American History (Part 7) Silencing Those Who Dissent

My previous historical blog concerning causes of the Revolution dealt with name calling - a tactic often used to derail the opponents’ arguments and put the focus on an emotional label, with the name caller hoping to sidestep addressing the premises of an argument directly, and instead clouding the debate with an accusation putting the opponent on the defensive. England relied heavily on labeling those opposing tyranny as “disloyal,” and thereby avoiding the responsibility of upholding the American colonists‘ (mostly British citizens) rights as guaranteed by the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights.

In addition to casting aspersions attempting to discredit the discontented colonists, another tactic employed by England was to simply silence the voices of dissent. As covered earlier, royal governors of colonies had it within their power to dismiss colonial assemblies - the lawmaking body of the colony. If the governor felt that what was being discussed presented a form of treason to the Crown, he could simply shut down the congregation of the body and forbid them to meet. This, indeed, was a tactic employed.

What of the Press? Locally printed newspapers were a lifeblood of communicating actions taken both on a local level, as well as news from “across the pond” (the Atlantic). Proclamations by King George and the discussions of Parliament were followed closely during this time. Newspapers being what they are, written by mere mortals, reflect the temperament of the authors. That being the case, if a newspaper tended to editorialize the Crown and Parliament in a disloyal manner, they were labeled as seditious (tending toward disorder and insurrection against the prevailing government). Such acts of sedition led to newspapers being banned and shut down, as dangerous, incendiary instruments of malcontents bent on rebellion.

Interestingly, our dependency on the belief that “truth is an absolute defense” stems from a court case in 1735, some 40 years prior to the first shots of the Revolution. A publisher, Peter Zenger, openly criticized a new royal governor of New York, William Cosby, for running a puppet court seeking to expedite Cosby’s own form of justice. Zenger was brought up on charges of sedition, but eventually acquitted as his lawyer, Alexander Hamilton, argued that telling the truth did not cause governments to fail; rather, abuse of power accomplished that end. Zenger was acquitted, and since that time, Americans hold fast to the argument that truth is an absolute defense - irrespective of it offending the government.

As can be seen, declaring the principles of the Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, and precedent in court was not getting the discontented Americans much traction. Pressure was applied to various colonies, and England systematically shut down colonial press based on claims of sedition. In response, citizen groups formed to avoid the classic strategy of divide and conquer. Without radio, telephone, or even telegraph, word was slow to spread. The British hoped to sequester the troublesome areas of the Colonies - most notably Boston, bring them under submission, while the other colonies remained ignorant of the disciplinary actions taken against the disloyal protestors.

Following the Boston Tea Party of 1773, Parliament passed a series of Acts (laws) known in England as the Coercive Acts, but re-labeled as the Intolerable Acts in Massachusetts. For their insolence, the Bostonians would be faced with the following punishments: the destroyed tea (worth a fortune) would be paid for, the assembly was disbanded and military rule would replace colonial government, the dreaded Quartering Act (private homes being used for the housing of British officers and troops) would be continued and increased, officers accused of a crime against a colonist could return to England to stand trial (a de facto method of acquittal as colonists were not allowed to leave Boston), and the harbor of Boston (the lifeblood of Boston being trade and ship building) would be shut down until Boston met the terms of submission. Without television or radio coverage, how would the plight of Boston be realized on an ongoing basis?

Colonists in opposition to the government formed organizations known as Committees of Correspondence. The existence of this type of correspondence pre-dated the 1770s, but during the British occupation of Boston, the committees earned most historical attention. The purpose of the Committee was to carry message of political happenings in one colonial area to another, so that remaining colonies were aware of British behavior - realizing that what was happening in Boston could just as well happen in Charleston, Williamsburg, or any other city that happened to cross England. Messages were conveyed afoot, on horseback, and by means of water routes. Not surprisingly, in attempt to squash this form of communication which threatened England’s strategy of divide and conquer, the Committees were officially banned.

How does this relate to today? Earlier this week, I interrupted my historical blogging to post my discouragement with the the “mainstream” media’s failure to report on important topics surrounding our government. The administration rewards reporters who ask appropriate questions with further attention during press conferences. Those in favor are invited on Air Force One, to wine and dine with the President - enjoying lobster flown in from Maine while touring Yellowstone National Park. Those in the media who toe the party line will be invited to social occasions, and may expect those in the administration to grace their talk shows with their presence, wherein all can enjoy lighthearted banter about socks and such.

The bigger concern? Hopefully, you’ve heard of the Fairness Doctrine, which had its origins in 1949. The goal behind the doctrine was to ensure fair and balanced presentation of opposing viewpoints throughout the media. Like most doctrines or laws, the intentions sound good, but over time the application of the doctrine may take an unanticipated direction. To keep this fairly short, the debate over the application of the Fairness Doctrine has become heated. Some propose that conservative talk show is much too influential - to the point of being dangerous. Further, that broadcasters of these shows have a public duty to provide equal time to opposing viewpoints - on their dime. Cable news networks, such as FOX, advocates argue, must provide air time, minute for minute, which provides countering views to Bill O’Reilly, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, etc. The eventual impact? Broadcasters would not be able to afford this, sponsors would leave the market, and the voices of the conservatives raising questions would be killed. The altruistic argument is “balance” but the strategy behind the argument is to silence the voices of dissenting opinion. Please note: Conservatives are not insisting on government interference for balance with MSNBC, Larry King, NPR, Dave Lettermen, The View, et al to provide equal time; the pressure for this comes from the Left.

Equally disturbing is President Obama’s desire to have unilateral control over the internet for “national security” (Senate Bill 773). Cybersecurity, supposedly, would give the President power “...to improve and maintain effective cyber security defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.” What other purposes? Exert control over the free flow of information, such as this blog? Alarmist? Consider this in context with Obama’s admonishment directed at “patriotic” Americans to send names and addresses to the White House of those spreading misinformation about the health care bill. For what purpose? Where are all the people who were screaming about selective wire tapping allowed under the Patriot Act? I don’t hear them speaking out.

England tried, unsuccessfully, to silence the voices of dissent. Voices that raised defining questions concerning the rights of the People. Keep in mind, those who identified with the Patriot movement represented barely 30% of the colonial population. Although substantial, it is erroneous to imagine all colonists standing up against the government. Fully 30% remained loyal to England, which leaves 40% who either didn’t care or would leave the concerns up to others to solve. While the tactics are not exact matches, the strategy is the same today - silence the voices of dissent. My question is, what is the measure of our resolve? How far down this path will we be taken? And once there, is it even possible to go back?

The Failing of the News Agencies

The past week and a half were so discouraging for me, when it should have been encouraging, that I just didn't have the heart to blog. Can you hear the violins?

Acorn, the community action group, was de-funded by Congress. This group is one that President Obama, when campaigning, said he worked side by side with in community organizing, and they would be part of the decision making process during his administration. In the Stimulus Bill, at one point in the negotiations, Acorn would be getting some $5 billion dollars.

This was a group that used heavy handed measures to intimidate mortgage lenders to give housing loans to unqualified borrowers. This was a group that entered the meetings of private businesses, surrounded the board members with thugs - sending an eerie threat of what would happen unless. This was a group that had an agenda of redistributing wealth through whatever means they found effective.

For some of you, the following is common knowledge: Over the past 2 weeks, a young couple's attempt to reveal corruption within Acorn was enough to effect Congress. At five separate Acorn locations, Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe posed as a prostitute and pimp - seeking a loan for a "house." The house would be used for prostitution. Additionally, (and this is where things get really sad) they couple would be importing 13-15 year old girls from Central America, a slave trade, to fill the brothel.

At each of the 5 Acorn locations, representatives coached the Giles and O'Keefe how to make this happen. How to fill out the forms with occupational information to get approved. How to identify the underage imports so as not to raise suspicion. And to realize they would not be able to claim the girls as dependents at tax filing since Giles was too young to pose as an adoptive mother.

The tapes shown on various nights of Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity were damning. There was no gray area to wonder if the Acorn personnel were confused. They fully understood the proposition and eagerly coached Giles and O'Keefe in the manner of making their "dream" come true. Oh by the way, Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity all report for the same cable news channel - Fox.

This was quite a scoop. Where were the other news agencies? This scandal wasn't being covered by other news agencies. Silence. That is until, some of them, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc, could no longer remain silent and posed the coverage as wondering whether Giles and O'Keefe should be brought up on charges for their tactics. Understand this: there was no outrage that Acorn was facilitating the loaning of taxpayer money to a pimp and prostitute, participating in slave trade of minors for the purpose of prostitution. Rather, they reported this as right-wing pundits attempting to smear Acorn. On the internet, if you Google "Acorn sting" you'll get primarily hits of sites defending Acorn for understanding the plight of inner city blacks who must resort to prostitution to survive, and attacking Giles and O'Keefe for their efforts.

Are you old enough to remember the Watergate Investigations with "Deep Throat"? The reporters who broke that story, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, were heralded as heroes. They refused to divulge their sources. Woodward and Bernstein became iconic during the 1970s as paragons of virtues - representing what the media was meant to do: keep government honest. I don't remember anyone questioning Woodward or Bernstein as being the culprits in view of the actions of the administration. All major networks followed the story, and the American public followed the nightly news with baited breath.

The Acorn scandal? One cable news network, Fox, covers the story. The others ignore it until there is no ignoring it, and then turn the tables by casting aspersions at Giles and O'Keefe. Without apology, they excuse Acorn for enabling and financing prostitution and a slave trade of minors for the purpose of sexual profiteering.

The same is true of the Van Jones story. If you don't know about Van Jones, I'll assume you don't watch Fox. Again, the other agencies ignored the revealing of this Obama czar's past, ethics, and racial hatred toward whites. When he was put in the limelight, he quietly resigned, with no fanfare nor explanation from the President. Compare this to earlier administrations wherein a Presidential post left office. Seems to me it was standard fare for news coverage to examine what was going on.

On 9/12/2009, the Tea Party Express congregated on the Mall at Washington, DC. These were Americans there to protest unresponsive government, irresponsible spending, and the agenda attempting to move America toward socialism. These people want a government by the People, and when they express their concerns, they don't want to be labeled as "Astroturf" or "Dangerous Extremists."

Was this a significant gathering? Well you tell me: When over 1.7 million people take time off work, spend time and money to travel to Washington, DC to make a statement, is that an event worthy of note? That number of people is about the same as the combined population of these cities: Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco (1.9 million). Those are the folks who showed up. (For any given protest, I wonder how many people didn't, or couldn't attend, by who agree with the sentiments of the attending protestors?)

Where was the media coverage? Typically, when there is a protest of this size (or even miniscule in comparison) the press covers it for days. They interest the organizers and turn the event into a big deal. They interview participants asking why they were willing to travel all that distance and make the sacrifice to express their views, and what they hope this will accomplish. They fawn over those who brought their children - highlighting that this is a family event. And then, on the big day, they broadcast aerial shots of the crowd and give color commentary of the event. Did you see the coverage on "mainstream" media? Neither did I. Why the silence?

My point? With the exception of Fox News, other agencies are giving Obama a pass. They are no longer acting as the watch dog on government. Instead of asking the hard questions expected of the media in keeping the public informed, they are covering Michael Jackson, sports, traffic, and the weather. If there happens to be a natural disaster, such as a fire in LA, we'll hear about that too.

Critics of Fox claim it is a right wing tool that doesn't report news but rather make up sensational stories. You need to judge that for yourself, but if you wait for the "mainstream news" or SNL, or Lettermen to endorse it, that's not going to happen. Those folks don't want you to question whether Ted Kennedy was a hero or should have paid the price for killing Mary Jo Kopechne; they don't want you to ask why Obama promised to have US troops out of Iraq within 7 months of being elected, but hasn't done so; nor do they want you to question the government bailout and takeover of companies like GM; and they certainly don't want you to examine the contents of the National Health Care bills until it's too late. Why not? Because 80% of all news agencies and reporters identify with far left politics. They're in favor of a movement toward socialism.

What do I have to gain by voicing this? As I mentioned in earlier blogs, the American I love, our rich democratic heritage, the opportunity to grow through capitalism, is soon going to be referred to as the "good old days" if Congress and the President are not stopped. (I want to reiterate that the Stimulus Plan blame falls in the lap of President Bush as much as Obama.)

Where we used to be able to turn on the news and assume they were covering important stories, that is no longer the case. On television, with the exception of Fox, other news agencies are keeping us fat, dumb, and happy. And that's dangerous.

American History (Part 6) Muddy the Waters with Name Calling

Name calling didn’t end when we finished elementary school. The technique still appears to be the most employed means of derailing an argument and stirring up anger. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for calling a behavior by its appropriate title. For instance, if I practice lying, I’m a liar. If I consistently advocate conservative ideas, it’s fair to call me conservative. And if I promote the ideas of fascism, I may earn the title of fascist.

On the other hand, using a title or epitaph as an incendiary tool - one which is meant to inflame and divert attention from the details of the controversy, serves only to give opposing sides a handle to conveniently categorize and overly simplify opposing viewpoints. 

In the setting of the 18th century, the British government was blindsided by the American reaction and protests to the Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Quartering Act, Townshend Acts, and Tea Act. All of these were laws passed by Parliament seeking to re-line the pockets of the English purse by directly taxing the American colonists; colonists, as covered in earlier blogs, who rightly asserted that England was stripping them of their rights as English citizens to select the men who determined their taxes, as well as other laws. Initially, England had perhaps, understandable pause in evaluating the American response. After all, the American colonies existed to financially benefit Mother England. Additionally, England had just defended the colonies against the French threat during the French and Indian War.

This notwithstanding, the American colonists were the ones taking the direct risk of living on this frontier. They were the ones to whom failure carried not just economic but rather mortal consequences. More importantly, the principles being disputed did not boil down to who was benefitting whom, but one much more basic: An Englishman had rights guaranteed by the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights. Period. Abridging those rights was not to be tolerated. As for the French and Indian War - that was a war protecting the nation of England. Colonists fought and died for Mother England, they weren’t just protected.

The English living back in England had no real concept of the realities faced by their American cousins. What they heard of life in the colony was based on gossip, what was carried in the news, and perhaps correspondence. The Americans were being depicted as overfed, ungrateful children, spawned and protected by the graces of British generosity, but obviously insolent, arrogant, and spoiled. Those living in England who were concerned about their country’s welfare had to make sense of the situation as economic hardship dictated their economy. What conclusion would they reach about the American response to England’s need? The most popular response, fostered by elements in Parliament and the press was that Americans were Disloyal.

Time to digress: Wisdom is gained by living through experiences and coming out the other side, gaining understanding about the human saga. And this is what I’ve learned about name calling: the basis of resorting to labels is an attempt to compartmentalize information about people. It is always an oversimplification, giving our brain a chance to bring a matter to closure rather than grapple with further extenuating circumstances which may forestall conclusion. I believe this applies to sexism, racism, agism, ad nauseam. In other words, I assess observation #1, perhaps #2, and maybe #3, and reach my conclusion that a person is a racist, or whatever. As or culture increasingly becomes less analytical, we’re complacent to reach our conclusion after observation #1.

 Once one reaches the conclusion wherein they assign a label, future analysis of the situation becomes stymied. A decision has been reached, a label assigned, and future consideration is largely limited by the meaning of the label. What does one do with disloyal children (in the case of the British)? Well, abandonment would be one option -  unless the children’s income was too much of a consideration. That was truly the case here. England had grown dependent on America’s wealth. Option B: Bring the children under control. That was what proceeded. Disloyal, ungrateful children need to be disciplined. Once your mind is made up, you allow yourself to dismiss further consideration of the validity of the other side’s perspective. For those living in England, this meant you didn’t need to consider whether Americans were entitled to the rights of the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights. You didn’t need to wonder how you’d feel if you were the one living with the risks of frontier life. You could relegate your American cousins to the the status of provincials, incapable of understanding the complicated realities of English needs, reducing them to the status of simple, ungrateful children who merely needed discipline. 

The colonial response? This validated their fear that England did not take them seriously; that England was not going to treat them as equals. Their argument of receiving the same rights as any English citizen was going to be swept under the carpet and the focus of the issue would be diverted into considering whether Americans were loyal or not.

Loyalty. That’s an emotional word. When one is disloyal, it seems to trump other considerations. Get enough people to believe you are a disloyal person, and it’s pretty hard to get the argument back on track. It’s easier to focus on “how could you betray your own mother ?(England).” The ploy worked with some; many colonists would back away from the association with those who argued that their rights were being ignored, if it meant being disloyal. Others tried to prove their loyalty while adhering to their rights. Eventually, those who proceeded in identifying with the Patriot movement had to abandon hopes of vindicating their motives, and reach the conclusion that a breach with England was inevitable - they would never convince detractors of the validity of their point of view.

How does this relate to our situation today? While we celebrate America electing its first black president, those who raise concerns over his policies are often labeled as racist. Doing so derails the detractor immediately, regardless of the validity of their concerns. The critic of Obama may attempt to raise points A, B, C, etc. But the cries of racist are loud, emotional and divisive. The audience has to decide, is it worth it to analyze the arguments being promoted by the critic? Crying racism has a certain romanticism associated with it - so some may jump on that bandwagon at this point and forgo any analysis; it’s easy and it puts you in good standing with people of color. Others may not understand the arguments of the detractor; rather than struggle with bridging the information gap, it takes far less effort to glom onto the label of racism - reach the conclusion and move on. Still others, and this being the most dangerous group, realize that the detractor has valid points but would rather live with, or embrace, the Obama direction, and so uses the label of racism to purposely divert the focus away from the actual concerns and to a hot button accusation  - thereby defusing the potency of the detractor’s points. The validity of his or her points are drown out in a din of emotional accusation, relying the characteristic so deeply embedded in our culture - guilt.

What other names are we hearing? Right Wing Extremist. McCarthyists. Bigots. Uncaring. Hardhearted. Hate monger. Selfish. 

Like the colonists in the 18th century, Americans who oppose the direction of their government are having to make choices. For some, the association with labels such as racist is far too threatening, and they will back down and avoid the possible condemnation among their peer group. Others will vainly try to explain they are not a racist, extremist, or hateful. They feel strongly about their values, but also feel the need to vindicate their position. Others have, or will eventually, give up trying to satisfactorily explain - they will reach a decision that they don’t care what the opposition thinks. 

Solution? History indicates that sitting down at a table, hoping to eventually convince others of your good intentions hasn’t really worked. We need to move past the sting and hurt of emotional labels and words, and proceed in pursuing the truth. If people accuse you of being a racist, hateful, or an extremist - don’t change your focus into trying to vindicate yourself in that light. Stick with your concerns. Address what you don’t like. Tell people you don’t care if the president is black, white, or purple - you can’t support a man who...

Your detractor might say, “You’re the one calling the President a fascist! If that’s not name calling and emotional, what is? At that point you need to know your facts. It’s important that you understand what fascism is, and be able to explain that it’s not an emotional label meant to smear his reputation and divert attention away from the behavior. It’s a term meant to accurately describe his actions - that being, a governmental movement to take control of a private business, e.g. General Motors.

Name calling has probably been around as long as there have been humans. It’s hurtful and often takes consideration away from the facts of the situation, highlighting instead some emotionally charged accusation which is used to conveniently oversimplify the position of an individual or group. Realize that it’s a tactic, often used by those who having nothing left to say, so they grasp at straws, and names. Don’t take the bait; bring the focus back to the facts and the principles involved.

In conclusion, even Jesus addressed this issue during the Sermon on the Mount:

 11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

 13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

 14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

(Matthew, Chapter 5)

Obama's Health Care Address to the Nation

Obama Care, to the Rescue

The series I’ve been writing on the history of the American Revolution, and how it relates to today is being interrupted for this blog. Having watched President Obama’s address to the nation, I feel the need to address that topic.

Let me qualify by saying I actually took notes during the address. I get impatient with stating things from memory only to have the opposing side say, “He didn’t say that.” So, I have my notes. If you disagree, please find the content of the speech online and come prepared with specifics - not recollections.

President Obama started by making sure all in the audience understood that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. President Clinton said the exact same thing. It seems to be a theme with the last two liberal administrations. While I can’t support Bush in many of the policies he pursued, let’s judge each president by what he actually did. I was appalled at President Bush II urging that Congress rush the Stimulus Act through. As am I appalled at the actions of Obama tripling the national debt inside 6 months. Which action is worse? Eight years of slow economic deterioration, or 6 months of a sudden trifold in your debt? Put this on a personal level: Let’s say you were involved in 2 marriages. The first put you $10,000 in debt before a divorce pursued. The new spouse took the reins of your existing debt and within 6 months increased your indebtedness to $30,000 by trying to spend his or her way into recovery. (Personal examples always help me get back to basic understanding.)

Despite our present situation, President Obama claimed, during the speech, that he had brought the economy back from the brink. Bringing something back, to me, means moving in the opposite direction. How is it that you are bringing something back, when actually the problem gets worse? 

Obama stated that we, the new administration, did not come here to clean up crises, but to build a new future. The astute listener must ask himself, “build what future”? What many voters did not choose to hear prior to the election was Obama’s promise to re-form America. That’s exactly what he is trying to do. Barack Obama does not cherish our American legacy, despite what he may say in any speech. He truly does want to re-form the fabric and structure of this country. Otherwise, he would say that he wants to grow, capitalize on, strengthen, improve, adhere to, etc. Re-forming means change the form of. Many Americans, myself included, have absolutely no interest in abandoning the Constitution and the legacy left us by the Founders and Framers. If you’re in doubt, Obama said that you could judge his administration by the people he surrounded himself with as advisors. Take a look at them; check their pasts and their writings. Using this as the litmus test, Obama has very little interest in preserving the Constitution, the tenets of the Declaration of Independence, and the legacy of our American heritage.

Obama stated that coverage for an individual seeking health care costs three times as much as if that same insured obtained group coverage. Problem: If I obtain coverage with a group, I obtain a “group average” rate. If I am obese, have pre-existing health issues, am a smoker - well, Obama’s probably correct; I will get the benefit of healthy people subsidizing my poor health choices. However, if I’m of an appropriate weight, don’t have pre-existing conditions, am a non-smoker, well, I’d probably be better off seeking my own insurance rates than going for the group average. Because in this second scenario my good habits provide the insurance company with surplus premium dollars used to subsidize the the unhealthy insureds within the group. It’s not a mystery, it’s just a “spread of risk” function of insurance. Insurance companies cannot invent the statistics - they justify their rate structures to the state insurance commissioners before they’re approved. Further, Obama said we are the only country that allows 14,000 insureds to lose their coverage daily. I wonder why? Did they lose their jobs because of the recession and lost their health benefits? (Probably.) Did they walk away from their private insurance? (No.) Obama said, those with insurance have less security than ever. Why is that? Again, it’s not the insurance, it’s the economy. He went on to site one patient who had gall stones as a pre-existing condition, and another with acne; both patients were reportedly denied benefits for non-related life threatening problems, which  eventually led to the deaths of these people. As a person who works in the insurance industry, I’d really like to know why, if this truly did happen, the companies which denied benefits were not sued to the full extent of the law for failing to live up to the policy provisions. Once insured, customers are not excluded from benefits during the policy period, unless that it can be proved they lied during application. Acne? Come on.

At one point, Obama brought up Medicare and Medicaid, stating that private insurance puts pressure on it, inferring that these two governmentally administered programs are suffering financially because of the existence of private insurance. Hmm. Obama went on to assert, “Nobody disputes this.” He never did explain what he meant. What I have observed is that providers and suppliers who have worked with Medicare are attempting to distance themselves from it as government prescribed payments are so restrictive, those entities cannot stay afloat economically if the number of their patients on Medicare exceeds are certain percentage. Secondly, the red tape involved in dealing with the government programs puts an unrealistic burden on the administrative staff.

Obama stressed these points that he says should be mandatory inclusions of national health care: 1) Insurance cannot exclude applicants based on pre-existing conditions; 2)  Insurance cannot drop an insured nor change his/her coverage when the insured is sick; 3) The can be no “arbitrary” caps on limits to insurance; 4) there must be a limit to out-of-pocket expenses on the part of the insured; 5) Insurers are required to cover the costs of procedures such as mammograms and colonoscopies. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think #2 is a moot point; I don’t know of medical coverage that is allowed to practice changing or dropping insurance when an insured experiences illness. As for the  other 4 points, these are all accomplishable, assuming that price is no consideration. Again, let’s apply this to a personal level: you own a small business and you decide to provide medical insurance for your employees out of your own pocket. Your employee association, a group of 10, come to you with these demands: 1) you have no right to know whether we have diabetes, HIV, cancer, or heart disease; 2) No matter how expensive coverage gets, you can have no limits to what you pay; 3) After we pay up to $500, our personal obligation is over and you’re on the hook for everything else; and 4) we demand that you pay for tests that we deem in our best personal interest. As a private employer are you going to be able to live up to these terms? Why then, when we extend this to several thousand insureds do we think the practicality of these concerns goes away? I’ll tell you why Obama and the National Health Care advocates think they go away. Because ultimately the bill will fall to the responsibility of the taxpayers - in the eyes of government, a veritable bottomless pit.

Following this, President Obama discussed the concept of an insurance exchange. For those who could not access private insurance through employment, they would be able to obtain it through the exchange. The collectivity of this group would be large enough to provide the same negotiating power as groups such as say, the teacher’s union. However, if this group is organized by the government as their “group,” we must assume that anyone stepping forward to insure them would have to live up to the demands listed in the previous paragraph, as outlined by Obama: no pre-existing condition underwriting, no caps on coverage, limited out-of-pocket costs to the insured, and mandatory testing on prescribed health concerns. It was inferred that these people would have manageable costs due to the fact that they were forming a “group.” Two things: 1) Every group plan I’ve participated in had me paying a portion of my care, and my employer paying the other half. Who is the employer in this case? For instance, in my last job in teaching, I paid about $800 per month while the school district paid another $800 in the form of paid benefits. That’s $1600. Will the government pay the second half? (That is, the taxpayer.) Or will those in the exchange come up with the full $1600?

Then, there was that group which Obama said didn’t have the means to participate in the exchange. For this group, he simply said they would receive tax credits to help them access health insurance. What this means, he didn’t exactly explain. Are we to assume that the poor will receive a federal tax cash refund to pay for insurance? If so, how will we be sure the poor use it to actually pay for health insurance? But let’s presume that it’s not cash, but some type of voucher which must go toward health care. Are these vouchers susceptible as a “black market” currency, such as food stamps? Will this type of care be susceptible to the same abuses as Medicare, which have left this program bankrupt? If not, why not? The President didn’t say.

President Obama stated, “I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business...I just want to hold them accountable.” He claimed the not-for-profit-public option would do that. How, again, he didn’t say. In a free market system, the absolute best force available is competition. Competing companies will hold one another’s feet to the fire while honing better and better products at the best price. But competition is currently being stifled by interstate laws preventing insurance companies from competing freely throughout the country. If you want to see improvement today, allow all insurers to compete freely in all 50 states.

Obama likened his proposed national health care agencies to universities, saying they would be self-sufficient, earning their way just as the private companies do. Do you follow the budgets of state run colleges? Name one public college or university that pays its own way. Last time I checked, they are ALL heavily subsidized through taxation.

The President pledged that he would not sign a plan that added one dime to our deficit, now or in the future, period. To prove it, he said, he’d make the spending cuts to make up for it. Time out. Did you notice the inconsistency here? A minute ago, he said the national health care would pay its own way. In this breath, he’s saying that he pledges to make up the difference by making spending cuts. Whoops. Obama is conceding this will cost more than we have. He went on to say that the money could be found in existing wasteful spending. Time out again. Wasteful spending exists, and we added to it with the Stimulus Bill? I thought every penny was needed to oil the mechanism of government programs for the good of the economy. Now, he saying he knows of wasteful spending. How come we didn’t go after that before passing the Stimulus Plan, and why don’t we assess that wasteful spending today to determine what useful means those salvaged dollars may be put to?

The absolute biggest arguments put forth by conservatives to combat spiraling costs of health care is in the way of tort reform. Let me repeat: THE BIGGEST. Limiting court costs, frivolous lawsuits against physicians and drug companies, and bringing about malpractice insurance that is not prohibitive - these are changes that can be made without overhauling the best health care system in the world. Obama devoted less than 30 seconds to this; maybe a sentence or two. Short shrift. He dismissed it. Obama is a lawyer, elected by lawyers, as are most in Congress. Follow the money.

The critics of the bill were characterized in Obama’s speech, once again, as disseminators of misinformation. The President raised the controversial points “a plan to kill off senior citizens” which he said was a lie, plain and simple. The root of this argument has to do with whether bill will result in health care rationing. The proponents say there is no such stipulation; the critics contend that necessarily, the tax sustained plan will have limits, and policy makers in Obama’s inner circle embrace prioritizing the contributors of society, making sure they are guaranteed societal provision, whereas infants and the elderly don’t have as much to contribute and are therefore, more expendable. So, say the critics, the plan doesn’t need to spell these terms out, it will just be a reality of a brave new world where limited resources are distributed according to the ruling party’s philosophy concerning the sanctity of life. Several key players in Obama’s inner sanctum embrace attributing relative value of life based on what the individual has to contribute (Sunstein, Holdren, Jarrett, and the recently departed Jones). Obama also cited misinformation as far as critics saying illegal aliens would have access, and that abortions would be funded. Again, calling it misinformation is dodging the point: those things are currently happening. Why would we think that practice would suddenly change?

Okay, so it sounds like I’m just a big naysayer. Just like I was a naysayer concerning the Stimulus Plan. Does our country need health reform. Yes. Do I have a better answer? Well, I think serious tort reform, restricting health care to citizens, opening state markets to all insurance companies, and requiring patients who show up without insurance and have no intention of paying private providers to set up a payment plan would make a dent in some of the need. And by the way, I’d like health insurance and don’t have it. So I’m not sitting in my ivory tower untouched by the reality of the need. But this health care bill doesn’t work at fixing our system; it is the beginning of a replacement for our system. It’s a move toward Canada and Great Britain. 

Despite President Obama’s promises and assurances, the economics of his plan don’t make sense. As the Stimulus Plan doesn’t make sense. The Obama administration and Congress are rushing to make policy upheaval within a very short period of time while they don’t even take the time to fully understand, or even read the bills that special interest groups and advisors are writing as opposed to the Constitutionally planned legislative model of elected legislators. When changes are as significant as the Stimulus Plan which puts future generations in debt, Cap and Trade which would further sidetrack our private sector from providing free market economic recovery, and this National Health Care Act which is the mostly hotly debated legislation in over 40 years, it just doesn’t make sense to ignore at least half of the constituents in America. Even if you do have a majority in Congress.

American History (Part 5) Not Listening to the Voices of the People

What attempts did the disgruntled colonists take prior to resorting to violent revolution?

The “Shot Heard Round the World” occurred at the Lexington Green on April,17, 1775. This was the official beginning of the armed conflict we know as the beginning of the American Revolution. British Regulars, stationed in Boston we ordered to march up to Lexington, and then Concord, in order to seized munitions stored by the colonists. The British Redcoats had been occupying Boston following the Boston Tea Party, December 16, 1773, enforcing martial law, in order to put teeth into the Coercive Acts - laws which required the colony of Massachussetts to pay back damages caused by the dumping of tea into the Boston Harbor, make sure that Massachusetts didn’t practice self-government, allow officials accused of a crime against colonists to stand trial back in England, continue the quartering (housing) of British soldiers in civilian homes, and a closing of the British harbor - restricting trade of any kind. Additionally, the notorious Committees of Correspondence (members of communication groups informing the other colonies of actions the English government was taking) were banned. In other words, Boston was to be isolated, starved, and punished until they submitted. After a year and a half of occupation, King George and Parliament decided to show the colonists that their military might included the ability to to disarm the population at will. At Lexington Green, a standoff occurred, shots were fired, and the fuse was lit which officially marked the beginning of the War.

Events such as these typically have many “dominoes” which lead to what history records as the “beginning.” Did the colonists attempt other means of convincing England to make policy changes? Indeed, they did. Let’s go back to 1763, a full 12 years prior to the first shots.

As covered in an earlier blog, England waged a world war against France, their longtime nemesis. These two countries were rivals in their attempts to expand, control foreign soils, and as far as the “American continent,” assert dominance. France had settled in what is now Canada, but had laid claim to much of what is now the US, by way of French explorer, LaSalle. René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, in 1682 sailed down the Mississippi River which natives serving as his guides. Seeing the immensity of the mighty Mississippi, LaSalle made a clever claim for French king, King Louis XIV. He claimed the waters of the Mississippi, all tributaries which fed this river, and the lands they flowed through, as French territory. Unitil the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1803, nobody really understood the extent of this claim; it was uncharted land. But realize today, since the Rocky Mountain Range serves as one watershed, and the Appalachians serve as another, all waters between these two continental watersheds ultimately feed the Mississippi. Thus, although LaSalle had no way of realizing it at the time, he effectively claimed all lands between the Rockies and the Appalachians. This became known as the Louisiana Territory.

France never enjoyed the large number of colonists willing to emigrate to the wilderness of the American continent. Frenchmen who did were primarily fur trappers. Still, they contended that the claim was legitimate, and the die was cast for future conflict between the Spanish who had laid claim to what is now Mexico, the turf north of there, the French, and the English who had gained a foothold on the Atlantic seaboard. From the early 1600s, English immigrants flooded into this new land, seeking economic opportunity, the promise of actually owning land (an opportunity these newcomers would never realize in England), and for many, an opportunity for religious freedom (membership to the Anglican Church was mandatory - despite many in the church feeling disenfranchised by the liberal directions that church was taking). The first to arrive had the best picks, primarily for agriculture. Latecomers found that the most arable lands were taken, and had to settle for the less agriculturally suitable land of the the Appalachians. And so, eventually, English settlers spilled over the Appalachians into the more fertile regions beyond, most notable, the Ohio River Valley. It was here that clashes between the English and the French ensued.

Consequently, while England’s war with the French involved worldwide arguments, control over shipping on the Atlantic, other colonial conquests on different continents, the focus of American History centers on the North American continent. (European history notes this war as the “Seven Years War” whereas in American History, we name it the “French and Indian War.”) Ultimately, at huge expense, the English won. The treaty that followed is known as the the Treaty of Paris. While this treaty contains several provisions, the bottom line was that the French was, for all intents and purposes, removed from the continent of North America.

This was a costly war which left England in serious debt. Debt is weakness, whereas as prosperity is strength. A rich nation can maintain a strong military presence with many soldiers, adequately equipped with the latest and greatest technological armament. A weak nation cannot, and is therefore vulnerable to future attacks. England was in this weak spot and knew it. Remaining so was not an option. Finding its way out of debt was necessary. But how? As covered earlier, the American colonies were England’s immediate source of fresh revenue.

In 1763, Parliament passed the Stamp Act - a law that placed a direct tax on all paper goods. These paper goods included every thing from all licenses (even marriage licenses), playing cards, newspapers, books, all legal documents, etc. This was the first time the English tried to tax the colonies directly. Colonists were well familiar with taxation. In their local assemblies they taxed themselves regularly for the needs of the colony. But, taxation to an Englishman, meant only taxation through a representative assembly they helped create. Since they weren’t allowed to have representation in Parliament, the colonists rightly reasoned that taxes passed there would not apply to them.

Upon realizing the terms of the Stamp Act, concerned colonists responded in anger. They spoke out, articles were written in local newspapers, and appeals by way of petitions were made. The appeals were ignored. Colonial protestors, in turn, responded by burning the taxable papers. These protests were reported to be disloyal to the Empire. The concerned colonists were getting nowhere, so they upped the ante and intimidated tax collectors with hanging their images in effigy. Again, England ignored the warning signs and threatened with heavy handed retribution against the upstarts. As extreme measures, tax collectors were tarred and feathered - an action that resulted in public humiliation as well as severe physical harm to the victim, and to law abiding colonists? Shock. But these actions, while notable, did not bring about the desired effect of repealing the Stamp Act. What did work? Colonists organized and staged a boycott of goods coming from England.

A point to understand: America was England’s largest buyer. The economic model observed was one of “mercantilism.” In this scheme, the colony finds resources that can be used in production by the mother country and ships those resources home. In turn, the mother country uses the resources to produce finished goods which it will market to other countries, as well as their colonies. The colony, which is not allowed to produce finished goods without permission from the mother country, serves as a captive market - hence, the colony is allowed to buy from the mother country exclusively, even if the goods could be purchased elsewhere for a lower price.

By boycotting, England lost its largest market. The American colonists, in essence, crippled the English commerce. So, it wasn’t due to members of Parliament reasoning that perhaps they were being unfair in not including the American colonies in the decision making process, as the principles Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights dictated. It was the almighty dollar (or pound) pressuring the economy to wake up. Merchants in England were screaming bloody hell to Parliament, “Get rid of this insane Act. We’ve lost our income and without income there are no taxes to be had.” The Act was repealed.

England, not wanting to lose face, overlooked the basic economic lesson. They proceeded in their “right” to tax the Americans, and proceeded to pass The Townshend Acts. Americans again, reacted, and this time, came quickly to the conclusion that the boycott was the most effective means of getting their frustration across. Again, it worked, and Parliament repealed the offensive laws. But as a gesture of ultimate authority, they passed two simultaneous Acts, one being the Tea Act and the other being the Declaratory Act. The first affirmed the right of the British to keep a tax on tea, primarily as a face-saving measure. The second, and more ominous, asserted England’s right to practice sovereignty over the American colonies in any matter. These two Acts ultimately led to the Boston Tea Party, wherein harbors in America refused to receive shipment of the tea carrying tax. When colonial governors ordered the tea unloaded anyway (Boston - Governor Hutchinson), Patriot leaders responded by destroying the cargo.

So, what were the escalatory steps? Local alarm - petitioning local officials - protests - petitioning Parliament and King George - destruction of public property - intimidation of government officials - violent protests - refusal to give up arms and munitions - war.

Where are we along this path today? Has the public become alarmed? Absolutely. While some news organizations who support the current government sweep it under the rug and cover nothing more than the death of Michael Jackson, the traffic and the weather, talk shows and Fox News cover the growing anger at the direction we’re taking. Have concerned citizens petitioned local officials as well as Congress and the President? Yes, through the internet, circulation petitions, contacting both representatives and the White House, attending town hall meetings, and staging Tea Parties. The response from the government? These attempts are belittled as “Astroturf Movements” (not real nor legitimate), and continually arguing that the protestors are “right wing extremists” who spread misinformation. Emails I’ve sent are answered with “Thank you for contacting (senator’s name). Unfortunately, due to the volume of emails, he may not be able to respond directly.” Town Hall meetings are canceled due to representatives not wanting to face their constituents. Phone “town hall meetings” are prescribed with questions allowable. The President encourages citizens to turn in the names and addresses of their neighbors involved in spreading misinformation. In sum, the voices of those concerned are being ignored, or worse, threatened to be silenced.

So far, things have not gotten ugly. The conservatives who are speaking out are law abiding citizens who have it in their nature to maintain a job, follow the law, exercise decorum and respect. These are not the types who have nothing to lose and seek to cause, nor exercise, disrespect for the rule of law, and resort to anarchy. But the same can be said of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, and Joseph Warren. These were men of means who did not advocate a rush to arms. They had everything to lose: wealth, power, prestige, and position. But when push came to shove, they were willing to lose everything, and if necessary, be hung as traitors to England for daring to stand up to tyranny. Fortunately for them (and us) America emerged as an independent nation. Otherwise, those men would be footnotes in English history as dangerous traitors who attempted to incite the public to riot and rebellion.

Will our government listen to the voices of concern before more drastic steps are taken? I don’t know anyone in this current movement of protest against our current administration who hopes for measures involving violence. And within our history, it wasn’t the initial violence which led to the repealing of the offensive laws; it was boycotting and hurting the British economy. (Is a tax revolt in the cards?)

Let us hope and pray that our government comes to its senses, remembering that the purpose of government is to serve the people. However, Declaration of Independence serves as a very clear recipe for the People’s right to oppose their government. And that Document informs us that holding our government accountable is not only our right, it is our DUTY!

American History (Part 4) Colonists and Today's Constituents - Insignificant Provincials

An "unsung" reason contributing to the Revolution was social rejection. While this may sound melodramatic and petty, emotions often drive decisions. The British aristocracy living in England made it clear to their American "cousins" that they (the Americans) would never be considered as equals.

In the 1760s, despite the distance separating the American colonies from the continent of Europe, the colonists were proud to be considered British. Most English colonists,  recent immigrants or 4th generation descendents of 17th century immigrants, considered themselves to be British. They were fiercely proud of their heritage and their king. Let the reader understand - while at the time of the Revolution there were 13 colonies comprising Colonial America, these colonies operated much like independent nations; there was no real sense of a united America. What they had in common was the same "parent", that is, England.

Prior to revolution, the colonies hung desperately to the hope that differences would be resolved. No sane person hoped for revolution. Mother England may have been off base, but most everyone hoped for, and assumed, that differences would be addressed and corrected. During the mid -1770s, approximately 30% of the American colonists considered themselves to be Patriots - those willing to stand against England to protect their rights guaranteed under the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights (see previous blog), regardless of steps necessary. The remaining 70% were made up of about 30% fiercely loyal to England and 40% who were neutral - just wanting to get on with their daily life of survival and work.

Among the 30% who identified with the Patriot movement were men of means who were learned, successful, and greatly offended. For years, they had sought to live as Englishmen - real Englishmen. They insisted on reading newspapers from England, sending their children abroad to receive a bonafide English education, copied the art forms of English paintings, drank tea from Wedgewood cups. But their counterparts in England let them know they were little more than "posers." Political cartoons in the English print mocked Americans are provincials. Comments were made about their attempts to mimic aristocracy, pointing out the flaws attire, horse carriages, decorating, etc. Letters from George Washington to his clothier in England reveal his frustration with being sent fashions that were out-of-date and being charged exorbitant prices, implying that he was too dim to get what was going on. 

When intelligent people are told repeatedly that they donít belong to the group they admire, eventually rejection leads to bitterness. Not only will they feel separated, they will grow to dislike, or perhaps detest, those they once aspired to be. As the Bible says, "A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city..." (Proverbs 18;19)  And so, this group that once so fervently identified themselves as British, learned from the admired that they would never be considered equal, and eventually sought their own social identity.

This part of the Revolutionary picture is overlooked and underestimated. Once deeply offended, people become ready to take more drastic measures. If I tell a wayward child in my family that he is behaving inappropriate, but that he will always be part of the family, and we will work through problems with him, there is hope. However, if I tell that same child he will never be like the rest of us, his behavior is inexcusable, his lifestyle is the source of family ridicule, and all the while, we are expecting him to pay the bills to help us eliminate our family debt - we have a recipe for disaster. This is why this reality of American history is grossly underestimated as a cause for revolution . Rejection and social ridicule make people mad enough to say, "I don't want to be part of that which I once admired. I'm done."

How does this compare with our circumstances today?

Forget about Republicans and Democrats - we all consider ourselves to be Americans. Increasingly, our country has become ruled by large population centers such as New York, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. If you study an electoral map following a Presidential election, you'll see that the vast majority, geography-wise, voted for the conservative candidate. Conversely, small regions of the country, densely populated, voted for the liberal candidate. Increasingly, conservative Americans are being told they don't count. Based on proportional representation (population), the majority of Americans control elections, and that's Constitutional. But it is unhealthy when politicians in power tell those who did not vote for the winners, that they don't really count. Further, their concerns as expressed in protests are nothing more than "Astroturf." That voices of opposition on the radio and television are trouble makers spreading misinformation, and then proposing means of silencing those voices with the Fairness Doctrine, taking control of the internet with the power to shut it down for national security, asking citizens to email names and addresses of those complaining to the White House, as a real or implied threat of retribution.

What I find particularly frustrating about politicians today is their elitist attitude; once elected, they know better. They seem to forget that they purpose of their job is to represent their constituents and address their concerns. Instead, they take their election as a self-proclaimed mandate to put forth their own agenda, and the agenda of those who financed their campaign. The really disturbing aspect of this is that during the campaign, many of these elected officials cleverly couch their real beliefs with terminology that is vague, universal, and flat out, misleading. Consider President Obama. He promised to be the President of transparency, yet he won't clarify the matter of his birth certificate once and for all. He said he was only a neighbor of Bill Ayers, did not embrace his anti-American views, but if you look at the backgrounds of czars he has appointed such as Carol Browner, Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, and John Holdren, there is a commonality of among these people thinking that America needs to re-formed which I find very disturbing. Obama sat in the pews of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church and claimed not to hear those messages in which Wright attacked our country viciously. How could Obama miss that? (I've been to many churches throughout my life and this I've observed, pastors, reverends, and priests tend to be consistent in their themes. The message may change from week to week, but their underlying philosophy of life sets the tone of the church and the direction it takes.) How is that Michelle Obama, when 44 years of age, could honestly say, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, Iím really proud of my country..." first in Milwaukee, WI, and a second time in Madison? You may choose to pick each of these apart, one by one, but when one examines the tapestry of these variables, the picture is pretty disturbing.

All of these people mentioned, including the Obamas, are wealthy, having succeeded in a country that allowed them to pursue their happiness and openly express their views. Now, as ruling elite, they look down upon the silent majority as insignificant provincials who need to be led to a new America, a fascist and socialist America which seems very Orwellian to me. 

Carol Browner: Last day in office, 2000, as head of the EPA, she oversaw the destruction of the agency's computer files in direct violation of the a federal court order to preserve them. This despite her claim that "One of the  things Iím the proudest of at the EPA is the work weíve done to expand the publicís right to know." A clever trial lawyer, Browner claimed ignorance of the court injunction. Is this consistent with transparency and serving the People?

Van Jones: An avowed communist, Van Jones has been noted for calling Republicans "assholes," addressing supportive audiences using the F-bomb repeatedly to belittle the ideas and beliefs of Americans who's ideas run counter to the green movement, contends that white polluters and white environmentalist steer poison to racial minorities, and aligned himself with the "truthers," that is, those who contend the terrorism attacks of 9/11 were inside jobs designed by the Bush administration.

Cass Sunstein:  Regulatory czar, in his own words - "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law... Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."

"We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isnít a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now."

Sunstein also argued in favor of "eliminating current practices such as greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and meat eating, most controversially."

John Holdren, science czar: In 1977, Holdren co-authored the book Ecoscience. Here are some of the assertions: Forced abortions could be supported by the Constitution (page 837), single mothers could have their babies taken away by the government (page 786), mass sterilization of humans could be accomplished through drinking water (pages 787-787), governmental control over reproductively (pages 786-787), determining who may reproduce base on social deterioration (page 838), a planetary regime should control the international economy and dictate population expansion (pages 942-943), surrender national sovereignty to international police (page 917), pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are promoted through ethnic chauvinism (page 749).

Do you see any trends here? Did Obama transparently spell out this agenda clearly before he was elected? No, he promised transparency, but didn't provide it. He claimed that he would be a president who truly reached across the aisle, but is not living up to that promise one bit. Obama said he'd be the most accessible president ever, but instead, he's organizing an administration that plans on controlling the internet for "national security," encourages neighbors to turn in the names and addresses of those who spread "misinformation" about his policies, and budgeted $4.19 billion dollars to ACORN along with other "neighborhood stabilization activity" groups. Stabilization? ACORN is one of the two main thug groups intimidating voters at polling places, executive board members to provide bad loans to certain classes of borrowers, and threatening protestors at Tea Parties and town hall meetings. (The other group being SEIU).

Okay, enough. What does this have to do with my original thesis that a contributory factor to the American Revolution had to do with the British not treating the colonists as equal British citizens? The British government felt the colonists were provincials, or simply put, too stupid to determine what was in their own best interest. They allowed the colonists to "play government" in their own colonies as long as it benefited England financially. England passed several Acts, or laws, which left the colonists out of the decision making process, and they thought they could get away with it because the colonists were too slow, too ill-informed, and too rustic to stay up with the political tap dance Parliament was performing. The government of England forgot that they were supposed to represent its citizens - citizens who happened to live in the American colonies.

Today, Congress and the White House are promoting an agenda that has been put forth by the radical left. It is an agenda which is full of socialism, seeking ways to silence dissent, government takeover of private entities, destroying our ability to be self-reliant in energy, hamstringing business which rely on energy for production at a time where are slipping into an economic hole we can never get out of, promoting an agenda allowing animals their day in court, etc. Did our leaders transparently present these ideas when running for office? No, that would be too stark, too shocking. It was better to ride into office denying attachment to these ideals and allow late night comedy and mainstream news to mock those trying to bring attention the candidates' background and ties as Chicken Littles. (Thank you so much, David Letterman, SNL, NPR, CNN, MSNBC and all news agencies which are admittedly comprised of 80% liberals.)

In the days of pre-Revolution, the English government framed the 30% of the colonial population (the Patriots), who warned of England's tyranny, as trouble makers and dangerous. Our government today is doing the same thing. In order to silence voices of concern and dissent, our government is calling detractors Right Wing Extremists, the Astroturf Movement, and loyal citizens are supposed to send the names and addresses of these people to the White House. If the movement becomes too strong, the dissenters' right to Assemble and Petition (1st Amendment) is being greeted with members of ACORN, SEIU, and others - bused in to agitate, cause civil disobedience, and make it look like the conservatives are there to start a fight.

This is NOT a Republican vs. Democrat argument. This is about preserving America and the Constitution, and the beliefs embedded in the Declaration of Independence. It's about believing that government exists to serve the People, not the other way round. It's about embracing the 1st Amendment as first and foremost established to encourage public debate, examination of opposing views, in order to allow the People to participate in our democratic republic. It's also about holding our elected officials accountable. If you promise to be transparent, but the people who you surround yourself with as advisors are communists, socialists, new world order types, racists who blame Whitey for everything, people who believe in giving up our national sovereignty and submitting to an international police, leaders who have a known track record of destroying government files on agency computers, and those who want to give the rest of the animal kingdom (and I assume that includes insects) their day in court, isn't it fair to wonder why this "utopia" wasn't presented before the election? Well, isn't it?