proposes U.S. Constitutional amendment against health care mandate
Submitted by Brian Murphy on Fri, 03/26/2010 - 11:03am.
Idaho Gov. Butch Otter wants a constitutional amendment banning mandates to purchase health care insurance.
A Senate Joint Memorial was introduced Friday in the Idaho Legislature, proposing a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Otter sponsored the memorial. Memorials do not carry the weight of law.
The amendment would say: “The Congress shall make no law requiring citizens of the United States to enroll in, participate in or secure health care insurance or to penalize any citizens who declines to purchase or participate in any health care insurance program.”
Idaho recently joined with 12 other states in filing a lawsuit against the federal government to stop the health care reform bill. Earlier this session, the Legislature passed the Idaho Health Freedom Act, saying the federal government can not compel Idaho citizens to purchase health insurance.
Thirty-eight States have come out and said that they oppose the destruction of 20% of the US Economy via socialization of Health Care Industry.
Thirty-eight States have said they plan to mount legal challenges to the legislation.
It only takes 3/4ths of the States to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. So if these States aren't just BSing the nation, then there are enough to ratify a Constitutional Amendment.
Step one - BECAUSE a Constitutional Convention could end up completely destroying our nation, I would not be in favor of this approach unless things continue to deteriorate, ie Obama and his Chicago Thugs, and the Republican thugs in congress continue to rape our nation and steal our freedoms.
So step one is to elect a strong majority of people to congress this fall who BELIEVE in America and in Individual Freedom and responsibility. Elect them on the basis of their pledge to vote for a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the Federal government from taking over ANY private industry, or regulating it in such a way as to achieve defacto complete control of it. (wording to be worked out.)
Step two - introduce the proposed amendment on the first day of the first session of the new congress, pass it and send it to the States.
Step three - the States pass the amendment - and the Health Insurance bill that amounts to a Federal Takeover of the US Health Care system becomes null and void.
The lower level alternative is to elect the SAME number of legislators to Congress so as to give the Republicans a SUPER MAJORITY in BOTH houses, and REPEAL this travesty of the law. And if grounds can be found, impeach the President of the US for violating his oath of office by attempting to subvert the US Constitution.
There is two of them.
just google Constitutional Amendment - health reform
Post a Comment