"There. Is. No. Chaos"

That was the Twitter message yesterday from the Tweeter in Chief. I couldn't resist because it is simply so deliciously outrageous. I am convinced Trump's definition of terms resides somewhere in a parallel universe with which I am unfamiliar.

I am maintaining my stance about not wanting to dive too deeply into the chaos on the national political scene. It's so discouraging and so unfulfilling. But the list grows longer each day of chaotic gyrations emanating from the White House, the Congress and filtering down into virtually every municipality. The number of defections (some call them merely "adjustments") among senior staffers is growing. How many "fresh starts" and "new pages" does Trump get?

So now he brings in a four-star general in the form of James Kelly to steady the ship.

There is some good news. The stock markets are at all-time highs. Good news or impending peril? The Supreme Court is back to political balance and there is a full complement of nine justices. No chaos there at present.

The leaks of classified information are significant, however, and there are substantially more at this point in his administration than either of his two predecessors. George W. Bush had eight leaks, Barack Obama had nine. The Trump administration has logged 64 leaks of classified information to this point, and the numbers continue to escalate. Clearly, something is going on that is unprecedented. There seems to be a concerted effort to bring Trump down. Ironically, it was the discontent with career politicians in the first place that facilitated his election.

There is a persistent rumor that Vice-President Pence is mounting support from donors and preparing for his own inauguration. That relies on some wished-for scenario that would include a Trump impeachment for removal from office. There are even folks out there who speak openly of assassinating Trump to hasten the day for his removal from office by violent means. What seems far-fetched today could materialize someday. Can anyone predict that one? I can't.

The rumors run rampant every day, fueled by the cable news networks. Fox News is nothing more than state-run television in my estimation. The opposition cable news channels are no better.

Congress is in complete disarray over getting its agenda together on repealing and replacing Obamacare. After running on that agenda for nine years and with a majority in both Houses, we have seen nothing productive getting done to correct the system. Legislation is stalled on an entitlement program that will bankrupt America if left unchecked.

Either that, or two other options suggest themselves: One, Obamacare will collapse if left untended, and/or two, Obamacare will be rescued by yet another taxpayer bailout for the insurance companies and Obamacare will be transformed into a single payer system, which was the original goal when it started. It still translates into bankruptcy. Just how long can we go on borrowing our way into the future with no consequences?

Socialized medicine is the only obvious outcome. My guess is that for all the rhetoric coming from Republicans about freedom of choice, they aren't much different than Democrats. Overcoming the status quo is proving more difficult than originally envisioned by the voters. The pledge to "drain the swamp" now seems a distant echo from the campaign trail. Good sound bite, but little more.

Looking around the world we see Russia trying to reassert its will globally through Vladimir Putin. He will stop at nothing to covertly insert himself into the political calculus and disrupt our democracy in any way he can. Who knows what Robert Mueller will come up with? Did Trump collude with the Russians to defeat Hillary? The idea is laughable. Were they willing to meet to gather dirt on Hillary? Absolutely. Does that rise to "collusion"? Stay tuned on that one.

Let's not leave out North Korea, boldly brandishing the threat to annihilate any large city in the United States their noble dictator may randomly select. At his cabinet meeting yesterday, Trump merely asserted, "We'll handle it."

Now there is news about another special prosecutor being appointed to investigate all the Democrats, including HIllary, Lynch, Comey, the DNC, and that list grows. Our government, our political institutions, our staid and true principles of the Republic are rapidly being redefined. Confusion and distrust reign unchallenged, it seems.

I secretly cheered for Barack Obama, and hoped he would succeed when he was POTUS. I have the same aspirations for Trump. I am hoping there is a way forward that can be identified, clearly communicated, and that statesmen on the political front might yet emerge. But for now:

THERE. IS. CHAOS.

The Most Intelligent SOTU Speech

Call me stupid if you wish, but the most intelligent speech last night didn't come from the POTUS. I didn't even bother to tune in to any of it. This morning, I downloaded Senator Mike Lee's response, and I believe (without even referencing BHO's "official" SOTU speech) there couldn't be a more well-thought-out approach than Lee's.

The only question remains whether "lofty rhetoric" from an empty suit will continue to persuade Americans or not. I pray IT WILL NOT.

The Old Morality

I admit it freely - I am a cultural laggard. When you ask me to name a current pop icon in any venue, I am stumped for an answer. My idea of cutting edge entertainment these days is Michael Buble, and he's a throwback to Frank Sinatra.

I watch a lot of old movies these days with my dear wife. TCM is our very favorite cable channel. That's Turner Classic Movies for the uninitiated. During the Christmas holidays we watched sappy, emotionally-charged melodramas on the Hallmark Channel, so predictable it felt like a cookie-cutter script factory was hard at work behind the scenes. Because I now own one, I was stunned to observe how many of the heroes in those movies also drove the Toyota Prius. So maybe at least in that one respect I can qualify as an "early adopter" of a cutting edge technology. But to give you some idea of the real me, the last movie we saw in a theater was "Saving Mr. Banks". I'm not ashamed to admit I shed tears watching Emma Thompson's portrayal of the stiff upper lipped Englishwoman, P.L. Travers (she was really Australian), who brought the character of Mary Poppins to life in her books. So cutting edge, right?

I offer this background to illustrate why I am dragging my feet on same-sex marriage initiatives that will be wending their way through the courts for as far as the eye can see into the future. I have tried to make clear in previous posts to this page that I am intimately familiar with the personal struggles of people with same-sex attractions. Though I am not a pop culture progressive liberal-minded individual, I am also not a homophobic bigot either. I have empathy for those who are confused by this issue.

My purpose today is to state the stark contrasts I see in the way the debate keeps playing out - legal activists pitted against (sometimes) self-righteous moralists. While those who would lobby for legal rights in the courts have made their arguments based primarily upon an "equal rights" and "equal protection" Constitutional platform, and that sounds perfectly legitimate in many minds, what has gone missing and is completely obscured is the inefficiency of the legal system to rule in matters with a moral component as religiously charged as homosexuality. Those who take the moral side, arguing that homosexuality is sin, fail to recognize the legal courts and the courts of public opinion have never been the place for making the moral argument stick. Morality is something quite separate and apart from legal machinations, and we would do well to keep them distinctly separate.

When I was a boy I remember a weak argument I always made with my Mother. I would say, citing some cool new thing "everyone" was doing, "But Mom, everybody's got one, or is doing it, or is going to it, or is (fill in the blank)." To which she would invariably respond, "David, just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right." Ah, the indispensable wisdom of Mom.

America is now on the precipice of slipping off its perch as a moral beacon for the world. Some would argue America never was moral and never should be judged on that basis. Very well, have it your way if you wish. However, our early Founders spoke about the need for Americans to remain a moral people, because only a moral people could stand a chance of self-governance. They set an admirable, though not flawless, example for us to follow. At their core, however, these were remarkable men who acknowledged the right to freedom was granted by an all-wise Providence who was the Lawgiver. I have written extensively in many past blog posts about them. Moral agency was enthroned in the founding documents as the means through which freedom won in such a bloody enterprise as the Revolutionary War could be maintained. It was from God we gleaned our rights as free men, they told us, and from no other source. They argued freedom could not be obtained in any other way and from any other fountainhead.

Fast forward to 2014. God's laws have never changed. Policies, practices, procedures and politics have changed. Many of the practices of the past, while legal, were never moral. Slavery is one. Alcohol is another. Nazism and Adolf Hitler flourished in Germany before World War II in an environment legally permitting their existence. Cigarettes are legal, but all of these stand on weak ground when making a moral judgment. Apartheid in South Africa was legal until Nelson Mandela challenged the law with a more well-defined moral argument. Walter Williams correctly observed, "Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people." He also argues that private immorality (homosexuality) cannot suddenly somehow become moral just because it is openly practiced collectively and gains widespread acceptance. None of those facts change the underlying core reality it is morally wrong. Does the fact that marijuana has been declared legal in some states change smoking it into a moral activity merely because the courts have ruled it is legal and people now line up at a retail outlet to purchase it instead of in some back alley? Does same sex marriage, permitted in some states as legal, now alter the moral requirement of God?

Indeed, all those things are always in transition. Just because Obamacare is the law of the land today, is it morally defensible to fund it with the most massive theft of personal wealth ever attempted by economic redistribution? I hope Richard Lugar (former Republican Senator from Indiana) is right. The fundamental moral principles upon which America was founded are anchored in the bedrock principle of moral agency - the freedom to make moral judgments for the benefit of individuals and the whole society.

The moral law of sexual purity before and during marriage remains valid. The Church cannot condone immorality in any form it takes. Because we are all sinners and come short of the mark, Christ's atonement cleanses those who purify themselves in His perfection. (Moroni 10:32-33). The leaders of the Church, while sympathetic to the struggles of those with same-sex attraction, are not empowered nor authorized to alter the moral law upon which the plan of salvation rests, and in The Family: A Proclamation to the World (1995), they made the eternal law explicit and understandable. Gender differences are foreordained and were in place in our pre-existent unembodied spirits, just as they are in our mortal bodies now, and will be in our disembodied spirits awaiting our resurrected bodies hereafter. Neither can the leaders of the Church give a free pass to this supposed "protected class" of sinners over that imaginary "unprotected class." We are all sinners. All are subject to the principle of repentance. None is exempt. No One. So plain is that straight-forward declaration, it would seem, no one reading it could possibly misunderstand. The gospel of Jesus Christ is true.

But the debate rages on, even among those in the Church who should know better. I would suggest there is little that can be done in the courtroom of popular opinion or within the courthouse to alter wrong-headed thinking on this topic. The moral agency to make errors in judgment is also part of the plan of salvation. The latter-day reality has come when homosexuality is as rampant and acceptable as it was in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, and one can only speculate on how wicked the world must become before it is ultimately cleansed by fire.

The old morality is still the new morality and it is chiseled in stone. It has never changed. The requirements for happiness here and hereafter will never change. But don't be one of those who is beguiled by the siren call of immorality disguised as acceptance and tolerance at the expense of your own moral convictions. You hold fast to what you know is true, even if you lose badly in the court of public opinion.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks

Elder Dallin H. Oaks framed this debate very well in his last General Conference sermon, entitled "No Other Gods":

"There are many political and social pressures for legal and policy changes to establish behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality and contrary to the eternal nature and purposes of marriage and childbearing. These pressures have already authorized same-gender marriages in various states and nations. Other pressures would confuse gender or homogenize those differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness.

"Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them. And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable.

"Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and “in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority — to love and serve God — requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities — even those becoming popular in our particular time and place." (emphasis mine).

If you are living the moral law of chastity, I would predict you will never have the peace you seek in hoping the world will someday turn to righteousness because you believe the way you do in your heart of hearts. As in the days of Noah, the wicked will cling steadfastly to their wickedness and will be in denial until the floods of anger flow freely and they seek, too late, to be admitted into the sanctuary of the ark. In that day the flood took them into the spirit world where they could finally be in a place to learn the truths of the gospel.

In the latter days, when we live upon the earth, the unquenchable fire of destruction will also overtake the world, and the cleansing will be just as widespread, "equal rights" and "equal protection under the law" handed down by the suborned courts notwithstanding.

Update from the Utah Obamacare Exchange

Jon Goates

My brother, Jon, is in the trenches on Obamacare. He might even be considered the "canary in the mine shaft" as my early-warning device to monitor the impacts on small medical practices like the one he manages in Davis County (small town) Utah. In his latest installment he documents what is happening to his personal plan with his insurance carrier and what the implementation of Obamacare means to his business. Based upon reports that are now surfacing all across America, his story about Utah's health care exchange can be considered more typical than extraordinary.

* * *

Just a quick note to demonstrate why you don’t ever want to allow Washington to mandate your medical insurance coverage. Amid other considerations, the 1,500 new regulations I have to implement over the next 18 months will most assuredly result in an audit and fines for not doing it just the right way for the subjective enforcement according to the personal whims of the auditor. 

Last week I met with our insurance broker. He explained that because the insurance plan I pay for through the practice falls under Obama’s Federal mandate for “affordable” care, my personal premium (for one child, spouse and me) will go from $956 per month to $1,495.75 – a 55% increase! I already have a $2,500 individual and $3,750 family deductible and a qualified HSA card. I feel so good about BHO's assurances that “You can keep your current insurance if you want to.” This massive increase is what it takes the commercial insurance carriers to include the regulated Obamacare items into my coverage.

This is ludicrous. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her side-kick “the-buck-stops-with-me-Barack” are healthcare idiots who are both dumbfounded as to why it is so hard to attract the American public to the insurance plans they have so generously provided. Have you seen what their brand of “affordable care” is for the public? Sure, you can go shopping on the insurance exchanges for low monthly premiums for families of about $300-$450, but those same plans sport $7,500 to $9,000 annual deductibles. So if families were uninsured prior to BarackHealth, how will the same families ever begin to whittle down these massive deductibles before their co-insurance ever kicks in? Simply, they cannot afford to do so. Conundrum.

The result is that the same doctor’s office or Emergency Department will have to carry the same if not more debt from these now "insured" families as we were carrying before BarackHealth went into effect. The biggest difference will be that prior to BarackHealth’s mandated deductibles local medical clinics could openly discount the care to our patients by 20-30% as they paid cash for each visit, which was our own way of creating an "affordable care" solution for the uninsured. Did we get any credit for doing so? Nope. Now and going forward we cannot discount someone’s annual deductible, since every dollar they spend will “benefit them” at meeting their minimum coinsurance thresholds. 

The Utah insurance exchange has 5,000 visitors to the website each day. Only 1% actually sign-up for an insurance plan. And you wonder. . . why?

Thanks,

Jon Goates

Chief Executive,

Davis Family Physicians, PC

The WHOPPER King

In the realm of big WHOPPERS, we may never again see the likes of Barack Hussein Obama. Not only are his lies already garnering "famous" status, at least one observer here, Jonah Goldberg, maintains his lies will achieve INFAMOUS status. If you hadn't guessed, the topic is one dear to my heart - Obamacare. It's stunning now that there is simply nowhere to run and hide from the facts as they are emerging. Of course, that assumes there's anyone left who actually cares about FACTS anymore.



This POTUS may become a lame duck quicker than any two-term president in history.

Fixing the Blame for Obamacare's Train Wreck

Neil Cavuto at Fox News finally has the guts ON AIR to take it to Barack Obama and fix the blame squarely on his shoulders for this fiasco known as Obamacare. It's classic. . .



And. . . it's "fair and balanced." They report, you decide.

The "Random Audit" Power of Obamacare Enforcers

These pages have documented my disdain and abhorrence of Obamacare since its inception, all to no avail. Today's guest blogger is my brother, Jon, who wrote in November 2012 on election eve about his concerns for the implementation of Obamacare and its impact on the small family group practice where he is the Chief Executive. 

Today he updates us with another real-life example of the impact of the enforcement arm of Obamacare and what seems to be the Obama administration's scheme to extract penalties through audits from the healthcare practitioners who have complied in good faith.  

He writes:

The double standard of the current administration is all too obvious… the business of healthcare has become dirty politics.

Dr. Obama knows all

Whether we know it or not thousands of doctor’s offices throughout America are now considered corrupt institutions according to the Obama administration. Recently, I was made aware that a local medical group of about 15 dedicated physicians were notified that an audit of their corporate books is in their immediate future. This medical group is a reputable institution with an excellent reputation for appropriate medical care to their patients. 

Like many of their peer organizations they qualified for Meaningful Use incentive payments for the proper use and configuration of their electronic medical record (EMR) system. The incentive performance payments are directly tied to quality standards and regulations as dictated by the administration (who know nothing about dispensing medical care) as a way to streamline, automate and create quality benchmarks – all in an effort to lower the cost and improve the quality of healthcare. 

These incentives are offered to physicians during a four-year period. The original intent was to put enough incentive money in the hands of physicians to facilitate the purchase of new servers, networking, printers, scanners, laptops or iPads and to pay IT professionals to configure the new systems. No doubt many of the classic medical group activities are improved through the adoption of an EMR as a direct result of the annual payments to each physician that can range from $5,000 to $18,000.  

There are severe financial penalties beginning in 2015 for physicians who do not adopt an EMR. One of those major penalties that could be imposed is an exclusion from the Medicare program at a time when, according to AARP, nearly 8,000 new people per day qualify for Medicare.

In addition to the Meaningful Use incentives, Medicare has a similar approach in that they will incentivize physicians to adopt new ways of reporting (e-file claims instead of faxing or mail) and transmitting secure prescriptions (known as e-prescribing) directly to your pharmacy. In Medicare’s incentive package they structured it to be a 2% add-on to the claim reimbursement for the first year; 1.5% the second year; and in subsequent years Medicare would deduct up to 2% if physicians could not demonstrate that they had fully adopted the new transmission technique. Essentially, if you don’t adopt the only way we have given you to participate, you will be penalized.

Back to the medical group of 15 physicians. After having worked hard to navigate through the numerous and stringent Meaningful Use regulations, carefully measuring their hourly compliance to the mandated quality standards, logging hours of analysis of performance reports by physicians, changing daily behaviors in how and when the physicians treat their patients, they submitted their results to the administration and expected payment for their compliance. 

Payments were received within six weeks. Fast-forward about six months from receipt of payments, and this same medical group has now received a certified letter from a local regulatory agency with the news they have been selected for a “random” audit. They were selected as part of their 10% compliance requirement from the current administration. 

Healthcare insiders have come to understand the word “random” in these types of letters is really bureaucratic doublespeak for the real meaning of “show me the money” and, “did you do what we think you ought to do with it?”

The incentive payments had been received and funds disbursed to the physicians, IT professionals, hardware vendors and staff. All the appropriate payroll and income taxes were paid on the incentive funds. When the monies were placed in the bank account of the medical group there was no mention or stipulation that Uncle Sam would be lurking about to see what they would do with the money, nor were there any rules that stated the funds received must be funneled through only authorized ledger line items of the private corporations who met all the criteria. 

In similar instances to the receipt of the audit notice of the 15 physician medical group, regulatory auditors will often times arrive with a scope of work in mind and they draw their own subjective conclusions to a medical group’s compliance that may be much different to the understanding that the EMR software vendor had when they created the code for the often ambiguous regulation and/or the understanding that a physician uses to measure his compliance to new behaviors during the attestation periods. 

A medical group being audited has no appeal against the mandate of the old adage: “He who owns the purse strings makes the rules… according to his own desires.” 

While the final chapter has yet to be written in the case of the group of 15 physicians who have received their notice of “random” audit selection, many other similar groups, ours included, have been examined under the “random audit” nomenclature and been required to refund to regulatory agencies cash that was rightfully and honestly earned.

The overreach of these “random” audits are routinely conducted under the justification that the administration holds the right to enter any private corporation in America with the intent that we all “follow the rules” according to those who preside over and pay for mandated compliance. How many times do we hear from Mr. Obama’s lips that everyone has to follow the same set of (his) rules in order for (his) plan to work – and then when our vote against (his) rules does not match-up to his we must suffer his scorn at the bully pulpit? 

Once inside the doors of Main Street businesses like your doctor’s office, regulatory compliance auditors will often jump the fence of the original scope of their audit to request additional records and therein find other subjective infractions of the “rules” that may or may not apply to the initial audit scope. Refusal is a futile effort, since the physicians who received incentive funds with honorable intent did their best to comply to the often-shifting regulatory definitions of Meaningful Use as defined by the current administration. 

The obdurate juggernaut of social policy-making from inside the beltway has now spilled over into the exam rooms of our local doctor’s office, whether we like it or not.

While the final chapter of the audit has yet to be written for the medical group of 15 physicians even though they reported to the regulatory agency their honest effort at full compliance to Meaningful Use regulations, they are certain they will be forced to forfeit some of the funds they earned under the guise of an incentive payment from the government for what once purported to be a "cost-reduction" piece of legislation now known derisively as "Obamacare." Once those funds were dangled in front of them to become more automated and efficient and they complied in a good faith effort, the threat now exists they will be reclaimed through a regulatory power play. All in the name of decreasing medical costs and improving quality. Yikes!

With my eyes wide open that I may be next for a “random” audit …

* * *

Let's hope the NSA isn't reading The Goates Notes, Jon - we'll see if free speech in America is still a valid 1st Amendment right or if you're pushing the envelope of freedom a little too far.

Want a Free House?

I am loathe to pass along most everything I see from an anonymous source on the Internet. However, this morning I make an exception to my longstanding rule. I know a good piece of writing when I see it, and this qualifies. See if you don't agree:

I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the coming implementation of the health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued: They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard a young man exclaim, "Isn't Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick."

A young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, "Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market wouldn't work for health care."

Another said, "The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate."

At this, I had more than enough. I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. "Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?"

They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.

"I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?"

They looked at each other in astonishment. "Why would you do something like that?" asked a young man, "There isn't anything for free in this world." They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point.

"I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money whatsoever. Anyone interested?"

In unison, a resounding "Yeah" fills the room.

"Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money-free bargain."

I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust.

"I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules."

Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces.

The perky young woman asked, "What are the rules?"

I smiled and said, "I don't know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you."

They giggled among themselves, the youngest of  which said, "What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man."

I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. "I am serious, this is a legitimate offer."

They gaped at me for a moment.

"I'll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?" boasted the youngest among them.

"Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?" I asked.

The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. "Oh yeah! Where do I sign up?"

I took a napkin and wrote, "I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction."

I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature.

"Where are the keys to my new house?" he asked in a mocking tone of voice.

All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.

"Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere to from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys." I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumbfounded.

"Are you out of your mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?" the young man appeared irritated.

"You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement."

The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people.

"You can shove that stupid deal up your a** old man. I want no part of it!" exclaimed the now infuriated young man.

'You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends. You cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the  power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master."

At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.

After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent.

"What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn, and you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if  your new Master gives it to you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away. Therefore, it is not freedom at all."

With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. "This is the nature of your new health care legislation."

I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation -- and was surprised by applause.

The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, "Thank you, Sir. These kids don't understand Liberty ."

He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, "You earned this one. It is an honor to pick up the tab."

I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.

Remember... Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box,  and the cartridge box.

* * *

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the American Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford

What Were You Thinking? You Elected Obama!

Let me say it one more time. My basic inclination is to maintain a positive outlook on life. I resist any and all attempts by others to paint me into the corner of "victimhood." However, after the results of this last presidential election I feel like I was violated. I've never been mugged on Mean Street, USA, but this came awfully close when I imagine what it might feel like.

I feel like my generation owes an apology to my children and grandchildren and generations of my progeny not yet born. Even though it will do little to change the outcome, I offer my apology for what it's worth. I didn't donate much money to anyone in this election cycle, but my preferences are well-known on these pages and easily discerned. My preferred candidate, Mitt Romney, lost, but America lost more. We will never know what might have been by walking past Romney, perhaps the best qualified candidate for president we will ever see in America.

President Barack Obama

The electorate, however, has spoken. I know the majority picked Barack Hussein Obama. I also realize I no longer can be considered part of the majority. I didn't get what I wanted in this election (that happens routinely now). But to you who voted for Obama, I wonder if you only got what you THOUGHT you wanted.

By voting for Obama there is an increasing chance you have helped to destroy this nation. Layoffs are mounting in just the last week. The cruel realities of the excessive taxation associated with Obamacare have now begun to take their toll. Just today we learned three Hostess plants that make Twinkies were forced to close. The unions, warned of what would happen, went out on strike. Over 600 jobs were lost. The list of closures will continue. We've also heard from Papa John's and others, and there will be more. They will cut back on the hours worked by their remaining employees in order to avoid having to insure them under Obamacare. Elections DO have consequences.

Let me explain further about what happened during Obama's first four years to help you understand what you've done by re-electing him. During his first four years, Obama effectively nationalized the housing industry and slowed recovery by intervening. Then he gobbled up the automobile industry and crowned the unions while eliminating secured creditors. Next was the medical industry, almost 20 percent of our economy, by enacting Obamacare. You can label all this any way you choose, but the most accurate label I can put on it is socialism. If his first term is the preamble, his second term will accelerate the nationalism of the airlines, oil and gas and power. Already, we have seen the impact of Obama's policies on the coal industry. By taxing the end users to generate electricity, he's killed their markets and coal miners are losing their jobs. It would be safe to assume we will see more borrowed and tax money "invested" by our government into untested and unproven “green” industries.

The exit polling reveals that single women voted overwhelmingly for Obama. I confess I was baffled by the birth control question that arose during the primary debates. I couldn't imagine where that came from. In the general election we learned the strategy. Obama targeted women to garner votes solely based upon free government access to reproductive decisions by mandating that health care providers (then later the insurance companies) give out free birth control pills and provide abortions no matter where women and their infants were in their gestation development. It was all couched in "freedom of choice" language, or a woman's "right to choose."

That's such a compelling benefit - birth control on the front end (have sex indiscriminately) and abortion on demand (kill that growing fetus if you choose not to give birth). It's a failsafe world for women now - freedom to avoid pregnancy and freedom to terminate it when they ignore the first choice. Note the abuse of the words "free" and "freedom." Do you know, or have you ever spoken to someone who had an abortion, regardless of the cause of the pregnancy? Lost in all the discussion about "choice" and "freedom" is this: abortion is "akin" if not "equated" to murder.

Let's talk about immigration next. You may not know it, but by voting for Obama, you have virtually assured an ever-expanding definition of amnesty. Why? To further strengthen the voter base among Hispanics. Along with it will come legitimacy to those who entered America illegally.

Here's the rest of the story on what your federal government will be doing. It will assure huge payments for housing, subsistence, medical care, and free secondary education at the public expense. The reasoning is flawed, but it's simple - by handing out all those government sponsored goodies illegals will be embraced and will vote for the socialist regime that dispenses them.

What about drug laws? One would expect another four-year Obama term to further relax enforcement on drug laws with lighter penalties, while increasing regulations on legitimate businesses. Sixty new regulations have been put into place in the last thirty days. Expect significantly more relaxed drug laws and far less severe punishments for drug use. In the aftermath, watch for a huge expenditure on government drug treatment centers and increasing costs to feed and house the rapidly growing numbers of non-productive citizens.

Is that really what YOU voted for? My guess is you didn't really care much because if you don't pay taxes why would you be worried about how taxes are spent?

Don't be too surprised if God continues to disappear from our public expression and our devalued currency and coin. If you don't care about or believe in God, you won't be too concerned. The concept of separation of church and state (NOT Constitutional) will be cemented into our national fabric if it isn't already. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion by the state, not the free and open dialogue and expression of religion in the public square. We've seen the secularists raising objections to our use of the name Jesus Christ associated with Christmas. What will another four or eight or twelve years bring in the way of "progress" on this front?

How about foreign policy? There's already a creeping suspicion about Obama's ethnic origins and hence his loyalties. He's bowed before the Saudi princes, the Japanese hierarchy and others in the Muslim world. His tendency is to ignore the global reality of radical Islamic terrorists. He would like us to believe that silliness all ended with the assassination of Osama bin Laden. One could easily envision increasing accommodation of radical Islam with ongoing disregard for Christianity. Did anyone sense how evident that was during the last four years? What will another four produce? Is that what you wanted by voting for Obama?

Here's what your vote for Obama really means, and the one most troubling to me. My guess is that at least two, perhaps three, Supreme Court Justices will retire during the next four years. If you wanted a more "progressive" interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, then your vote for Obama all but assures it. Many lower court judges will also be replaced with more and more liberal progressive confirmations than ever before. My suspicion is that that morality will no longer be the ideal, rather the baseline will be the socialist ideals.

I read only this morning that forty states, powered by Tea Party activists, are mounting petition drives to secede from the Union.

Here's what your vote also signals - a severe dilution through taxation of the Second Amendment. Since you probably don't know what it is, it covers the right to bear arms. All that is required is taxation on ammunition to kill the marketplace. In the last week, it's the fear of that reality prompting a surge among our fellow citizens to buy up guns and ammunition while they still can at a reasonable price.

Do you believe Obama's tendency to either ignore or bypass the Constitution will be accelerated in his second term? Bet on it. His use of executive orders to enforce his policies rather than taking them to Congress to enact legislation will increase because he has a divided Congress.

There are also troubling signs the U.N. will exert more control over our sovereign rights as Americans. There may be arms reduction treaties and Internet taxes designed to be enforced by the U.N. The discussions are already underway. Does it concern you that Obama picked up endorsements for his second term from Putin, Castro, Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? What does that mean to you if you voted for Obama? Is that really the America you envisioned with your vote?

I wonder if we are not now fully enslaved by socialism. Have we reached the tipping point? Can we never again muster enough votes to turn back the surging tide? Since we are now north of $16 Trillion in debt as a nation, rather than firing up the cylinders of the American economic engine, we have fouled the pistons perhaps beyond repair. I would have favored a "mechanic" like Mitt Romney to look under the hood, rather than a guy who confessed he never got past seventh-grade math. He said on Letterman, "I don't really keep track of what the national debt is." This from the one president in our history who added more debt in four years than all the presidents in our history for a similar period.  Ignorance is no excuse, Mr. President.

I've said it before, but if you CONFISCATED all the total private wealth in America it would not begin to reduce the national debt. I nursed the notion throughout this election cycle that with Romney and Ryan on the job we could extend the time before our financial collapse as a nation.

Now all bets are off. Is that too pessimistic? I'm sorry about that too.

My hope now resides in unforeseen EVENTS I cannot predict. Historically, presidential second terms have been unsuccessful, typically because the truth about what has been concealed in the first term has a tendency to rise and administrations become embroiled in them to a point they are not sustainable. Beware of the Benghazi debacle - the worst of it is yet to come. The resignation of David Petraeus as CIA Chief is only the tip of that iceberg.

This will go down as the most expensive presidential campaign in history. What was accomplished by the combined expenditure of over $6 Billion? We bought ourselves the status quo - gridlock in Washington.

We've been here before, and we'll likely be here again. Wait for the pendulum to swing back again. It will.

Obama Won! Pass the Ice Cream

When I was a boy growing up on the newly paved streets of Rose Park, a post-World War II neighborhood in suburban Salt Lake City, the ice cream truck made its daily appearance. Like the Pied Piper, its tinny calliope music wafted through the backyards, and whatever we were doing at the moment came to a screeching halt as the Pavlovian response kicked in and we raced to the edge of the curb for whatever delights were being offered. Back in the day it wasn't very expensive to buy ice cream - they practically gave it away. I witnessed many a young child kicking and screaming for his mother to give him or her a nickel to buy ice cream.

The dissection of the 2012 presidential race has begun in earnest. Everyone you read this week is a lot smarter than they were last week.

To the victor the spoils - President Obama and VP Biden

I followed the prodigious conventional wisdom of Karl Rove, Scott Rasmussen, Michael Barone, Pat Caddell, and Dick Morris, even George Will, all of whom predicted a landslide for Mitt Romney. They reasoned the turnout of voters for Barack Obama would be weakened from what it was in 2008, based upon Obama’s poor performance by almost every measurement available. It was a failed presidency, they asserted, and they were right about that. They opined people would certainly relate to their pain at the pump, their declining wages, the Benghazi debacle and the unemployment rates. They (and I) were following the signs of all the earmarks associated with the 1980 election, where Ronald Reagan overtook the incumbent POTUS, Jimmy Carter, at the finish line and thoroughly thrashed him. Back then there was also massive unemployment, gas lines, an Iran hostage crisis, and on and on. Someone even devised a "misery index" and Obama had managed to outpace Carter on that index. Slam dunk election for Romney, one would think. Malaise was the word of the day in 1980. Carter, like Obama, warned it was the new normal. The political climate in 2012, it seemed to me, was ripe for a repeat of history.

However, it was not to be. This is not 1980, and it turns out Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter.

If anything, his demographic constituencies not only held up from 2008, they replicated and reaffirmed their choice in 2012. Blacks, Latinos, single women and people who were indifferent to religion (the youth voters) all fell in line and turned out in a massive wave of support for Obama. That said, he still collected 9 million fewer voters than he did in 2008, it’s just that Romney attracted 2 million fewer voters than McCain. Worse, those who identified themselves as Mormons in the exit polling sampling were fewer in numbers this year than in 2004. That means fewer Mormons voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 than voted for George W. Bush in 2004. So much for the argument that the Mormon voting bloc was a force to be reckoned with. All the other religious groups, however, voiced stronger support for Romney this year than before.

The result was a narrow victory for Barack Obama in the popular vote, but a convincing vote total in the electoral college.

None of the Republican pollsters saw that coming. They were all basing their models on the 2010 mid-term results that showed a depressed electorate for Obama and a reliable resurgence for conservatism. I was certain the electorate was reflecting and embracing my values. That’s called “projection” in psychological terms, never a good idea when making political calculations. Turns out everyone in America really doesn’t think the way I do. Shocker!

However, the exit polling revealed something I did predict and something I didn’t. The pollsters asked voters which of four characteristics they most wanted to see in their president. Mitt Romney won among voters who chose three of those characteristics: shares my values, is a strong leader and has a vision for the future. What’s more, he carried them heavily, by between nine and 23 points. In all, 79 percent of voters selected one of these characteristics. That’s the part I accurately predicted. They were thinking exactly like me.

Romney lost because he lost among those who chose the remaining characteristic — by 63 points, 81-18. That characteristic? Cares about people like me. Wow, didn’t see that one coming at all. All the negativity hurled at Mitt Romney all summer long in the key battleground states actually paid off for Obama, it seems. Romney was a rich white guy with no compassion for others. The record says just the opposite, but Romney never had a chance against the negative barrage.

I guess I’m just old-fashioned. I don’t really care if a politician cares about people like me. I’ve done just fine all my life without having to rely upon politicians who supposedly are loving and caring. Truth is I’ve lived long enough to realize there isn’t a politician alive who cares about me, nor do I expect him/her to care about me.

In most cases my expectations are very low when it comes to the political class. I’d be grateful if they’d just pass a balanced budget, provide for the national defense, print the currency, and run a good post office. If recent results are any indication, they can’t even seem to get those simple tasks right.

But this election has taught me something. Republicans at the very time when the nation’s financial future is hanging in the balance decided to sit this election out. Based on reports I’ve read, only 33% of registered Republicans nationwide showed up to vote. That’s deplorable. The only bright spot was a net pick-up of seats in the House of Representatives. Apart from that we voted (after $6 Billion from both sides) for more status quo and more contention. Hardly a satisfactory outcome.

After Chief Justice John Roberts ruled on Obamacare, it was clear to me he would not make the SCOTUS responsible for our bad political choices. He said as much in his majority ruling upholding the law as a tax. Implicit in his message was the Congress has unlimited taxing authority. If you don’t like higher taxes, he said, then vote for people to represent you who will oppose higher taxes. He left the decision in the hands of voters in this election.

The majority have now spoken. They said they wanted Obamacare with all its attendant problems. Just since Tuesday we have seen businesses large and small announce cutbacks in their work forces. Why? The number one reason cited is they cannot afford the higher taxes associated with paying for Obamacare.

This stunning disconnect is self-evident. Voters simply cannot make the connection that a government powerful enough to promise you free healthcare is also powerful enough to confiscate enough in taxes to pay for it. The IRS is our new taskmaster, if they never were before. Remember, the government does not operate on revenue derived from any other source than taxpayers. Said another way, the government has no money beyond what it takes from your pocket or borrows from others. The government always runs on other people’s money. That’s why we have reached a point where our credit worthiness as a nation has been downgraded and will continue to slide.

Others will protest, thinking that a government can and should take care of the poor among us, those who can’t afford to pay their own way. It’s such a noble premise, but it is in the end nothing but an empty gesture. Firing up the printing presses and issuing government bonds, borrowing from foreign governments, buying our own securities and filling up our Treasury with worthless paper debt is NOT a sustainable fiscal path.

This could all go away in time if there were enough economic growth to warrant all the borrowing. However, we haven’t seen the economic growth policies that must include reduced government spending, an atmosphere free from the overhang of regulation that stifles innovation and risk taking, and enough certainty that government will not intrude when private capital is invested.

This administration has never understood those basic economic principles. Or, maybe they DID understand and are intentionally doing all they can to undermine our system. Whether it has been intentional or was done in ignorance, the results of our anemic economic recovery have been dismal. On the Letterman show recently, President Obama half jokingly stated he wasn’t very good at math. He said anything beyond seventh-grade math was a mystery to him. That might be the most truthful statement to ever escape his lips given the record of the last four years. Fears of a new intensified recession (since we can't say the Great Recession has really ended, can we?) are now beginning to surface as news of layoffs continues to spread.

We are in deep, deep trouble as a nation, and most of our wounds are self-inflicted. The Canadian Free Press blazed its front page with a distressing headline on Wednesday morning: “America Committed Suicide.” In the days ahead don’t be surprised to see the sentiment repeated.

In Mitt Romney we had an unusually gifted and talented successful businessman put forward his candidacy as the antidote for the ailments of America. He wasn’t looking for a job, only offering his skills to help address the issues head on. He might have been the best-qualified presidential candidate we will ever see. As his running mate he picked the only man in America currently serving in the Congress as the House Budget Chairman who had put forward a plan to begin sanely addressing our fiscal crisis. What we learned in the aftermath of the election is apparently fitness for office and qualifications don’t matter as much anymore. To hear the voters tell it they were more interested in politicians who were more patrician based on some undefined criteria - “caring about people like me.”

That squishy feel good caring feeling they seem to get from our current POTUS is deeply troubling to me. Whatever happened to self-reliance and hard work to carve out your own “feel goods?” It smacks of a society that has been convinced by conniving politicians that the government has an answer for everything, and that is NOT the America we cherished growing up. Mitt Romney wisely observed it was “trickle-down government.”

A wise and caring parent with a child who is diseased and malnourished might suggest medicine and vegetables instead of ice cream, like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan did in this election cycle. Fearing austerity, the children of the electorate opted instead for sweet treats instead. It seems they want to sustain the unsustainable for as long as possible.

But we may have reached a tipping point in America where the sickly inexperienced child may have become so dependent it only knows to kick and scream for more ice cream.

Mitt Romney's Closing Argument

This might be Mitt's best speech yet. . .



If there's any chance you're still undecided, first, what's wrong with your thought process? This is the future leader of the America we once knew and loved, not the pretender who sought to fundamentally transform America the way he has the last four years.

Mitt Romney is the best hope America has to fix the soaring debt and deficits, rehabilitate the underlying accuarial assumptions in Medicare and Social Security, and introduce the fundamentals back into addressing our budget and fiscal decision making.

There is no chance that four years of the same thing we've seen from the current administration is going to improve America. Four more years of THAT will sink America.

Impact of Obamacare on Small Business

Jonathan L. Goates

This is one man's story about the impact of Obamacare on his small business:

Dear Family:

On the afternoon prior to the second presidential debate I am sending you this quick note to urge you to vote against the full implementation of Obamacare.  I have studied carefully the impact that the current and future requirements of Obamacare would have upon our independent medical practice of over 60 years.

CONCLUSION: If/when fully implemented this business may no longer be able to survive the additional regulation and mandated decrease in revenue that would result.  That means that I would most likely be unemployed along with 28 people who work at this clinic.

I really don’t care if Obama or Romney is more or less ‘likable’; nor do I care about any other promise or commitment either candidate uses to beguile us.  For me (and to your personal care physician) it all boils down to this:

A.      IF Obama is re-elected and Obamacare is fully enacted – 30 people will inevitably be unemployed, including me; that is my doomsday projection to the owners of this business.  Obamacare means that I will immediately have to figure out how to run this business with 30% less revenue and no off-setting tax relief beginning 1/1/13; less cash flow for this business means fewer employees because I can lay-off more people faster for an immediate financial impact than I can sell equipment assets.  Obama threatens to take away jobs so I won’t vote for him.
B.      IF Romney is elected many of the items in the Act will be repealed – yes, unknown changes would lie ahead.  I would rather accept an unknown future than to be forced into something that I know will bring about the ultimate end of my employment in a small business.  Romney is right when he says that with a brighter economic future for small business that we will invest more, hire more and thrive better than we are today.

1.       We are putting off a decision to purchase a $50,000 scanner until we know whether or not Obamacare will be repealed; if repealed we will buy it on November 10^th, if enacted we will not make the purchase.

2.       When I know that the threat of Obamacare is lifted I will immediately hire 2 more physicians and 3-4 more staff.

Please, make your vote count; use this example with your friends and your families.  I hope that this little exercise will help you make up your minds, too.  I’m sorry that I have to be bold here; I believe that my job is on the line.

Thanks,

Jon Goates

Chief Executive,

Davis Family Physicians, PC

Barack Obama - The Illegitimate Incompetent President

There is a video advertisement that is making its rounds on the Internet this week. It caught my eye this morning, and I think this one man, an immigrant entrepreneur, sums up the differences in the two paths we have before us as a country. He states the case brilliantly:



I've done a lot of research, reading and observing since that November day in Grant Park in Chicago, when Barack Hussein Obama II ascended to the presidency. Like most Americans, I was caught up in the emotion of the moment - America's first black president. What a great day for freedom-loving people. It said a lot that we could set aside our differences and come together after a national election and peacefully agree to take a new path toward Hope and Change.

America was tired of war. The economy had tanked. Fear was everywhere. Would the $700 Billion TARP legislation just passed by both houses of Congress be enough to save the world from financial oblivion? We looked to our new national leadership. We believed, we wanted to believe, we needed to believe.

However, the last four years have proven to be a sham, a fraud, and an illegitimate seizure of Constitutional protections that have been the bulwark of the Republic since our founding.

With control of both houses of Congress in an epic election with political reversals of fortunes, the pendulum swung in favor of Democrats. The Republicans had proven in the end to be reckless big-government spenders just like their counterparts. They put up a weak ticket in McCain and Palin. Sarah Palin has parlayed her fifteen minutes of fame into a celebrity career that continues to insult our intelligence. She was interesting for the full fifteen minutes we were first introduced to her, but her interests were never to get into the arena where she was ill-suited as a national candidate. Any thinking person would not have intentionally picked her to be one heartbeat away from the presidency, especially as the Number Two to an aging Senator. So, the 2008 election was doomed from the outset and opened the way for Obama.

BHO managed to crush the Clintonistas in the long, drawn-out primary (no small feat, I might add, and we forget how long that took to declare the winner for the Democrat nomination). The Internet is alive with conspiracy theories about how Obama got there in the first place. Here's another summation. Some have even said Barack Obama is gay and murders happened to cover it up. Just do a Google search for "first unconstitutional president" and see what you find. I'll reserve comment on all of that.

What interests me most is the aftermath of the election of 2010. It also was historic. It was a complete and utter "shellacking" as President Obama characterized it. His policies were resoundingly rejected by the American electorate. With two years to do anything he chose to do, to tackle any of the more urgent agenda items - the debt, the deficit spending, the need for entitlement reform, repairing the economy - instead he shoved the biggest costliest entitlement program in the history of the world, Obamacare, through both houses of Congress, adding one lie upon another to his narrative about its benefits for the American people.

The culmination of the lies was in the Affordable Healthcare Law being UPHELD by the SCOTUS. They found in the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that Obamacare did in fact impose taxes upon the American public. Hardest hit, according to the CBO, would be the "middle class." Their estimate as they continue to count the costs, now approaches $2.2 Trillion when fully implemented. And we continue to hear, "I did not raise taxes on the middle class." Remember when President Obama in his SOTU address promised, "I will not sign the healthcare bill if it adds one dime to the deficit?"

The American people can often be fooled, it seems, but they will not forever remain stupid. They know a phony when they see one. Speaker Nancy Pelosi was de-throned as the Speaker of the House, but Harry Reid remained as the majority leader in the Senate by a slimmer margin than before. I documented the results and drew some conclusions at the time.

Since that epic turnaround, things have ground to a halt. The legislative branch of government has been rendered completely ineffective. The balance of power has left them emasculated and historically unpopular with Americans nationwide. The House has proposed a boat load of legislation to reverse the effects of the first two years of the Obama presidency. Each measure has died in the Reid-controlled Senate. Stalemate. Round One. Mission accomplished to stop the reckless spending. However, the job is still incomplete. In order to repeal Obamacare it will take enough votes in the Senate.

What is needed next is another gamble, another leap of faith. This time around, the nation imperiled as never before by the reality of our fiscal crisis, stagnant economic growth, the resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East, and mounting debt and deficits, can we as a people reverse course again and have any hope to turn things over to the Republicans? Will they banish their tax and spend tendencies once and for all? Will they have the will power to exercise power wisely? Can they be trusted?

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

Enter Mitt Romney. He survived a brutal primary season, vanquished all the pretenders, and now is poised to capture the presidency in less than thirty days. The momentum shift has been discernible, even by the liberal pundits who have begrudgingly admitted their man's defeat to Romney in the first debate. Most who are honest brokers have even admitted their disappointment at Joe Biden's debate performance last week against Paul Ryan. It seems, as it always does in close elections, that Americans are willing to take the risk. The preponderance of polling in the last few days suggests a sea change is coming to complete the take-back of the reins that began in 2010.

What remains ahead is first securing the victory on November 6th. It's really the only "poll" that counts. I predict a landslide for Romney. Why? It has little to do with Barack Obama's ethnicity, his country of origin, or his birth certificate. No, instead, it has everything to do with his illegitimacy as a leader of the free world. Further, the one thing a poll can never measure is the collective common sense of the American voter. Obama has had four years to make his case, and all he does is run from his record. Anyone with a legitimate case to make for his achievements would make it, wouldn't he? Instead, his incompetency, most recently illustrated by the terrorist attack against our embassy in Benghazi and the assassination of our ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, can be framed most accurately by observing that his trip to Vegas to raise funds for his re-election campaign was more important.

The deliberate attempt by this administration to cover up the facts of that attack and mislead the American public, even the families of those who were slain, is shameful and deceitful. If they continue to assert they didn't know the facts at the time, they only add to the narrative of their complete ineptitude and reckless disregard for the truth. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have now engaged in finger-pointing. Determined not to destroy her chances for another possible run in 2016 with the taint of failure at Benghazi being laid at her doorstep, the Clintonistas are unsheathing the knives against the president. Once again, they have put on a full display of shameful and deceitful incompetence.

So the only logical conclusion a rational citizen of America could draw from all this seems to be the one that is now inescapable: Rather than vote for another four years of failed policies, this time around let's all gather together and vote for competency. Isn't it interesting how everyone seems to have set aside their religious differences, and are now united in defeating Barack Obama? The Republicans have a Mormon and a Catholic at the top of their ticket. Would you have predicted that a year ago? I certainly did not.

Mitt Romney may be rightly criticized for being a lame politician, as he has been many times in the last several years, but you may not have the luxury of criticizing him for his lack of willingness to offer himself and Paul Ryan as the only competent solution to all the big tasks ahead. They seem to be the only adults in the room. You can hammer them all you want politically, but they are the big boys here.

They're poised to take on the mother of all turnarounds. They need all our faith and prayers after they collect our votes.

Congressman Allen West - Truth about Medicare

One of my all-time favorite politicians is Representative Allen West from Florida. He's in a battleground state, and getting the truth out about such an important issue to Floridians (many retirees) as Medicare reform is critical to his campaign. He's a plain-spoken truth teller. This appeared on his Facebook page this morning.

Congressman Allen West (R-FL)

Stop the Lies! The real truth about Medicare...please read:
by Congressman Allen West on Monday, September 10, 2012 at 7:23am
·
Let’s get right to the point, there has been an enormous amount of fear-mongering and scare tactics emanating from President Barack Obama and the liberal left on the issue of Medicare.

We have a responsibility to our seniors and we shall keep it. We shall also ensure we preserve and protect not just Medicare but also the commitment to future generations of Americans, our children and grandchildren, not to bankrupt their hopes and dreams.

The Fiscal Year 2012 Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees report on Medicare and Social Security has these programs respectively going “belly up” in 2024 and 2033. That is unacceptable to me and should be to everyone.

Medicare as we know is doomed to fail and collapse unless courageous men and women take action -- doing nothing but complaining and demonizing is the folly of incompetents. Lying to the American people and our seniors is unacceptable.

Here is the truth. As per a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) in July of this year, there are $716 billon of cuts to Medicare as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in Fiscal Year 2013-2022.

These cuts to Medicare cannot be disputed and show that President Obama and the Democrats see Medicare as a “slush fund” to pay for their massive government expansion into the healthcare industry, creating 159 new government agencies and bureaucracies and further exacerbating the demise of this vital program.

These cuts include $517 billion to Part A (Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund) and $247 billion to Part B (Supplemental Medicare Insurance Trust Fund) as follows:
- $294 billion payment cuts to hospitals
- $156 billion cuts to Medicare Advantage affecting 25% of seniors nationwide
- $39 billion cuts to skilled nursing
- $17 billion cuts to hospice care
- $66 billion cuts to home healthcare
- $33 billion cuts to other providers
- $11 billion cuts resulting from the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB, 15-member panel of unelected government bureaucrats making Medicare price control decisions).

The plan I voted for that passed in the United States House of Representatives is something completely opposite to this horrific plan. First of all, it actually spends more on Medicare in the next 10 years.

The House of Representatives-passed budget -- and remember the Democrat-controlled the United States Senate has not passed a budget in over 1200 days -- would repeal the IPAB which is empowered to cut Medicare in ways that would jeopardize seniors’ access to care.

The House of Representatives-passed budget saves Medicare for current and future seniors.  In other words, there is no change for anyone 55 years of age and older.

 For those younger, when they become eligible, Medicare will provide a premium-support payment and a list of guaranteed coverage options -- including a traditional fee-for-service option -– from which recipients can choose a plan that best suits THEIR needs.

Understand that currently on average Americans are paying $110,000-$115,000 into Medicare but receive closer to $300,000 in benefits…not to mention the widespread fraud which must be tackled.

This option-based program reforms Medicare and would be determined by a competitive bidding process which doesn’t take a brain surgeon to understand will help drive down price and improve the quality of care for our future seniors.

As well, premium support, competitive bidding, and more assistance for lower income seniors, or those with greater healthcare needs ensures guaranteed affordability.

These are not talking points, but truth, objective assessment and analysis.

The question is very simple, whom shall you trust in the debate about Medicare, and the larger debate about how best to get our nation back on track?

The people who stated, “we must pass the bill in order to know what is in the bill?”

The people who said the healthcare bill will only cost the American taxpayer $940 billion only to find out that it now costs closer to $1.7 TRILLION?

The people who told you the individual mandate was not a tax, only to find out that the only way Obamacare can be declared constitutional is for the individual mandate deemed to be a tax? And as a result you have a healthcare law that entails 20 new taxes and funding for 16,000 new IRS agents.

Are you really going to trust the ideas of the President of the United States who said he would cut the deficit in half in his first term, only to have four straight years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits (the previous high was $468 billion)? The fellow who has added more debt, over $5 trillion in less than four years…more than the previous 42 Presidents combined?

Are you really going to trust the recommended approach of a fellow who said that if his trillion-dollar stimulus were passed, unemployment would never go above 8%... and that at this time it would be 5.6%?

Are you really going to trust the policies of the fellow who presented a budget that raises $1.9 trillion in new taxes in order to increase the size of the Federal Government by 53% and the budget never, ever, balances?

Lastly, are you going to trust that the affable gent who stated if he could not turn this around would have a one-term presidency -- but now demands a second term -- will stick to his word?

I have provided you the truth, now make your decision…whose ideas will you trust to protect, preserve, and honor the commitment of Medicare?

Political Quote of the Day

From the pen of Paul Jacobson at American Thinker:

Yes, we have been deceived with regard to ObamaCare, but the Great Deceit happened in 2008, when many Americans let themselves be duped by the "hope and change" lies and propaganda shoveled out by Obama and his Democrat henchmen.  We the people have only ourselves to blame.  There has been no deception by Roberts or anyone else on the Supreme Court.

Justices like John Roberts epitomize the vast difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy/tyranny.  In the ObamaCare ruling, he has dumped the health care issue right back into the laps of the American people and their elected representatives.  That is exactly where it belongs.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/john_roberts_v_obamacare_an_apologia.html#ixzz1zlAXnzVq

A Look at our Founders' Beliefs in Light of Today's Politics

The Federalist Papers

On this 4th of July 2012, with nothing better to do on our national holiday, I have been reviewing selected statements from the writings of our founding fathers. Many of the statements in this post will leap off the page at you if you have your eyes wide open to the strife swirling about us in this election season. Do not become discouraged. Do not fear the future. Put into its proper perspective with a healthy dose of hindsight to guide our thinking, contention and opposition has forever been part of our political process, and will be forever as long as free men agree to disagree agreeably in the end.

George Washington

America is astoundingly resilient as these quotes will demonstrate, but first to a bit of history to put it all in a framework everyone can understand.

The Federalist Party was the first American political party, from the early 1790s to 1816, the era of the First Party System. George Washington abhorred the thoughts of his infant republic being torn asunder by partisan bickering, and remained independent, but the Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801.

Alexander Hamilton

The party was formed by Alexander Hamilton, who was committed to a fiscally sound and nationalistic government. The United States' only Federalist president was John Adams, who followed Washington as the second POTUS, who was succeeded by Thomas Jefferson.

The Federalists favored a strong national bank, tariffs, and good relations with Britain. Their political opponents, the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, denounced most of the Federalist policies, especially the bank, and vehemently criticized anyone who expressed remaining sympathy with the British monarchy. The Federalists won most of the major legislative battles in the 1790s. Their supporters were mostly in the nation's cities and in New England. The Democratic-Republicans, drew support from the rural South, and Jefferson eventually won the ugly and nasty election of 1800, defeating his lifelong friend John Adams, whose party never returned to power.

One thing leaps out as you read these excerpts, primarily from Hamilton and Madison: Despite their differences in the beliefs of their respective parties, both men believed the ultimate power of America rested with THE PEOPLE, and each gives us ample justification for taking steps to correct any form of tyranny that may arise. They wrote their essays along with Chief Justice John Jay to promote the ratification of the Constitution, and each in his writings gave us the intellectual arguments sufficient to change the government if it were ever to encroach upon our freedoms. As you read, don't be surprised if you learn how prophetic their writings have become!

John Adams

The Federalists left a lasting legacy of a strong new government with a sound financial base, and simultaneously Chief Justice John Marshall decisively shaped the Supreme Court policies for another three decades.

Today, the ongoing national debate about the relative powers of the federal and the state governments continues. As I write today  state governors, granted the ability to do so in the latest SCOTUS ruling on the Affordable Healthcare Act, are pushing back and refusing to implement the expansion of Medicaid under the law because of the enormous financial hardship it imposes. The more things change in America, the more they remain the same, it seems.

Thomas Jefferson

The infant republic survived those tumultuous years, and it is from their writings I was seeking inspiration this morning as we celebrate yet another American birthday. Share with me their prescient awareness of the very threats we face today:

* * *

James Madison

Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the governments of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the old world, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the new, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object.  Madison, Number 45

The States will retain all pre-existing authorities which may not be exclusively delegated to the federal head; and that this exclusive delegation can only exist in one of three cases: where an exclusive authority is, in express terms, granted to the Union; or where a particular authority is granted to the Union and the exercise of a like authority is prohibited to the States; or where an authority is granted to a Union with which a similar authority in the States would be utterly incompatible.  Hamilton, Number 82

It has not a little contributed to the infirmities of the existing federal system that it never had a ratification by the PEOPLE. Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the several legislatures, it has been exposed to frequent and intricate questions concerning the validity of its powers, and has in some instances given birth to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratification to the law of a State, it has been contended that the same authority might repeal the law by which it was ratified. However gross a heresy it may be to maintain that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has had respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than in the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.  Hamilton, Number 22

If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. Madison, Number 39

The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an overmatch for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights.

The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people. Hamilton, Number 8

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. Hamilton, Number 28

John Jay

It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, that absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for purposes and objects merely personal, such as a thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. John Jay, Number 4

It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions.  Madison, Number 41

Wilful abuses of a public authority, to the oppression of the subject, and every species of official extortion, are offenses against the government, for which the persons who commit them may be indicted and punished according to the circumstances of the case. Hamilton, Number 83

Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction. Madison, Number 40

. . . If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning. I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate their respective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the federal than of the State legislatures, for this plain reason that as every such act of the former will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives. There being no such intermediate body between the State legislatures and the people interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed. Madison, Number 44

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose and from which no apprehensions are entertained. Madison, Number 45

There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. Hamilton, Number 78

The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America -- a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty. Madison, Number 57

For it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion. Hamilton, Number 25

I believe it may be laid down as a general rule that their confidence in and obedience to a government will commonly be proportioned to the goodness or badness of its administration. Hamilton, Number 27

It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Hamilton, Number 28

It is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people. Madison, Number 52

No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable.  Madison, Number 62

* * *

HAPPY 4TH OF JULY, AMERICA! NEVER DOUBT WHO YOU ARE!