A Year Wasted?

Please Support us by visiting our sponsors

I've struggled with a name for the so called "Presidential Bipartisan Healthcare Summit."  I've considered "The Snooze Summit," "The Purely Partisan Presidential Pontification," or "The Blair House Hysteria." But after much thought I settled on my favorite: "The Bloviation at Blair House." There seemed to be a lot of talking but little listening. A lot of sad stories but no answers. The one question that I keep asking myself is: Do they really think that the answers to all problems can  be provided by government? As I was listening to Ms. Pelosi's reply I thought I was hearing a Prego Spaghetti Sauce commercial.  She was saying in essences: "It's in there." Well I don't care what she says, I don't want the government running the healthcare system. They are too involved now for my liking.

The thing that the Administration and the Leaders in Congress seem to not understand is the lack of faith in their leadership by the average citizen in this country. We don't trust them. They have an agenda and will say or do anything to pass it, without considering the good of the country as a whole. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional powers needed to nationalize the healthcare system. And don't tell me again about everyone else in the world having government provided healthcare. Every time I hear that I think I'm listening to a spoiled 9 year old kid saying: "But everyone's parents but mine will let them............." Our differences from the rest of the world is what made us a beacon to the world. Some of the Progressives need to grow up and take responsibility for their lives. Don't expect the government to make it perfect.

The Healthcare Deformation 2

Please Support us by visiting our sponsors

The President has said that he will sit down with the Republicans to talk about healthcare on Thursday of this week. But before that meeting the leaders of the House and Senate are preparing to pass the "Healthcare Deformation" bill to send to the President by using legislative tricks. The Speaker of the House has said that she is doing this for the American people.  I have to ask: Exactly what American people is she referring to?  Is it the minority of people who don't have insurance? Is it for those who are happy with their healthcare coverage? Is it for those who consider this a disaster in the making? Is it for the healthcare insurance companies who stand to gain from the mandates? Is it for the states that will be handed a pile of unfunded mandates when they are so far underwater already?

I can only assume that if the bill is passed, that the President will sign it.  Even though he has made promises that he will listen to alternatives, I've noticed that he does little of it. What I keep hearing him say is that he has done a poor job of explaining the plan and that he just needs to talk to the American people.  Well Mr. President, we are not all children.  You need to stop talking at us and start talking to us.  Listen to what we is being said. American leaders listen; they don't want to be talk down to the people. Just because you won an election does not make you all knowing and seeing. The system was built from the ground up; we do not want to be ruled.  We want to be lead by a leader who is concerned about the whole, not just a single special interest group or a personal agenda.

Mr. President, I ask you to stop all of your divisive talk and demonizing of whole industries and segments of the American population. This is not the way to gain favor or trust. If you are going to demonize the doctors or the health insurance companies today: Then who will be the next target? I can only assume that it will be anyone who doesn't agree with you.  That is not the way I want to be governed.  I don't want to live in fear.  I don't want to have to worry that your next agenda item will need to make my job a fall guy so that you can sell another expansion of government power.  Living in fear of the government is not part of the American dream.  The concept of divide and conquer is well understood and you should not be using it. Don't demonize the people that you expect to help oppose you. Turning us against one another is not a system that I want to see. After all we are all Americans and to the largest extent many of our values are not that different.

Scientific Research vs. Lies Part II

Please Support us by visiting our sponsors

The debate around man-made global warming is very divisive. Whenever you discuss some issues, there are people who automatically jump to a conclusion. Sometimes it is due to their ignorance or they assume that they already know what you are going to say. (Ignorance simply means that a person is unaware of information.) Emotions can also cloud reading comprehension.  Unlike the spoken word, the written word carries the emotion that is brought by the reader.

We as a people must work together to solve problems. This requires some trust. But not total devotion to the first thing that comes along that sound reasonable. We must learn to listen, not just hear, and be willing to challenge our beliefs. We must always question our own beliefs to keep ourselves sane. That does not mean that we should abandon our beliefs, but we should be willing to consider both sides of an argument. It is good to defend a position as long as you consider the other person and their opinion. If we sink into blind obedience, we shall all surely drain.  Think for yourself.

I wish that I could say that we could trust the information given to us by all of our leaders, but I now have major doubts. With the revelations of Climate Gate and the history of bulling that has occurred within the scientific community I feel that we are back at square one. The conscious manipulation of data calls all conclusions about potential climate change into question. It is good to see that many in the scientific community that have questioned the conclusions of the IPCC and other climate change advocates getting more attention.

Pedro's Video Finds: Global Warming: The Other Side

A interesting and fact filled examination of Global Warming.
Pedro's Video Vault: Global Warming: The Other Side

Please Support us by visiting our sponsors

Pedro's Potpourri: Top 10 Rejected Toyota Ad Slogans.

On the lighter side a little humor about the Toyota Recall.  Healing starts when we can laugh.
Pedro's Potpourri: Top 10 Rejected Toyota Ad Slogans.


©2010 Pedro Sykes

Please Support us by visiting our sponsors

McCain-Feingold - a Look Back

One of the most important sentences every written, is the First Amendment of the United States of America:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please Support us by visiting our sponsors

Now that some time has passed, I find that there is not a lot of discussion about the court ruling on campaign finance law. I've seen some arguments but little real discussion. I do however find that some of these arguments about the overturn of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law of interest. The way I understand the intent of the law was to remove excessively large amount of money from going straight to candidates for political office and outside groups from influencing election outcomes. It was intended to keep the politicians "honest." These are worthy goals. But did it work? In the last election there were large amounts of money raised by politicians and for them. Outside organizations pumped millions of dollars into promoting various candidates and elected officials. Lobbyist still roam the hall of Congress and meet with members of the Administration daily. Many groups found ways to circumvent the law. The sudden growth of Political Action Committees (PACs) was accelerate and the 501(c) organizations were created by the law.

It seems that many were happy that the law restricted those "evil corporations" from making donations. A question that was dwelt upon was the question of defining money and free speech as equal. I feel that the other relevant section of "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" statement should be considered. Now I know that the petition part may seem a little dicey, but the limits place on campaign donations as a whole also restricts the ability of everyone to support or reject candidates. A really good way to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is to work to remove an offending elected official from office. Nothing says redress of grievance better than kicking them to the curb. This is not always possible or practical, but sometimes the only way to get true change is to get a change of face in the office.

U.S. Federalism vs. Nationalism

Since before the creation of the United States of America there has been a constant argument over our form of government.  The first things that was decided was that the states would form a representative republic.  The form of our elections have changed several times with the final process becoming a modified democratic system.  This system is still debated.  (Look at the 2000 election and the debate over the Electoral College for a good example.)  Alteration in our government occur constantly.  But I feel that we are straying too far from the Constitution, which could spell disaster for our freedoms as a whole.

One argument that has persisted is the structure of the central government.  The founders argued at length on this. The most convincing case for the formation of the United States of America was put forward in the Federalist Papers.  These 85 articles were used to sell the independent states that it would be better to have one central Federal government.  A federal government is formed from the bottom up.  The states were willing to give up some of their sovereignty to form a union.  This union was designed to promote the common good and mutual defense.  It is hard for us to remember today that the British Empire was a very large enemy of these, as they saw them, wayward colonies.

There have been those that have argued for a strong central government.  These Nationalist think that we must have a national government.  One of the first major victories for this cause was the American Civil War.  If you consider that war as a war of secession then you can say that Abraham Lincoln was our country's first Nationalist leader.  Lincoln was the first president to declare open war upon some of the original states that had created the union.  Yes Lincoln preserved the union by force of arms.  Of course we all know that the war started when Federal troops were fired upon in Charleston SC.  But that is not my argument.  Lincoln's actions emboldened the nationalist spirit.


Since Lincoln we have had several Presidents who have strengthen the central government.  The next major Nationalist was FDR.  He used the crisis at the end of the 20's to implement national laws and programs that greatly expanded the role of our central government. Some of these programs were found to be unconstitutional, but many remained on the books.

After Franklin Roosevelt the next major Nationalist was Johnson followed in quick order by Nixon and Carter.  In fact the only elected president that has not advocated nationalism in his governance was Reagan.  All of the Presidents since have followed Progressive Nationalist agendas.  A few examples of the policies or laws promoted:

• FDR: Social Security
• Thurman: Medicare
• Johnson: The Great Society and Medicare
• Nixon: National Price and Wage Controls
• Clinton: National Heathcare (HillaryCare)
• G.H.W. Bush: Americans with Disabilities Act
• G. W. Bush: No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D

But let me say that the President does not rule by fiat.  He can only be an advocate.  He does and can not simple make laws.  But in some cases, as we've seen recently, he can do a lot of strong arming.  He can do somethings through an Executive Order, but even those are limited.  More on that later.  The power to create law is in Congress and with such a large number of members it is expected that there will be a number of Nationalist thinkers in the mix.  Plus you should also look at the third branch of government.  Many of these policies would not be on the books if not for the blessings of the courts. 

In the debate over the Heathcare Deformation it has become clear that our elected officials do not consider the constitutionality of the laws that they propose.  They assume that they will pass and the courts will decide.  This is a betrayal of their oaths:

"I 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 and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Compare this oath to their actions and tell me if they are being loyal to you and the country as a whole. They do not swear to protect the federal system, but to support and defend the Constitution.  But that document was created and sold on the principals of a Federal, not a National government.

Please Support us by visiting our sponsors

In today's political discussions the two terms are rarely heard. All of the talk about left vs. right, Liberal vs. Conservative, Progressive vs. Conservative, and others leave out these fundamental ideas that have been at the heart of our political lexicon for over 240 years. There is much more at the heart of who we are then mere left vs. right. We need to know where our politicians fall on these two issues before we hear any other stance of other issues, since many of their ideas of governance can be determined by this basic question: Are you a Federalist or a Nationalist?

How can you determine a person's political beliefs in this? Well consider some basics. It has nothing to do with Democratic or Republican Party since there are Progressives in both. If you are a Communist, a Socialist, a Liberal, or a Progressive then you must be a Nationalist. If you are a proponent of Roe v. Wade you have to be a Nationalist. The only way to obtain the goals of these groups is to impose your will nationally. If you are an advocate for state rights and smaller government, then you are a Federalist.

Tweet

©2010 Pedro Sykes - Some Rights Reserved

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.