The Dem's health care war of attrition

The Congressional Budget Office yesterday released its analysis of the Baucus health bill -- and the numbers will breathe new life into the ObamaCare effort. The CBO claims it will cost "only" $829 billion" over the next decade and -- importantly -- will actually shave $81 billion off the deficit. Of course, these are the same accountants who predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion by 1990 and the actual number was almost 10 times that -- $107 billion. For the Federal Government, that's a rounding error. For you and I, its disastrous. The reason the Senate bill shaves $81 billion OFF the deficit is because it pushes most of the real costs out past year 10. Its another example of smoke and mirrors from Congress. As Karl Rove points out in today's WSJ,

Yesterday's Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report pegs its cost at $829 billion over the next 10 years. The CBO report claims the bill won't add to the budget deficit until 2015—but the bill only manages that feat by delaying benefits and imposing taxes and Medicare and Medicaid cuts up front.

So, this all just another calculated political effort to shift the reality from the voters. The real risk is that the voters won't know that you can't trust the government's analyis of ANYTHING (how they don't alreadly know that if beyond me, of course -- but then again, 54% of them voted for the current socialist in the White House.)

The risk here is that the momentum gained during the summer will be lost as House Democrats and liberal Senate Republicans (yes, that's you Olympia Snowe) will be emboldened to passing this disaster. Clearly, there are many conservatives in Congress who are worried as well.

Senator Mike Crapo, a Republican from Idaho, recently told The Hill newspaper that he
"credited the August recess protests with having created enough of an
impression among his colleagues for them to have voted down public option
amendments in the Senate Finance Committee, but he's worried the protests
haven't had enough of an impact as the debate moves forward. ‘I'm concerned that
that impact is not as deep as they thought it would be,’ Crapo said.  

This is a real danger. We must take back to the streets and burn up the Congressional phone lines and fax lines to ensure that they do not succeed. While the poll numbers continue to drop for the Obama-led effort, the battle is being fought in Congress -- and they are playing a war of attrition to buy time so that the protest will get tired and resigned to an inevitable spate of legislation. We can't let this work. Call your local representative. Call your Senator. Call every Senator. We must not let complacency set in -- these power hungry zealots in Congress want to destroy this country -- one devastating law at a time!!

* * * * *

Also -- please check out the Journal's Op-Ed today entitled "Nancy Pelosi Proposes a VAT" -- which is a huge stealth consumption tax on every component of the economy. It is a staple in the UK and other socialist democracies that have a national health plan -- and Pelosi admits it is coming here as well. The VAT in the UK is 16% -- meaning that 16% is added to the cost of every item or service before they even hit the market. And because you don't pay it at the checkout stand, you aren't faced with it in every purchase. It is -- like income tax withholding -- designed to hide from you the amount you are paying to the government. It is the holy grail for liberals who want to pay for their out of control spending.

And unless the GOP can take back the House and get rid of the socialist queen from San Francisco -- a VAT is on its way!

Constitution Day 2009

Perpetuation of Our Political InstitutionsBy Greg Schaller

On September 17, 1787, thirty-nine of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, having met for four long, hot, and humid summer months in Philadelphia, had finally completed their task. On that day, they lined up and signed their names to the completed document. The debates had often been heated and the disagreements significant, concerning the powers of the national government, the representation of the states, and, of course, slavery. Yet in the end, the final version was a Constitution that has endured for over 221 years. It is the longest surviving, working constitution in the world today. The Constitution is indeed worthy of respect and honor because of its long survival. But survival of a regime and survival of a constitution is not good in and of itself; just as survival of a tradition isn’t good for its own sake. The perpetuation of a tradition or a Constitution must be judged on what it is, not simply on its endurance. We can all think of many examples of governments around the world that are surviving, but that we (as well as its citizens) would certainly prefer to see fail.

Abraham Lincoln delivered the eulogy for a man he admired greatly: Henry Clay. Clay was an early leader of the Whig party, to which Lincoln was a member before the Republican Party emerged. In his eulogy, Lincoln said of Clay: “He loved his country partly because it was his own country, and mostly because it was a free country; and he burned with a zeal for its advancement, prosperity, and glory, because he saw in such the advancement, prosperity, and glory of human liberty, human right, and human nature. He desired the prosperity of his countrymen, partly because they were his countrymen, but chiefly to show to the world that free men could be prosperous.”

Henry Clay was patriotic toward his country. But his patriotism was not a blind faith loyalty based simply on the fact that he resided here. It was a loyalty to both the principles of the founding and the Constitution crafted from those principles. Lincoln shared this loyalty and dedicated his presidency to the preservation of the Union and its Constitution. However, Lincoln would have been the first to admit that had the Union not been worth preserving (because of what it was about), it certainly wouldn’t have been worth the loss of over 600,000 lives in the Civil War in order to preserve it. So what was and is so significant about our Constitution that Lincoln was convinced that waging a lengthy war at the cost of so many lives was indeed worthwhile.

When we discuss the significance of the struggle to preserve the Constitution, we need to be clear on two things: first, what exactly are we preserving; and second, what is the nature of the attack that is being made against it.

Be clear, our Constitution is under attack. The center of the attack is made against the two things Lincoln thought were so important to save: the Constitution and the concept of the “rule of law” that is essential to the Constitution’s preservation. The method of attack is two-pronged. The first is to debunk the text and original meaning of the Constitution. The second line of attack argues that we can re-interpret the text whenever we deem it necessary and when it suits our purposes.

Today there are two primary and competing schools of thought when it comes to Constitutional interpretation. The first school is described well by former United States Supreme Court Justice William Brennan.

In a speech delivered at Georgetown University in 1985, Brennan claimed that “the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs.”

What Brennan was in fact saying was that the text of the Constitution really has no meaning, or a least no meaning other than what we happen to decide to give it today, regardless of whether our modern interpretation has any resemblance to the intent of its authors. This perspective is also unconcerned as to whether or not our interpretation will be completely different in 50 years, 20 years, 1 year, or even tomorrow. What Brennan describes is a school of constitutional interpretation that favors a “living” or “evolving” constitution. The meaning of the text is no more than what we choose to give it, and we grant ourselves great latitude to change our interpretation any time public opinion has changed.

It is this school of interpretation that has given us the remarkable constitutional “reasoning” in several recent cases of, “the evolving standards of decency.” This argument has been put forth most notably in recent capital punishment cases. To see how this works, considering two recent cases will suffice. In 1989 the Supreme Court concluded that it was constitutional to execute individuals with low I.Q.s. The majority concluded this because there did not exist at the time a consensus among the states as to whether or not such practice would offend the 8th Amendment. However, just a few years later in 2002, the Supreme Court concluded that we could no longer continue this practice. Why? Because of the “evolving standards of decency.” According to this interpretation of the Constitution, the 8th Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment is completely dependent upon public opinion! Thus the rightness or wrongness is not determined by the text of the constitution, the principles behind it, or the intent of its authors. Rather, it is simply the adaptive interpretation as exhibited through public opinion. This understanding assumes that constitutional interpretation is simply majority will and that this will determines the rightness or wrongness of something. Of course, if we follow this argument to its logical conclusion, the institution of slavery was right, as long as it had popular support!

The competing school of interpretation argues that rather than having a living and evolving meaning, the Constitution has an “original intent”, and that American jurisprudence is based upon it. With this understanding, our application of the laws, and interpretation of the Constitution is bound by the intentions of those who ratified it. Obviously, this interpretation is in stark contrast to the constitution of Brennan that has no “static meaning”, and is forever adaptable.

If we view our Constitution as meaning only what we want it to mean, when we want it to mean that, we are violating the principles of rule of law and constitutionalism. Rule of law is based upon the need to have consistency of law, equal treatment of the law and everyone being “under” the law. Central to the need for consistency of law is that the law, and more importantly, the Constitution from which our laws are crafted, has a sense of permanence that is not easily altered. I am, of course, not making the argument that our Constitution is perfect, nor am I saying that improvements to it are impossible. The point is that there is a proper and deliberate method of changing the Constitution through amendments. The answer to changing the Constitution is not to have five Supreme Court justices simply redefine the terms for us, nor for we as the citizens of the Constitution to be disinterested or apathetic and idly watch as infringements on our Constitution take place through executive and legislative fiat.

Lincoln warned us that the greatest threat to the Union would not come from an outside force, but instead, from within. In his famous Lyceum Address, he stated: “At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”

The title of Lincoln’s Lyceum address was: “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.” His audience was somewhat stunned that he would question the survival of the Union and her constitution. When he delivered his speech in 1838, most of his audience had concluded that the country was a well-oiled machine with no chance of faltering. Of course, it was not long after that speech that the Union did face its crisis of survival. Lincoln believed that the seeds of the movement toward secession, when the South refused to accept the results of the constitutionally held election of 1860, were sown decades earlier, when a growing mindset of disobedience to law and a weakening of the loyalty to the Constitution was growing.

My point is not to be an alarmist. Rather, it is to have us return to Lincoln’s concern for the nation: does she reverently hold to the hard work laid out by the founding fathers, the principles of the Declaration, and the Constitution created in order to establish a More Perfect Union? Failing that devotion, a breakdown of constitutionalism and rule of law are certain to take place.

Greg Schaller (gregory.a.schaller@gmail.com) teaches political science at Colorado Christian University and serves as a Centennial Institute Fellow.

Obama's 9/11 lesson

Like many of you, I've watched Obama this week attempt to take the 9/11 anniversary and turn it into a National Day of Service (led by ACORN, no doubt). Generally, I'm not one to immediately read cynical things into these kinds of efforts, but it really got me thinking: what does 9/11 really mean to our Commander in Chief? What does he take away from it? Is it a day for mourning the loss of innocent lives? For deep reflection? For a renewal of resolve to stamp out the forces of evil? For Obama, apparently it is a day to recognize (among other things) Ted Kennedy. As his press release on this shows:

In April I was proud to sign the bipartisan Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which recognizes September 11 as a National Day of Service and Remembrance. Originated by the family members of those who lost loved ones on 9/11, the National Day of Service and Remembrance is an opportunity to salute the heroes of 9/11, recapture the spirit of unity and compassion that inspired our Nation following the attacks, and rededicate ourselves to sustained service to our communities. I'm not sure how many family members of 9/11 victims actually organized this, but it strikes me as a bit odd: what does Ted Kennedy have to do with September 11 and how does he fit into this?

What exactly is the message being sent here?

Clearly, it isn't about terrorism (sorry -- Obama doesn't use that word. "Man caused disasters") or it would  have been named for the "George W. Bush Serve America Act" -- for Bush 43 did more to destroy Al Qaeda and its radical brethren than all the other public servants in our history combined.  Instead, we get another honor for Ted Kennedy's 46 years of (self) service in the U.S. Senate, and a lot of drivel about "unity", "compassion" and "community". Is it all surprising that the Community Organizer in Chief sees 9/11 as an opportunity to community organize?

He goes on in his press release:

Throughout the summer, people of all ages and backgrounds came together to lend a helping hand in their communities through United We Serve. As this summer of service draws to an end, we renew the call to engage in meaningful service activities and stay engaged with those projects throughout the year. Working together, we can usher in a new era in which volunteering and service is a way of life for all Americans. Deriving strength from tragedy, we can write the next great chapter in our Nation's history and ensure that future generations continue to enjoy the promise of America.

Obama has taken the anniversary of an evil act of terror and watered it down to a national day of volunteering. How offensive! I cannot believe that we have turned 9/11 into a sound-bite for community activism. It further reinforces the fact that our president is completely out of touch with the reality of the world we live in -- and of the true meaning of September 11, 2001.

But of course this is no surprise. Obama, like many on the left, refuses to believe that evil exists. There is always a causal reason for such bad behavior. It is truly a victims view of the world. In this world view, America is part of the problem, and the terrorists are poor, oppressed lads from the third world who have never had a chance at life. Ergo, they want to commit mass murder.

Such reasoning allows liberals to sleep at night, because it gives them a false sense of certainty that if they keep working hard they can actually change the dynamic that creates a 9/11.

Barack Obama wrote an Op-ed in the Hyde Park Herald on September 19, 2001 -- just a week after the attack. It said this:

Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction. We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair. We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores. This tells you really all you need to know about how Barack Obama views 9/11 and the threats we face. Its a matter of poverty, helplessness and despair, right? Wrong. The attackers on 9/11 -- as were the attackers in London on 7/7/2005 were middle class Arabs. They were well educated. They were not ignorant poor Muslims. Now, it is clear that when Obama wrote this he did not know the exact backgrounds of the 9/11 terrorists. But this kind of supposition is de rigeur on the left: terrorism is bred by hopelessness and exploitation. If we can just "raise their hopes and prospects" they will surely come to love us.

This kind of thinking represents a fundamental misreading of the threat we face. It is beyond scary that our Commander in Chief holds this kind of view, for it masks the real root of terrorism: the radical ideology of Islam. The problem with the terrorists is the very belief system they are taught from the time they can read and write. The Wahhabi sect of Islam and its radical offshoots are the root of the issue -- and it can be found in the Arab world within all social strata. We are not fighting an enemy that can be eradicated through "hope" and "change". It can only be eradicated by its utter and complete defeat.  That is the lesson of 9/11. Our enemies prey on our weakness and respect only strength. And right now we have never been weaker.

The Obama move to change 9/11 into a service day is indicative of his true feelings about 9/11 -- that it is stain on our history that can be somehow moderated by our good deeds.

It is tragic that our president views the world this way. We should all be very embarrassed -- and very scared.

Socialists within are gaining

The socialists want to take over. Shall we allow them? The US is close to be taken over from within by Barack Hussein Obama, a development similar to those in Germany at the beginning of the 1930s. I grew up under the Nazis, and what I saw then there I see now here. There is nothing theoretical when I speak about what happens when a nation throws God out of government and society and when Christians become religious bystanders. I am not part of those who want some people to look bad by calling them Nazis, as Nancy Pelosi and so many people do nowadays. My writing is based on my own experience and that of my family. We were there.

The White House launched what could be called a "snitch" program by asking Americans to forward to a White House e-mail address anything regarding health care reform that they consider "fishy." This should help the government, explains the White House director of new media, Macon Phillips, to uncover the truth about the president's position and find the "disinformation" about health care "reform." The "snitch" program is opening the door to Gestapo methods.

When I was a child, Gestapo agents took positions in front of our church and wrote down the names of those who entered. It was intimidation, and everybody knew what it meant to be of different opinion than the Nazi government. My parents entered the church nevertheless, along with us four children. My father, a civil servant, in spite of being sacked when the Nazis came to power, did not compromise. For my parents, the greatest preoccupation in those years was the integrity of us children whom they didn't want to be infected by Nazi philosophy. The Gestapo had their informants everywhere, and they liked to discover through innocent children what their parents were up to. It was forbidden by law to listen to foreign radios and could lead to death penalty if found out. My father used to listen at 10 p.m. to the Swiss station Beromünster so we children wouldn't notice.

Are we headed for a Nazi-style totalitarian abyss? Find out in "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America"

According to media reports, the end-of-life-counseling, part of the health care "reform" in the bill before Congress, contains the philosophy that not all people have the same value for society and that, therefore, treatment for old people should be different than that for young people. In various television shows, the issue of the possibility of euthanasia is being discussed. This is also a criminal Nazi concept at the heart of their ideology. The Jews were declared by "law" to be less valuable than the Arian German race and eventually killed. Important for the Nazis also was the contribution of a person to society. Handicapped and old people were of no use to them. Therefore, they were led to a cost-saving death.

Our home in Germany was close to the Bodelschwinghsche Institute in Bethel, a complex where disabled people were looked after. When a Nazi commission arrived to pick up these people to be killed, the head of this Christian institution, Pastor Friedrich von Bodelschwing, put up such a ferocious and noisy battle for their lives that the commission had to give up and depart. But the euthanasia program nevertheless went ahead and was followed by the Holocaust. Does the health care project lead to an early end for old people for cost-saving reasons? One cannot trust the Democratic Party, which has abortion in its political platform and therefore is most likely also open to euthanasia. I prefer the clean direction of the patriotic tea party movement, which has taken our corrupt government establishment to task.

Obama did not visit Israel, our only democratic ally for many decades in the Middle East, but he made a speech to the Islamic nations and spoke of a new beginning. I did not hear him talk about the ceaseless firing of Arab missiles into Israel, asking them to begin change with themselves and stop firing missiles. Instead, he set up a Gestapo-like apparatus in the American Jerusalem Consulate to monitor Jewish movements in the neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the West Bank. Obama guaranteed the Palestinian Authority Israeli land they want, including East Jerusalem. Via the Israeli ambassador in Washington, he and Secretary of State Clinton try to dictate to the Israeli government what they should do and not do. At the same time, however, a senior adviser to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, Rashideh al-Mughrabi, declares in an interview with WND, "I don't believe there are any civilians in Israel; all of Israel society is a military society and therefore a military target." He joins Obama, who promotes abortion, in the philosophy that lives of others do not matter.

There are many discussions about what could be the real purpose of Barack Hussein Obama. It is important to know what his aims are to understand what we are facing.

In my book "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie," I speak of the enemy within and the enemy outside. I have a list of enemies of God, a few names only as examples, just to make the reader understand the essentials. Obama represents the melting of the godless enemies within and outside the United States in what is the coup de grace for a corrupt society. With other words, Obama's trillion-dollar projects belie a purpose to cripple the American economy and integrate a weak United States into the communist/socialist United Nations world order. This includes fake reasons to make the American people come along. If these projects became law, I believe, the middle class would have such strong financial difficulties that people would be unable to resist him. Therefore, rather than bipartisan understanding. rejection is the need of the hour.

The priority for Hitler as for Obama was then and is now to control the lifelines of their respective nations, which includes the silencing of the opposition so that they cannot be removed from power. I described in an earlier article how Hitler reached absolute power. Obama is struggling to get there.

What links the enemies within and without is organized godlessness. The lies of the outside aggressors and of the inside helpers may have different purposes, but they are all anti-American. I had to face the fact that my personal lies and my personal immorality made me blind to the nature of the Nazis and their anti-God purpose. Hitler could use me and millions of others, making us morally co-responsible for his atrocities in which I had no part. Every American who loves this country has to face the same responsibility for his government. Christian bystanders were in Germany and are in America the most important helpers of totalitarian politicians. America needs a moral rebirth.

Here's what I mean: Abortionist Barack Obama and Fidel Castro are part of the enemies of God because of the unchanged evil inside of them, their disregard of human life. They are on the wrong side of the battle line. Their purpose and actions are an insult to God.

The political and ideological battle line, therefore, is not between Democrats and Republicans, or between capitalism and socialism. The Nazis (national Socialists) were not Fascists. Fascism is not totalitarian. It is an ordinary immoral dictatorship. In their ideology, the Nazis were always part of global Marxist Socialism. Marxism, with its hatred and envy, is in its roots godless and incompatible with Christian teachings and therefore with our Constitution. Germany went down because of godlessness, and America is sliding down for the same reason. Obama and Pelosi, to name only two, are closer to the Nazis than to our Founding Fathers and our Constitution.

The economy is not the heart of the matter. It is only a consequence. The real issue where fundamental change is asked for is the relationship of this nation and of every American citizen with God and His commandments. When I speak of God I mean God, our creator, not religion. This country has too many laws that stink. Society has to be cleansed. America must become literally a nation under God. Then America can change the world. We need a president and members of Congress who stand for truth and life and not for lies and death.

Hilmar von Campe is the author of "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America." Having grown up under the Nazis, he offers a unique perspective on the rise and fall of Nazi Germany. He warns that there are many similarities between the Nazi society and America of today.

Let them eat...cake

I'm constantly amazed at the arrogance of our elected officials in Washington.  Service in the government was supposed to be a privilege, and members of Congress were supposed to be the people's representatives. Perhaps there was a time, before big money lobbying and ballooning budget deficits, when that was largely true. But not today.

Today we have a Congress made up of people -- on both sides of the aisle -- who think their position in Washington puts them above everyone else. They have created their own entitlement, with a prerogative that they can do as they wish, when they wish. They no longer work for us. We now work for them. Our tax dollars pay for their perks and their pork. And we are treated as if our opinions don't count. Its enough to make you realize that Reagan was right: Government is the problem.

The evidence of this is everywhere -- from Congress wanting to spend $500 million on new jets for them to fly around the world (on our dime) to them refusing to use the same government-run health care that they are now trying to pass in the House. Last month, Republican Rep Dean Heller (NV) tried to put an amendment on H.R. 3200, the current House Health Reform legislation that would have required Congress to give up their rich health benefits and go on the government plan like everyone else.

Democrats also voted down an amendment from Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nv.) that would require all Members of Congress to get insurance through the government-run plan. Apparently Democrat members of Congress do not like the government plan they’re trying to inflict on the rest of us.

In a straight party line vote, Democrats voted against exempting themselves from the government-run plan by a vote of 21-18. “We also had an amendment to require that members of Congress must participate in the government-run plan,” Rep Dave Camp (R-Mich) said. “If it’s such a great idea, it should be a great idea for members of Congress. The majority voted to prevent that from happening. They voted to exempt members of Congress from the government-run plan.”

No surprise, of course, that Democrats rejected this amendment -- when you consider that progressive leadership in the House firmly believes it is superior to the common folk like you and me. They sit on high and decree, spending our money as if it is water and exempting themselves from their decisions. It is truly shameful.

Now there is another attempt at this, HR 615, sponsored by Rep John Flemming of Louisiana who is also a physician. Flemming has put a link on his website that has a petition -- you can go to it and sign here. The fate of Flemming's initiative, however, is already sealed: the scoundrels will never agree to being treated like "regular folk". They're special, remember?

Fortunately, history has its lessons, even if many choose to ignore them. Marie Antoinette also famously once said "let them eat cake". And we know what happened to her. She lost her head (literally) in the public square.

Cake, anyone?