ON THIS MEMORIAL DAY

On this Memorial Day I think back on the lives lost defending my right to pen this pondering. That I can sit in my easy chair and cry for political reason to return to the "land of the free and the home of the brave," is a heady thing.

Independence day lies on the horizon, even as we memorialize those who valiantly gave their lives for these fruited plains. An independence won against the last vestiges of feudalism. Of a country determined not to walk the path our forefathers were forced to endure under the British Crown: search and seizure of personal property, confiscation of arms, punishment for any who dared to speak out, and censorship of the press.

So many infringements wrought against the personal liberties of each and every American: signs of an ancient and prolific system of human control — feudalism.

Yet today, as I read the headlines and watch the shameful acts of our duly elected officials, I do not see Marxism or Nazism as other claim. I see the slide back into feudalism, where the few decide the "good" of the many. Where property and industry can be seized by edict. Where treaties and words of honor are exchanged for expedient gratification in the securing of political power and appeasement, where those favored by the crown are granted rank and privilege despite the rule of law. I see "officials" grasping every means at their disposal to circumvent the Constitution they have sworn to uphold.

My heart goes out to those who have defended this nation, to the families left behind, and in memory of the legacy they have loaned to each subsequent generation, loaned with their blood and toil. "Thank you," seems a hollow expression in the face of such noble acts.

May we, the recipients of your ultimate sacrifice, not squander your sacred gift.

DEAL OR NO DEAL?

It was an ah-ha moment this week when I pieced the following question together. Why on earth would we want or need to have the healthiest segment of our population in the health care system?

Speaker Pelosi made is sound very magnanimous, that America's twenty-six year-old “children” are now covered, and no doubt, there are those in the 18-26 age bracket who have serious health issues and costly care.

But the vast majority of 18-26 years old men and women are very healthy. I know I was. I visited an emergency room once for a stupid accident I caused (my thumb lost an argument with a fan). Other than that, I didn't even have a doctor. It wasn’t something I was worried about. And with a very low household income, I wouldn’t have bothered with a doctor unless it was a REAL emergency. Doctors became important to us when we started having babies, and babies do need doctors.

My guess is that my situation is pretty true universally among those the government now deems “children.” The healthy don’t mess with health care.

According to The National Conference of State Legislatures: “Young adults age 19 through 29 are the largest growing age group in the country at risk of being uninsured. Young adults account for about 13 million of the 47 million Americans living without health insurance. That amounts to approximately 30 percent of the U.S. population between the ages of 19 and 29 being uninsured.”

Every time we hear the number of uninsured it fluctuates dramatically, but let’s assume the 13 million figure above is correct, give-or-take. Now let’s do some easy math: 13 million “children” now insured by federal mandate means that these healthy kids, who will likely have little need for doctors or hospitals, will now pay-in about $3,000 a year. Multiplied times 13 million and we add a tidy $39,000,000,000 to the cash-strapped coffers.

That was my ah-ha moment. The political reason behind insuring the healthiest portion of our population has less to do with compassion than it does with confiscation, to the tune of $39 billion. They will be paying in, hardly drawing on, and thereby subsidizing (a.k.a. socializing) the system for everyone else.

Oops wait a moment, my kids are not responsible for that coverage — I am. Guess I won’t be putting more in the 401k. Guess I won’t be remodeling that kitchen. No vacations once the kids leave home. Nope, I’ll be responsible for my twenty-six year-olds’ health insurance, all of them.

Such a deal, no?

HYPER-INFLATION AND YOU

Here's a video with a lot of political reason. It's almost an hour long, but if you're like me, you'll find it captivating (though the intro is a little cheesy). Even so, I hope you'll watch and learn, but more importantly, that you will get ready.

LET'S LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES

One of the great failings of the Obama candidacy was that no one questioned his associations, those who surrounded him and helped shape his political reason. Only after the fact did anyone care about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Van Jones, Andy Stern, and of course, Ms. Elena Kagan.

Yes, the same Elena Kagan now being considered to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court.

What of Kagan's associations? In her 1981 thesis entitled To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933, she acknowledges, "Finally, I would like to thank my brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas."

Of course, that does not explicitly declare that she herself is a radical, but identifies her sibling as one. How radical? How close are they? What part does he play in clarifying her own political ideas today? Do we want a radical that close to a member of the Supreme Court.

It's not damming evidence, but Barak Obama's associations were overlooked in his bid for a limited-term office in the White House. What about Elena Kagan's? Let's not repeat the same mistake on a lifetime appointment. That would lack political reason.

". . . American radicals cannot afford to become the own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope." — Elena Kagan

SO WHAT'S IT GOING TO BE MS. SPEAKER? Still on the same privacy bandwagon?

Old and new are about to meet at a political nexus point, and I am left wondering what became of sanity? The Patriot Act and legislation being entertained on financial reform are about to collide. Not the laws themselves, but certainly the drama behind them.

First a look at what the Left had to say about the Patriot Act.

Five years ago, Nancy Pelosi posted some very real concerns she had about the Patriot Act, a George W. Bush policy hated by the Left, yet renewed intact by the Obama administration (and suddenly, those opposing political voices got very silent, and with political reason).

In 2005, in a rebuttal entitled Reauthorization of Patriot Act a Massive Invasion of Privacy, Ms. Pelosi wrote: “We must also preserve the balance between security and civil liberties and recognize that not all of the tools that law enforcement officers want are tools that they legitimately need” (bold mine).

Her concerns went on to include such language as, ““This is a massive invasion of the privacy of the American people, not just some idle threat,” and “We must always remember as we protect and defend the American people, we must honor the oath of office we take here when we are sworn in to protect and defend the Constitution and the civil liberties that it contains. We have an obligation to do better for the American people.”

Now a look at the financial reform legislation being introduced by the Left.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) comments on CNSNews.com: “The Democrats’ new bureaucracy poses a threat to our privacy.” It appears that financial reform will give the government the power to take a look at anyone’s finances:

“Individuals could be required to provide the new agency with written answers—under oath—to any question posed by the bureau regarding their personal financial information.”

Of course it’s all under the guise of needing to know what’s going on in the financial world for the sake of “peace and security,” but carefully consider . . . government agencies will now have total access to every receipt and every expense, every time you use an electronic form of payment: credit card, debit card, or check.

Cash is not a consideration at this point, as hard currency is difficult to tie to an individual’s transaction activity. But then . . . isn’t that a good political reason to do away with cash altogether?
So Ms. Pelosi, how are you going to protect the American citizenry from this new assault on privacy? It’s a slippery, Orwellian slope you and your peers are placing this nation on.

Stop it. Stop it now.

NO MR. PRESIDENT, YOU DON'T SOUND PARANOID: hope-on-a-rope

This latest diatribe on American freedom expression are, in my opinion, the first signs of a man nearing the end of his hope-on-a-rope.

Google reports: 

"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.

Further evidence of the tension and paranoia are seen in the statement:

"All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy."

I seem to remember one Hillary Clinton shrilling: "We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!"

I also remember a presidential campaign only two years ago when the feeding, leaking, and tweaking of "controversy" onto the information highway was standard operating procedure—and with political reason. I guess now that the shoe is on the other foot the highway is not so much fun.

Enjoy the ride, Mr. President. You helped blaze the trail.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN

On May 1, the news was rich with stories of legal and illegal Hispanics marching to protest Arizona's tough stand on illegal immigrants. The media report that "thousands" added their voices in opposition to Arizona's law, legislation which is being considered as well in Texas and California. At issue is the notion that anyone in the U.S.A. being asked to "present papers, please," stirs up memories of Nazi Europe.

But while our politicians are planning boycotts and rallying to oppose Arizona, they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths—again.

While this state law is being opposed on the streets, The Hill reports that our federal legislators on April 30, presented their own plan for a Federal I.D. card. Appointed the "BELIEVE SYSTEM," every citizen of this great nation of ours will be required to present this digitally encrypted ID card, a kind of government permission slip for employment, medical care, and so on. The card will absolutley represent you the individual as your fingerprint is digitally represented.

Please do not miss that: every citizen will be fingerprinted, a privilege hitherto only reserved for criminals who have been stripped of their liberties by the State.

So while Arizona is being lambasted for Nazism, the real socialists are busy in the nation's capital. While you're distracted by what's taking place out West, the East encroaches deeper into your life. While we are being warned of the dangers of Nazi-style identification by the left, the left is planning to require them of all citizens.

There is political reason behind this move in Washington, but is the BELIEVE SYSTEM hope and change you can believe in?