Precipice: The brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation.

At this very moment in time, Americans are on the precipice of allowing a few to take away their unalienable rights. These rights were granted to them not by man, but through the Laws of Nature and from Nature’s God.

Let that sink in for a minute:

A few humans are consciously attempting to take the rights granted to all humans by God through unnatural laws.

The Founding Fathers recognized the only True Law is Natural Law:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. The Declaration of Independence

2000 years prior to the Founding Fathers, a pagan recognized this also:

True law is right reason, in agreement with nature, diffused over everyone, consistent, everlasting, whose nature is to advocate duty by prescription and to deter wrongdoing by prohibition. Its prescriptions and prohibitions are heeded by good men though they have no effect on the bad. It is wrong to alter this law, nor is it permissible to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be absolved from this law by the Senate or by the People, nor need we look for any outside interptreter of it, or commentator. There will not be a different law at Rome and at Athens, or a different law now and in the future, but one law, everlasting and immutable, will hold good for all peoples and at all times. And there will be one master and ruler for us all in common: the god who is this law’s founder, promulgator, and judge. Whoever does not obey it is fleeing from himself and treating his human nature with contempt; by this very fact he will pay the heaviest penalties, even if he escapes all conventional punishments.  Cicero, On the Republic

The United States is the greatest nation on earth. In it’s short existence of 234 years it has provided more advances in science, technology, medicine, manufacturing and other areas than all of the countries on the face of this planet combined…since the beginning of this planet.

But that is not the greatest accomplishment of our great nation. No, those are a mere pittance compared to what America has brought to the world.

America is the greatest nation on earth for one reason:

America recognized the True Law of Nature’s God and manifested it’s power through the protection of individuals inalienable rights.

There in lies the reason for more humans coming to America than any other country on earth; it’s the reason you will not find a single nation or any combination of nations whose people are more generous.

You will not find any other nation, no matter what they encounter or what evil is thrust upon them, or what obstacle is thrown in their way, that has not risen in unity under Nature’s God to their rightful and dutiful place like America and it’s people.

We have one man and his cohorts, through ignorance or conscious destructive intent or both, who seek to alter and destroy the True Law:

We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America. Barack Obama October 30, 2008

America, we are on the precipice of allowing a few to confiscate our inalienable rights. Look at your spouse, your children, your neighbors, your fellow Americans, and yes the people of the world.

Are you going to allow this to happen or are you going to stand firm?

Will you flee from yourself and treat human nature with contempt?

Rise up, reach within yourself. Do not deny the True Law & Nature’s God. If you do, you and your children will “pay the heaviest penalties, even if you escape all conventional punishments”.

God Bless You and America!

Americans, I’m here to tell you that you have to understand the delusional machinations inside the beltway of our great United States of America.  This is particularly important in regards to ObamaCare but applies to all.

You have Obama, Pelosi, and other Democrat leaders saying “We have the votes” or “Americans deserve an up or down vote”. They’re saying they have momentum or they invoke social justice. They impose deadlines that always pass.

Now, We the People, the true Americans are scratching our heads and wondering – None of this is true. You’re wondering where is the disconnect of DC to the American people.

Here’s the dirty little secret:

Obama, Pelosi and the Democrat “leadership” are not speaking to you. They’re speaking to their colleagues inside the beltway.

You see, your representatives and senators are not where you are at. They’re inside a bubble with lobbyists, people who want to usurp our Constitution. They are not in the middle of the people they represent.

So Obama, Pelosi, and Democrat “leaders” are trying to create an illusion for their colleagues that ObamaCare is destined to happen so they CAN get the votes.  They desperately want to pass the ObamaCare monstrosity BEFORE the Easter recess because they know that once the Senators and Representatives return to their districts, We the People, will make it emphatically clear to them that if they do pass ObamaCare they will cease to have a job in 2010.

This is why it is fundamentally important that you call your members in Congress EVERY DAY THIS WEEK and tell them to START OVER.

So the House Switchboard is (202) 224-3121 CALL IT EVERY DAY THIS WEEK.

Additionally here is a list of swing Congressmen – CALL THEM EVERY DAY THIS WEEK.

Stop ObamaCare and ensure Freedom rings loudly and proudly in America!

Democrat Representative Louise Slaughter of New York took a sworn Oath of Office to the people of America.

This from the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives:

“The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to Members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

has been subscribed to in person and filed in duplicate with the Clerk of the House of Representatives by the following Members of the 111th Congress, pursuant to the provisions of 2 U.S.C. 25:

New York

28.  Louise McIntosh Slaughter”

From Mark Tapscott – Washington Examiner:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

Can any member of Congress deem a bill to be passed when it hasn’t? The answer to that question is an emphatic no.  It can be found in the U.S. Constitution:

Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States Article 1 Section 7

So now have direct evidence that Rep. Louise Slaughter has violated Article 6, Article 1 Section 7, and the 9th and 10th Amendments of the United States of America.

Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter has just committed Treason against the United States of America and its citizens.

To ALL Representatives and Senators: If you do not immediately bring Louise Slaughter up on charges of Treason then you will correctly be co-conspirators in violating your Oath of Office to all Americans. You too will be committing Treason.

I urge the Congress to act immediately.

God Bless the United States of America and We the People.

Parasite

Definition: a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return.

Synonyms: sycophant, toady, leech, sponge, hanger-on.

Origin: 1530–40; < L parasītus < Gk parásītos one who eats at another’s table.

Since the Great Infestation of Progressivism began almost a century ago, Americans have increasingly focused on what their “rights” are.  They have paid less and less attention to what their unalienable duties are to the point that talk of them are now non-existent. So keeping that in mind, let’s bring it back into focus.

Let’s first start with the definition of unalienable, right, responsibility, and duty:

unalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.

right: something to which one has a just claim.

responsibility: Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden.

duty: An act or a course of action that is required of one by position, social custom, law, or religion.

Our Founding Fathers were prescient in describing what our unalienable rights are and what responsibility the government has in performing their duties:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Declaration of Independence

Notice that these rights are unalienable, given to us by our Creator. The next sentence confirms the first – “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”. So you can see that Government was never given the power to grant these rights to us; only the power to secure.

William Blackstone, upon which the Founding Fathers consulted, confirms:

Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable.  On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

The Constitution continues from the very beginning in affirming that Government’s sole duty is the responsibility of securing our unalienable rights:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the generalWelfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Preamble, U.S. Constitution

Madison, in Federalist No. 10, gets to the meat of why Government’s sole responsibility and duty is only to secure our unalienable rights.  It is because of the fallibility of humans:

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects. James Madison Federalist Paper No. 10

You must be asking by now, “What does this have to do with health care being an unalienable personal duty?”. So let’s discover the answer to your question.

We begin with the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. Declaration of Independence

Here you have the keystone for what the Founding Fathers constructed the Constitution upon, the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.  They told us in no uncertain terms that all instructions to the government in the Constitution originate in the Laws of Nature, which are God’s Laws.

John Locke illustrates this truth further:

The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it… John Locke

We learn from Locke that an individual lives in the state of Nature (unalienable rights) and he/she can enjoy the state of Nature (life – including health, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) by dutifully performing the laws of Nature.

Let us look to Frederic Bastiat for confirmation:

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. Frederic Bastiat – The Law

In other words, health care is your unalienable personal duty and not a right that government has the power to bestow upon you or any other at the expense of another.

Normally when someone makes a comment to a post on my blog I reply back in the post that it was originally displayed in. However, UrbaneGorilla posted a comment that deserved a full blown post of it’s very own. Anything less would constitute a disservice to all Americans. This post is in response to UrbaneGorilla’s comment on “Original Intent – Instructive Then & Now“:

I never really did understand why people lean so heavily on a document produced 225+ years ago. Not only do we in 2010 not understand the nuances of language back then, but in essence by arguing a strict construction, we are saying in essence that nothing in this world has changed since then. That makes no sense whatsoever. The world has changed and so does the intent of the Constitution otherwise we not only would there be no Amendments, but the prime author, Jefferson would not have said “Every generation needs a new revolution.” Does anyone think he meant “…except you have to hold to a 225 year old document that I scribbled and Ben Franklin modified to appease a reticent Congress.” Please..LOL! UrbaneGorilla

Contrary to the indoctrination and repetitive incorrectness of the Left, the intent and construction of the Constitution does not change. The Constitution is NOT a living document.

Let’s start through an unequivocal demonstration of fact. Radio, Television, and the Internet were not around over 225 years ago yet the First Amendment applies wholly to all three of these mediums. The same can be said about the Fourth Amendment applying to wiretaps.  In fact, you can find example after example throughout the Constitution and apply it to the past, present, and future.

Now let’s take a look at what some of the Founding Fathers had to say as well.

“On every question of construction, (let us) carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying (to see) what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, (let us) conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45

It is evident from Jefferson’s quote that he is speaking directly to UrbaneGorilla and the comment he made.

Take note as well Progressives, when Thomas Jefferson spoke the words above from UrbaneGorilla’s comment “Every generation needs a new revolution.” we merely have to look at our Declaration of Independence for guidance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these areLife, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In other words, the Federal Government nor the tyrannical wishes of a few, have the right to alter or abolish our Government. Only We the People do through our consent.

James Madison speaks directly to what the Constitution is.  A set of instructions to the Federal Government of what very limited powers they have and that States and the people have all other rights, powers, and duties. Federalist Paper No. 45 is an aberration to Progressives because it completely destroys and argument of giving more power to the government over individuals.

If Progressives did not ignore this truth, their tyranny would run rampant and America would not be what it has always been.

In other words, the Constitution and it’s original intent and construction remains streadfast AS the world changes.

Perhaps UrbaneGorilla and others would understand why the majority of Americans rely on a 225+ year old document if they would merely study the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and all the Federalist Papers.

Perhaps all Americans need to go back and understand the greatness of America through close reading and study of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers and our Founding Fathers. We and the World would be better for it.

Its extremely important, especially at this juncture in our history, to fully understand what our Founding Fathers correctly meant when using the word welfare.

Let’s start off with the usage of welfare in the Constitution by looking at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Now the definitions of ‘general’ & ‘welfare’:

general: of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category. origin: 1250–1300; Middle English

welfare: the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; origin: 1275–1325; Middle English

So, as we can see the Founding Father’s enumerated to Congress that they have the power to provide for the good fortune, health, happiness, & prosperity for the United States as a whole. They did not enumerate to Congress that they have the power to provide for specific individuals at the expense or labor of other specific individuals.  If they had intended to do so then our Founding Fathers would be setting up an oligarchy.

Let’s examine just exactly what the Founding Fathers did mean by “provide for the … general welfare of the United States”. First, Thomas Jefferson explains that it is not the job of government to take care of specific people. Jefferson correctly understands that individuals are wholly capable of pursuing their own happiness.

If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy. (Berg, Writings of Thomas Jefferson)

Next, we find Samuel Adams categorically state that the notion of providing welfare to specific individuals, is not only wrong but that communism and socialism are also unconstitutional.

The Utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of the wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution] are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional. (Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams.)

Additionally, until the Progressives distorted the meaning of general welfare in the Butler case in 1936, the Supreme Court correctly stated that redistribution of wealth was unconstitutional:

No man would become a member of a community in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry.  The preservation of property, then, is a primary object of the social compact.. The legislature, therefore, had no authority to make an act divesting one citizen of his freehold, and vesting it in another, without a just compensation.  It is inconsistent with the principles of reason, justice, and moral rectitude; it is incompatible with the comfort, peace, and happiness of mankind; it is contrary to the principles of social alliance in every free government; and lastly, it is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. (2 Dall 304, 310 [PA 1795])

This inconsistency with the principles of reason, justice, and moral rectitude can be traced back to Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia which I shall leave up to you to discover in the link I provided.

So perhaps you can begin to see why I emphatically maintain that what America needs is not a ‘fundamental transformation’ but a fundamental restoration of the original intent of the Constitution.

Only then can we insure that the greatest nation ever on this planet can remain so.

Let’s first remind ourselves how the GOP OWNED Obama and the Progressives at the Health Care Summit:

Then let’s remind ourselves of what the majority of Americans want and demand Obama & Congress to do:

52% of U.S. voters continue to oppose the plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats.~Rasmussen Reports 3/01/2010

Let’s not just use Rasmussen Reports. Here’s CNN:

73% of Americans say lawmakers should work on an entirely new bill or should stop all work on health care reform. CNN 2/24/2010

Now let’s look at Obama’s claims:

1.  Although the proposal I released last week included a comprehensive set of initiatives to combat fraud, waste, and abuse, Senator Coburn had an interesting suggestion that we engage medical professionals to conduct random undercover investigations of health care providers that receive reimbursements from Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal programs. ~ President Obama

Now let’s look at what Senator Coburn actually said:

And we ought to do it by not creating a whole bunch of new government programs, but by creating an incentive to reward people. In your new bill you have good fraud programs, but you lack the biggest thing to do. The biggest thing on fraud is to have undercover patients so that people know we’re checking on whether or not this is a legitimate bill. And you don’t know who’s an undercover patient and who’s not. And all of a sudden you start changing your attitude of whether or not you’re going to milk Medicare or you’re going to milk Medicaid. ~Senator Coburn

Got that Prez & Progressives? Don’t do it by creating a whole bunch of new government programs. ObamaCare lacks the biggest thing to do – have undercover patients. Prez, Senator Coburn said nothing about medical professionals which I’m assuming would be government lackeys appointed by you.

2. My proposal also included a provision from the Senate health reform bill that authorizes funding to states for demonstrations of alternatives to resolving medical malpractice disputes, including health courts. Last Thursday, we discussed the provision in the bills cosponsored by Senators Coburn and Burr and Representatives Ryan and Nunes (S. 1099) that provides a similar program of grants to states for demonstration projects. Senator Enzi offered a similar proposal in a health insurance reform bill he sponsored in the last Congress. As we discussed, my Administration is already moving forward in funding demonstration projects through the Department of Health and Human Services, and Secretary Sebelius will be awarding $23 million for these grants in the near future. However, in order to advance our shared interest in incentivizing states to explore what works in this arena, I am open to including an appropriation of $50 million in my proposal for additional grants. Currently there is only an authorization, which does not guarantee that the grants will be funded. ~ President Obama

Now let’s look at what Senator McCain correctly stated:

And the — and the point is that we don’t have to go very far. There’s two examples right now of medical malpractice reform that is working. One’s called California, the other called — called Texas.

I won’t talk about California, because the Arizonans hate California, because they’ve stolen our water. But the fact is that Texas has established a $750,000 stack cap (ph) for non-economic damages, caps doctors at $250,000, hospitals at $250,000, and any additional institution $250,000, and patient’s harmed do — do a finding (ph) of medical malpractice are not subject to any limitations on recoveries for economic losses. And I hope you’ll examine it.

But the important aspect of what they’ve done in Texas is the following. Lawsuit filings are down. Medical cost — defensive medicine increases annual medical costs by 10 percent. They’ve saved 200 physicians — recruitment is up. In the last two years, 6,945 new physicians have been licensed, 65 percent increase from two years preceding their reforms, 31 percent increase in recruitment of rural emergency medicine physicians.
Amarillo lost 26 physicians in the two years preceding the legislation, has gained 37. The largest malpractice insurance company in the state slashed its premiums by 35 percent, saving doctors some $217 million over four years. There are now over 30 companies competing for business.

It’s already there. Now, all we have to do is enact this into legislation, and it’s already been proven. So I don’t think we have to experiment around. ~ Senator McCain

Got that Prez & Progressives? We don’t need your “explore what works in this arena”. We already have proof. Weren’t you, President Obama, against incremental reform? You revealed, in your own words, that your own demonstration projects do nothing. Remember: “Currently there is only an authorization, which does not guarantee that the grants will be funded”.  Why then would you want demonstration projects that do nothing when you already have demonstrated proof?  Oh yeah, that’s right you received $43,071,129.00, yes MILLION, dollars from Lawyers and Law Firms.

2.  At the meeting, Senator Grassley raised a concern, shared by many Democrats, that Medicaid reimbursements to doctors are inadequate in many states, and that if Medicaid is expanded to cover more people, we should consider increasing doctor reimbursement. I’m open to exploring ways to address this issue in a fiscally responsible manner. ~ President Obama

Senator Grassley, please respond sir:

with a quote from December 23rd letter from CBO about this double accounting: ”The key point is that the savings to the health insurance trust fund under the bill would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and at the same time pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation.”

Then skip a couple sentences and say, “To describe the full amount of the H.I. trust fund savings as both” — with emphasis upon both — “improvement the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would be essential double count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.”

Now, you can argue about the exact amount of savings or whether there isn’t any savings, but you can’t argue that you can’t count a dollar twice. You just can’t argue that. Common sense tells you that. You don’t even have to have an accountant tell you that.

Now, I think what we want to remember here is that there are consequences to things we do. You change tax policy and there’s consequences to tax policy. You decide you’re going to save money in certain areas, there’s consequences to that.

So we have big tax increases, I think that without a doubt when you put tax on labor it’s harmful, and it doesn’t do anything to create employment. Both bills hit small business with higher tax rates, the House bill by 33 percent, the Senate bill by 20 percent. The House bill hits small business harder, obviously. The Senate bill hits the middle class harder.

It’s a fact that when you do these things you hurt the economy because small business is the machine that brings employment in America, 70 percent of new employment. We got to be careful how you treat small business. And small business can be — health care needs of small business can take — be taken care of with these association health plans and other things that can be done to make it beneficial.

Thirty-five states have high-risk pools. Most of them, 150 percent is the maximum cost. So you can — you can build on those high-risk pools to take care of people that have need, particularly those that are — would be hit by the mandate and might not be able to afford the insurance without the high cost. The high cost of this bill comes from a unconstitutional mandate, it comes from the fact that for the first time in the 225-year history of the country the federal government’s telling you, you got to buy something. That just doesn’t make sense to a lot of people at grassroots of the Midwest. And if you think I don’t listen to my people, I’ve had 32 town meetings so far this year. I think I have a good feeling of what’s out there at the grassroots.

Now, we have unrealistic cuts in here, not unrealistic from the standpoint of the way CBO scored them, not at all. CBO’s God around here. They say we give them policy, it’s going to save X number of dollars, it’s going to save X number of dollars.

But do you think that we’re going to sit around in rural America, or even in urban — downtown urban America, in the poverty parts of the city, that we’re going to let hospitals close down? And they raise the concern about access to health care.

No, we aren’t going to reduce benefits for seniors at all. But when you put our health care institutions and our delivery system in jeopardy, well, people — you’re going to promise people health care they aren’t going to get. You’re going to put 14 million — I don’t know whether it’s 14 million or 18 million people under this bill into Medicaid.

Medicaid pays about, in my state, I think, about 60-some percent. Medicare pays 80 percent of cost. Doctors don’t take Medicaid. So you’re going to promise 14 million to 18 million in Medicaid that they’re going to be covered? But if you don’t have doctors to service them, isn’t that a little bit intellectually dishonest, to promise something that you can’t deliver on?

And so there are these things in this bill, Medicare, Medicaid cuts, that I don’t see any future Congress having any more guts than we do to close a rural hospital.

So I think that you got to take into consideration — you got to take into consideration the consequences of the acts or the unproven promises of cuts that aren’t going to materialize. That’s just the way I see it.

And working in those 31 meetings, hundreds of hours of meetings with Senator Baucus, I learned a lot about health care. Now, we didn’t get a bill out of that bipartisan effort, but I’m sure glad I spent all of that time there, because I learned a heck of a lot about our health care system that I wouldn’t have otherwise known. ~ Senator Grassley

Got that Prez and Progressives? Start off by stating that “Yes ObamaCare does double count.”. Then educate thyself on what Senator Grassley actually said.

4.  Senator Barrasso raised a suggestion that we expand Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). I know many Republicans believe that HSAs, when used in conjunction with high-deductible health plans, are a good vehicle to encourage more cost-consciousness in consumers’ use of health care services. I believe that high-deductible health plans could be offered in the exchange under my proposal, and I’m open to including language to ensure that is clear. This could help to encourage more people to take advantage of HSAs. ~ President Obama

Now let’s go to the very illustrative exchange between President Obama and Senator Barrasso:

OBAMA: The — I mean, let me just — there’s one thing I’ve got to — there are a number of issues, as usually, that I’ve got significant difference with. I just am curious. Would you be satisfied if every member of Congress just had catastrophic care? Do you think we’d be better health care purchasers? I mean, do you think — is that a change that we should make?

BARRASSO Yes, I think — I think, actually, we would. We’d really focus on it. You’d have more, as you’d say, skin in the game…

OBAMA: Because…

BARRASSO: … and especially if they had a savings account… a health savings account. They could put their money into that and they’d be spending the money out of that.

OBAMA: Would you feel the same way if you were making $40,000 or you had — that was your income? Because that’s the reality for a lot of folks. I mean, it is very important, when you say to listen, to listen to that farmer that Tom mentioned in Iowa, to listen to the folks that we get letters from. Because the truth of the matter, John, is they’re not premiers of any place. They’re not sultans from wherever. They don’t fly in to Mayo and suddenly, you know, decide they’re going to spend a couple million on the absolute best health care. They’re folks who are left out.

OBAMA: And this notion somehow that for them the system was working and that if they just ate a little better and were better health care consumers they could manage is just not the case. The vast majority of these 27 million or 30 million people that we’re talking about, they work, every day. Some of them work two jobs. But if they’re working for a small business they can’t get health care. If they are self-employed, they can’t get health care. And you know what? It is a scary proposition for them. And so we can debate whether or not we can afford to help them, but we shouldn’t pretend somehow that they don’t need help. I get too many letters saying they need help. And so I want to go to…

BARRASSO: Mr. President, having a high deductible plan and a health savings account is an option for members of Congress and federal employees…

OBAMA: That’s right, because members of Congress get paid $176,000 a year.

BARRASSO: … 16,000 — 16,000 employees take advantage of that.

OBAMA: Because they — because members of Congress…

BARRASSO: It’s the same plan that the — that the park rangers get…

OBAMA: John…

BARRASSO: … in Yellowstone National Park.

Hey Prez and Progressives – FYI – Senator Barrasso just owned you there in that exchange.  Now, Mr. President, you go and run ur little ditty by the employees at Whole Foods or Safeway who have used HSAs to make their OWN decisions on their OWN health care and you let them talk to you about the cost savings they and their companies realized. There are many more examples as well.

Additionally Prez, we don’t want destructive Progressive Government Exchanges and we certainly don’t want our HSAs, with our personal money in them, included in your Progressive Government Exchanges. Get it? Yet? Prez and Progressives?

You see Prez and Progressives, you don’t get to completely reframe what the GOP told you in your Health Care Summit scam and then misstate that you and the GOP agree.

We and the true majority of Americans have a fundamentally philosophical difference with you and the Progressives Mr. President.

We don’t need no stinkin Progressive “Fundamental Transformation” of America Prez.

What We the People want and demand sir is a Fundamental Restoration of America.

So Prez & Progressives, you get it yet? We’re fundamentally restoring America. If you don’t like it then feel free to move to Venezuela.

jason reid/reuters

“Baby steps don’t get you to the place where people need to go. They need help right now.” Barack Obama 2/25/2010

I’m taking Obama up on his offer. Let’s not take baby steps. Let’s do it right.

• Permanently cut government spending by 50%.
• Permanently reduce the Corporate Income Tax across the board to 15%
• Implement a consumption “flat” tax across all income levels.
• Eliminate the Estate “Death” Tax. Permanently.
• Allow health care insurance to be sold across state lines using no Government Run Exchange.
• Repeal the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies.
• Abolish Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Convert to wholly publicly traded company.
• Abolish the Department of Education. It’s done nothing for our children.
• Abolish the Department of Commerce and spin off “divisions”.
• Bring the average federal employee salary of $75,000 down to the $50,000 avg salary of private sector.
• Repeal the remaining ARRA stimulus package and veto the 2nd Stimulus (jobs) bill..
• Eliminate all earmarks in any future bills permanently.
• Mandate all members of Congress fly commercial. No private jets for anyone.
• Have Congress convene for only 6 months out of every year. Cut their salaries in half.

Damn Mr. President, looks like I’ve just helped 300 million people and not just 30 million.

It’s does what’s mandated to you and Congress and restores America to the original intent of OUR Constitution.

It provides every individual with Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, AND Limited Government.

So yesterday new elected Senator Scott Brown voted with the Progressive Democrat Congress for cloture on the 2nd Stimulus (Jobs) Bill.

After Americans expressed extreme displeasure, Senator Brown decided to responded on his blog:

I came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside, and to do everything in my power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families. This Senate jobs bill is not perfect. I wish the tax cuts were deeper and broader, but I voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work.

I was disappointed with the continuation of politics-as-usual in the drafting of this bill, as it was crafted behind closed doors, without transparency and accountability. I hope for improvements in that process going forward. All of us, Republicans and Democrats, have to work together to get our economy back on track. I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington.

Senator Brown, let me remind you why you were elected sir. It had nothing to do with bipartisanship. The Republicans, Democrats, and Independents that voted for you came together on common ground.

That common ground is this – The current Congress is an abject failure in serving We The People’s will.

Allow me to educate you Senator:

The 1st Progressive Stimulus Bill has spent just 1/3 of our taxpayer dollars and the only thing it has stimulated is unemployment and bigger government:

“The several extensions of emergency unemployment insurance benefits appeared to have raised the measured unemployment rate, relative to levels recorded in past downturns, by encouraging some who have lost their jobs to remain in the labor force…. Some estimates suggested it could account for 1 percentage point or more of the increase in the unemployment rate during this recession.” FOMC

In reality, as the CBO explains, “five programs accounted for more than 80% of the outlays from ARRA in 2009: Medicaid, unemployment compensation, Social Security… grants to state and local governments… and student aid.” via Alan Reynolds, Investors.com

The 2nd Progressive Stimulus (“Jobs”) Bill that you voted for cloture on contains billions of porkulus.

Senator Brown, let me help you understand that Americans are tired of politicians, like yourself and others, of throwing around the tired, worn out, and lame “Let’s do it for bipartisanship” bull crap.

Let me show you that I speak for the people.

Americans – Senator Brown’s phone number in “bipartisan” Washington DC is:

202-224-4543

Flood the newly elected Senator from Massachusetts today and every day. Let him know that he was not elected for bipartisanship.