Take a comfortable, dependable, and evocative language of the people. Adopt new meanings for good, old, altruistic terms that formed the basis of Judeo-Christian values, such as goodness, helpfulness, integrity, and fairness.  Twist these terms to mean just the opposite, so they support envy, racial strife, and social class warfare.  Cleverly devise a system destructive of private property, earned wealth, and the traditional ethics that built this country's greatness.  And hide all this restructuring behind noble-sounding words like peace and social justice.

What do you have then?  You have the power of a whole new language that promotes the destruction of the best hope the poor have to rise from poverty and produce the wealth to care for their own:  capitalism and a free market. You have subtle language changes that distract the people, making them into the faceless masses that secular elitists can manipulate, rob of remaining wealth, and make slaves to government.  You have a language useful in stripping away all vestiges of morality, the structure of the family, and the freedom of worship and free speech.  You have the whole new language of a political system called radicalism.

The framers of the Constitution realized how hard it would be to keep a moral, limited government for the people.  They realized that  forces would constantly be present to erode the Constitution and propose that we as a nation were not formed on Judeo-Christian principles.  Perhaps they did not realize that one day the public schools of America would criminalize prayer or punish children for speaking of their faith, while requiring their participation in Muslim prayers. Yet they realized how fragile freedom was, how carefully guarded it must be--and how reliant is was on the biblical ethics of America's founding.

Listen to what George Washington said in his farewell address: 

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to support these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens...Let it simply be asked:  Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?  And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

And, of course, the religious principle that Washington meant was that found in the Judeo-Christian faith.

The early twentieth century saw the rise of a new and deadly form of atheism that sought to subvert all religions and destroy freedom.  This political system promised that peace and economic parity could be achieved by the destruction of private property and the redistribution of wealth by the centralized government.  Without the restrictions of God's laws, radicalism as a religious and political force took rapid hold.  Communism was the more extreme manifestation post World War I, and unfortunate for many nations across the world, it still deprives its citizens of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Socialism is the newer, more gradual and popular means of redistribution of wealth in many countries post World War II.  Both of these systems depend ultimately on the language and meaning of radicalism.

Some Radical Code Words:
So perk up your ears, listen for these code words, and understand what radicals really mean when they say...

social justice - "Social justice has come to mean redistribution of wealth." - Andrée Seu, World magazine
"The term social justice, which once meant the obligation to offer charitable help to orphans, widows, the poor, and the homeless, has become a roomy term that encompasses a set of political mantras about racism, sexism, and the rest." - Ashley Thorne, National Association of Scholars

liberation or Liberation Theology - This is a belief and movement that seeks to destroy through any means--such as guerilla warfare in Central or South America--and replace the "evil" of Western capitalistic society with Marxism. The idea of salvation is to "liberate" the poor or discontented so they may in effect steal the wealth from those who give them jobs, but who have held, they believe, power to oppress them.  Another word for this is class envy.  Holding to this belief system, Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, can say, "Not God bless America!  God d--n America!"

Radical is a fascinating word.  At least for dictionary enthusiasts, who love to delve into root meanings and the etymology of words.  Yes, radical comes from a root meaning for—get this—the word root!  Excited yet?  From there, I really do not know how we arrive at Webster's third definition, the one that is the subject of today's article.  Besides describing a tuber, radical in a political context means:  3. a: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional = EXTREME  b: tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions  c: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change.  And a person having these views is appropriately known as a radical (noun).

If you think about it, a radical in today's political world is very unlike the root or core principles of the government he or she seeks to replace.  (Another of the interesting mysteries of the English language!)  Radical is a term that has become popular to describe and identify a person who seeks to destroy the government in power and to replace it with one he or she believes will be more fair, at least toward his favored people groups.  Maybe root out would be applicable after all.

The question is:  How shall we identify a radical?  They can be rather illusive as they hide revolutionary agendas behind appealing words and promises.   Perhaps you can think of two or three very influential political leaders in Washington D.C. who you may think are extremists of this type?  Or several dozen?  Once you know their roots and core beliefs, you can more easily keep track of who radicals are and what their agenda is to fundamentally change the United States of America.  Only when we understand radicalism can their schemes to take away our freedoms and drastically alter our Constitution be defeated.

The roots of radicalism were evident during the early part of the twentieth century through the rise in America of the secular progressive movement, the Communist movement, the CIO and certain other labor organizations, and most notably in the socialistic presidential takeover by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

However, what I would call the "modern radical movement"—the one that is leading many young revolutionaries of today, along with their aging hippie counterparts—is the one begun under Saul Alinsky, author of the political guidebook for radicals:  Rules for Revolutionaries.  Later he changed the title to Rules for Radicals. 

How to Identify a Radical
1) A radical is a revolutionary who wants to advance agendas to overturn whatever system of government is in place at whatever cost. Although Alinsky came to realize that the term "revolutionary" was a little too radical for Americans to swallow, and so he changed his book's name, still he emulated such Machiavellian revolutionists as Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and more recently, Fidel Castro.

2) Radicals may have no workable ideas to replace the traditional system of government, but that is unimportant to them.  They first seek to overthrow the system they believe to be unfair.  This gives them a sense of empowerment and the reward of bringing (they think) social justice.  That is their principle belief and goal:  destruction of the existing corrupt society.  They are happy to leave the society in shambles, just as long as their goal of revolution is achieved.  (Does any of this sound familiar today, with the passage of enormous spending bills that seems designed to destroy Americans?)

3) Alinsky-style radicals are Utopian in the sense that they have a passion to create an ethically fair and ideal world that has no war, racism, sexism, or disparity of wealth.  These are things most of us would also like to see disappear.  However, radicals do not embrace conventional values of right and wrong or traditional religion to guide them.  They will do whatever is necessary to fulfill their goals:  lie, cheat, manipulate, break law, make empty promises, twist arms, bully, burn, or destroy life. (Sound familiar?)

4) What distinguishes liberals from radicals is that radicals have no scruples, believing that any and every means is justifiable to force their ideas of fairness upon the world.  (That is how Speaker Pelosi could with a straight face assure Americans that they would all like the Health Care Bill, once it was passed and they could read it.)

5) They are committed, not to gradual relief of wrongs by legal process, but to rapid and radical change for change's sake, regardless of whose rights are trampled. (Notice how rapidly this administration wants to push seismic social changes upon an unwitting American people?)

6) The single principle of Alinski-style radicalism (like Stalin and Lenin practiced to an extreme degree) is to take power from the Have's and to give it to the Have-Nots.  Traditional western values, such as hard work, honesty, private enterprise, personal property, charity, faith, family values, and protection of life are eschewed as obstacles to the radical revolutionists' goals.  That is why they are called secular progressives.  Teddy Roosevelt, a Christian himself, probably had no idea that secular communists would take the name of his Progressive Party as their own identity in the 1930's and 40's. 

Knowing these facts about radicals and understanding that President Obama as a "community organizer" was both a student and disciple of Saul Alinsky, we can begin to understand the hidden meaning behind some of his comments. Hilary Clinton, too, has been fascinated by Alinsky and shows, some believe, a similar willingness to do whatever it takes to bring about radical changes to America. 

Quotes of Famous American Radicals:

Barack Obama:  "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." (Election eve, 2008)

Barack Obama:  "We are the ones we have been waiting for."

Saul Alinsky: "Communism itself is irrelevant.  The question is whether they are on our side." (Reveille for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky, 1969)

Hillary Clinton:  "Alinsky is regarded as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy.  As such, he is feared—just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared—because each embraced the most radical of political faiths: democracy."
[From her Wellesley College thesis, There Is Only the Fight:  An Analysis of the Alinsky Model, 1969]

----
Next time, I will try to do something difficult—decode some of the radicals' favorite code words, such as what they mean by democracy and social justice—words that have special meanings in their private dictionaries and hidden agendas.

Newt Gingrich, in his recent speech to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, called President Obama "the most radical President America has ever had."  He describes the Democrat leadership as "secular socialist," and he said that Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, are employing the strong-arm tactics they learned as part of the "Chicago machine" of politics.

Do Americans understand the nature of radicalism in America?  Lately, of necessity, they are learning more than they may ever have wanted or felt a need to know.

In the last few months, conversation on talk radio and television has turned frequently to the subject of growing radicalism in American government, while the people of America themselves are trending more conservative politically.  Here is what Newt Gingrich said in an interview with Cal Thomas for WorldMag.com:

The gap in America between the secular-socialist machine, dominated by an elite, and the rest of us, is breathtaking.  Arthur Brooks has a book coming out this spring called The Battle, in which he uses Gallup data to prove conclusively that there is a 70-30 or better center right majority in the country.  And it is a tribute to the power and capability of the Democrat Party and the incompetence of the Republican Party—it's a dual effort—that you end up with 70 percent of the country being misgoverned by a militant majority.  [For more information on polling data and the secular-socialist machine, go to http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/secular-socialist-machine ]

So what do people mean when they talk of a leader being radical?  Do they mean merely extremist, which could be far to the right or the left of center?  Or do radicals hold to a certain belief system and agenda that is far left of average citizens?  And far different from the government the Founders of the United States of America envisioned in the Constitution?

Definition:
What Gingrich and others refer to as radicalism or the secular/progressive or secular/socialist movement might be defined in this way:  a far-left revolutionary movement that advocates rapid policy shifts and employs extreme measures to overthrow (or, as Obama says, to "transform") the traditional system of government.

Saul Alinsky was the prophet of modern radicalism, having given radicals of the 1960's their guide, called Rules for Revolutionaries, which was later reprinted as Rules for Radicals.  Few people realize that Barack Obama was a student and disciple of Alinsky's theories or that ACORN is a front for radicalism in America.  Of course, with the major media's help, Obama was able to keep the extent of his radical roots and connections from the American people in the last Presidential election.  Obama was not only a student of the Alinsky method under teachers trained by the secret Industrial Areas Foundations, but he also taught such workshops himself.

When the American people realize the radical background of our President's training and associations, it will become easier to identify and trace his policies back to their radical roots.  We will be able to understand where he and others in his cabinet and within the Democrat Party (which has been hijacked by radicals) want to take us.  And then we can have some hope of defeating radicalism and returning America to the true meanings of democracy and freedom described by the Constitution and understood by previous generations.  Only when we understand what we stand to lose by ignorance and inattention to preserving freedom will we be energized to save our great nation and its Constitutional government.

Coming next:  How to Identify a Radical

America is at a crossroads that we have never reached before. 

We are experiencing a time of crisis, as the federal government takes over financial institutions as well as industry and business.  We are at a point of unprecedented power wielded by radicals within Washington DC, power that the 1960's radicals could only dream about.  As David Horowitz, the well-known former radical, now Christian believer and writer, recently said, we are at the same level of crisis in world politics as in 1939, when Hitler took control of Germany and threatened the rest of the world with his grand scheme to set up the Third Reich.  Only this time Horowitz believes the destruction and loss of freedom would be far worse, a true holocaust for the world.  The reason?  He sees the Obama administration as having no effective deterrent against the aggression of Ahmadinejad in Iran and perhaps no desire to protect America's freedom and security.  And at the same time he sees another horribly dangerous situation:   President Obama's policy of non-protection of Israel.  In fact, Obama's official spokesmen will not deny a rumor that if Israel sends missiles across Iraq to attack the Iranian nuclear site, our armed forces in Iraq will be instructed to destroy Israel's missiles.

Jews in America, who have been voting over 70% Democrat in elections, are beginning to seriously question what has happened with this latest American President, who seems to have no interest in protecting Israel. 

Hitler believed himself the moral equivalent of Jesus Christ in his grandiose scheme to set up a thousand year world reign.  Ahmadinejad believes he will usher in the true holocaust, or Armageddon, with his own nuclear bomb that will wipe first Israel, then America, off the map.  Yes, Ahmadinjad is a "crazy man," but that did not stop Hitler.  Obama believes he is a sort of savior for America, if not the world.  No matter how misguided, a man in leadership with an irrational plan can bring about untold destruction such as this world has never known.   

Hitler was an extreme example of radicals who have ruled the world.  Stalin and Lenin showed us the ultimate results of deadly radical philosophy, sacrificing many millions of their own people who disagreed with their agendas. Embracing many similar beliefs about power and revolution, American radicals of the 1960's and 1970's gained  influence on politics that extends to this day. Our President was trained as a disciple of the most radical teacher in America, Saul Alinsky.  The "community organization" he headed for several years, called ACORN, is the most radical organization in America today.  As David Horowitz in his booklet, Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model, states, "What radicals like Saul Alinsky create is not salvation but chaos. And presidential disciples of Alinsky, what will they create?"

"All right," you may be saying, "this sounds quite extreme.  Where is the evidence that our President has a radical agenda?"  Take a look at the Rules for Radicals taught by Saul Alinsky, who has been the hero after whom President Obama patterned his political career.  Then decide for yourself.

Who Was Saul Alinsky?

1. Born in Chicago in 1909.  Died in California in 1972.  A self-described radical whose entire life was devoted to organizing a revolution in America to destroy a system he regarded as oppressive and unjust.  By profession, a "community organizer."  (David Horowitz, Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model, pg. 3)
2. Writer of the political manual originally entitled, Rules for Revolution, later changed to Rules for Radicals. (Horowitz, pg. 2)
3. A sociologist by profession, who sought out the Al Capone mob in Chicago and became a disciple of the enforcer, Frank Nitti.  "He took me under his wing.  I called him the Professor, and I became the student." (Sanford Horwitt, Let Them Call Me Rebel, 1992, pg. 20)
4. Not formally a communist, yet he saw them as political allies.  Would not condemn the Soviet empire, which murdered millions, but he was willing to condemn his own country as worth burning.  (Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, pg. xiii)
5. A Jew himself, but claiming no such allegiance, called the jailing of a few communists during the McCarthy era a "holocaust."
6. A leftist who never questioned the Marxist view of society, their failed utopian ideas, or their crimes that killed, imprisoned, and penalized its enemies by the millions.
7. An agnostic, who took a non-Christian and amoral view of means and ends.
8. An advocate of strong-arm labor movements, like the communist CIO.  Trained and worked with Cezar Chavez (United Farmworkers Union) for ten years.  
9. Radical reshaper of the civil right's movement after Martin Luther King's death.  Formulator of radical extortion methods used by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. (Horowitz, pg. 7-8)
10. Creator of the secret Industrial Areas Foundation.  After the fall of the Berlin Wall, launched a new assault on the capitalist system. 
    
11. Pioneer of alliances with the Democrat Party.  Through alliances with Chavez and the Kennedys, bored into their inner circles.
12. Creator of a coalition of communists, anarchists, liberals, Democrats, black racialists, and social justice activists in the 1960's that laid a foundation for anti-globalization before 9/11, the Iraqi anti-war movement, and then positioned its own radical, Barack Obama, for the White House. (Horowitz, pg. 6)

Barack Obama—a disciple of Alinsky; an instructor of his methods, mentored by three Industrial Areas Foundation leaders; a community organizer and attorney with ACORN—cannot escape his radical training and ties.  Although it has been his methodology to hide them and appear to be a political moderate with the solutions Americans need, his true nature and beliefs are being revealed.  Americans must be educated about radicalism if they are to put a halt to this administration's agenda of governmental takeover of free enterprise and private property rights, and the encroaching loss of individual freedoms.

The Tea Party movement stands at the forefront of the battle for the preservation of the American system of representative government.  Interestingly, this largely leaderless citizens protest movement has grown over the past year to gain the grudging respect as the most visible, if not powerful, opponent of radical forces trying to remake America.  However, these ordinary citizens are now seen as obstructionists by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

President Obama came into office with promises of "change you can believe in."  But he is moving quickly to transform government and society beyond what anyone imagined. Democrats under his leadership are making changes so broadly and quickly that every sector of our economy is coming under government control.  And who is visibly working to hold back their planned takeover?  It is a citizens group, armed with waving American flags and talk about the Constitution, saying "no" to big government.  Radicals, hoping to seize the moment with the most radical President in our country's history, will hardly disregard any such obstacle to their plans.

In a real sense, the Democrat Party has been hijacked, too.  President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have shown that there is no place for moderates of conservatives in Washington DC.  Pro-life Democrats are silenced during the health care debate.   Democrats who do not vote the new radical party line find their jobs in danger. Chicago-style politics assures obey-or-depart results.  Showing the audacity he touts, President Obama appoints known communists, tax-evaders, and extremist radicals to his cabinet.  He has the audacity to snub our allies across the world, such as Israel and Great Britain, and bow before radicals and dictators.  Many people who helped vote Obama into office are now becoming scared and having second thoughts.  Upwards of forty percent of Tea Party protesters actually voted Democrat in the last election. 

The days ahead are sure to see multiple and increasingly slanderous attacks against the citizen protesters and conservative Republicans by the most radical of Democrats.  In order to protect their freedoms, the American people need to be informed.  It is up to a well-informed citizenry to retain its freedoms.  As George Washington said of the Constitution: "its only keepers [are] the people."

It is important for all Americans to learn:

• What is a radical and how is he or she different from a liberal? 
  
• What evidence is there that some Democrats are radicals of the Alinsky brand?
• Who are they, and why is their philosophy of government dangerous to our Constitution and freedoms?

Next:  Who was Saul Alinsky and why does his influence rule the Democrat Party today?

Liberal is too nice a name for the element that has taken over the Democrat Party and moved it far to the left.  Watching Bart Stupak buckle to the pressure of the radical leadership of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama gave further proof that we no longer have a liberal Democrat Party leading in Washington, D.C.  We have a radical one.  And those who try to act like old-fashioned Democrats will be pushed out, found other jobs, ruined.

When Democrats push through a bill that 75% of Americans are very concerned about, that is not liberal; it is radical.

When, with the capitulation of every last pro-life Democrat in the House to President Obama's empty executive order, there are no pro-life Democrats left, this is not liberal; it is radical.

A radical is a donkey of a different color.  He leans dangerously to the left, close to Communism and Marxism.  He goes beyond socialism, but he is not averse to using socialism to attain the goals of radically restructuring society.  When Obama says he wants to finish the work that Franklin D. Roosevelt began, this is what he means.

The Alinsky-model radicals, whom President Obama embraces, and who are filling his cabinet posts and other appointments, believe that their goals justify any means.  That is why they can steal votes, lie, cheat, make backroom deals, and say one thing on the campaign trail and do another after elections.  The more idealistic of them might murder, if the occasion justifies it.  And they feel proud, rather than ashamed, for destroying people and institutions.

Saul Alinsky, radical organizer and writer, was born in 1909.  He was a Chicagoan like Barack Obama.  By profession he was a "community organizer," too.  His life's goal was to organize a revolution in America, to destroy what he thought was an oppressive and unjust system of government.  Alinsky was drawn into the world of Chicago gangs, and he became a buddy of the thug—Al Capone.  Frank Nitti, the Enforcer, was like a godfather to Alinsky.  And Alinsky blamed society for all ills, saying that it was society that caused criminals to commit crimes.  The true enemies of society, as they saw it?  Private property and individual rights.  Those ideas especially must be sacrificed for the common good.

Radicals are Utopians who talk of living in a just and peaceful world, even if it means they must kill millions to achieve it. A radical would rather save a snail darter than a farmer's livelihood or an unborn baby.  A radical would find it quite easy to pull the plug on grandma, if it would achieve better health for an illegal immigrant.  Of course, not every Democrat in Washington is aware of where the party is going.  No doubt, many if not most would object that they are being led into radicalism and used to destroy American institutions.  But they are being pressured beyond belief by this President, who fully knows the path he is taking to restructure society.  He not only taught Alynskian principles at Harvard; he wants to put them into practice.  Under radicalism, he will sacrifice America's Christian history and heritage, our relationship with Israel; he will bow before the dictators of the world and snub the leaders of democratic nations. He will confiscate the wealth of the wage-earner and businessman and give it to the poor and the entity of his choice.  He will pick the winners and the losers in the banking world and the auto industry.  Next, he is coming after our water and our air, our fuel, our cars and our homes.  The arrogance of a radical knows no bounds.  In the past, liberals merely talked and complained about economic disparity.  Now, under President Obama, the radicals intend to make the winners of today's society the losers of tomorrow's.

What is most tragic is that Obama could not have won the election without the help of the liberal news media.  If Americans had known then what they are learning now, they would have perhaps voted for a true fiscal and social conservative like Governor Mike Huckabee.  A smear campaign against Huckabee was begun by the Club for Growth that proved effective in painting him as a fiscal liberal, when a look at his record in Arkansas would have shown this to be wrong.  This smear campaign, along with the liberal bias of the press allowing  Obama to be pictured as the savior, McCain as the Bush clone, and Huckabee as the dismissed gun-clinger and preacher made the present unlikely scenario possible—America electing an anti-freedom, anti-private-property radical. With the news media giving Barack Obama a pass at every step of his way to the Presidency, Americans were kept in the dark as to Obama's true nature.

We should all have been informed by the investigative media that the church the Obama's attended was a front for radical Liberation Theology and that the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright was willing to "damn America" instead of asking God to "bless America."  The Republican Party was afraid to state too openly the truth of Obama's radicalism, lest there be a backlash of those who saw his community work in Chicago as heroic.  If the news media had done its job, though, we would have realized that ACORN is the most radical organization in the United States, and that Obama being a "community organizer" was more than just a joke in Gov. Sarah Palin's Vice Presidential speech at the Republican Convention.

David Horowitz, a former radical who has converted to Christianity, warns in his booklet, Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution:  The Alinsky Model, that the ideas of revolutionaries are seductive, especially to those who think of themselves as "Have Nots."  Revolutionaries use sentimental and seductive words, such as "social justice," to persuade their followers that fraud, and even murder and mayhem are all right to usher in their "promised land."

But otherwise, if there is no viable plan, then it is the means used to get there that make the revolution what it is.  Each step of the way creates the revolutionary world.  What radicals like Saul Alinsky create is not salvation but chaos.  And presidential disciples of Alinsky, what will they create?

Ryan Lizza, a reporter for The New Republic, interviewed Gregory Galluzo, a trainer at the Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation that taught workshops Obama attended.  He also interviewed Obama.  In his article entitled "The Agitator" (published 3/9/07), Lizza was told by Michele Obama the following:

Barack is not a politician first and foremost.  He's a community activist exploring the viabilility of politics to make change."  Her husband commented: "I take that observation as a compliment."

Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, has a problem with the Sixteenth Amendment.  He wants to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service and replace the income tax with a consumption-based tax called the Fair Tax.  As he writes in his best-selling book, Do the Right Thing,

The tax system of our nation is broken.  Badly broken.  Worse than that, it's beyond repair. We need a total overhaul of a system so complicated that not even the government agency charged with overseeing it understands it...Many of our current economic challenges are not merely the normal cyclical issues of the ebb and flow of the economy.  We face something much more serious than cyclical challenges of the marketplace.  We are confronted with structural issues that will require major changes in the system itself. (1)

The power to tax is the power to control. Our Constitution originally gave as one of its enumerated powers of Congress the right:

...to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl.1)

The Constitution also made clear that direct taxes were to be apportioned according to the population (Art. 1, Sec. 9, Cl. 4).  They were also to be uniform throughout the United States (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1).  The income tax was at first declared unconstitutional because it was a direct tax that was not apportioned. (2)

Until 1802, the Federal government derived the funds it needed from internal excise taxes.  For a short time during the Civil War an income tax was tried; it was enacted in 1892 but was declared unconstitutional.  In 1909, Congress called a tax assessed against corporations an excise tax, even though it was apportioned by income.  Then, in 1913 the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by the needed majority vote of the states, and taxes were no longer apportioned among the States. (3)

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." - Amendment XVI to the Constitution. 

Now, Governor Huckabee and others are proposing a major overhaul in the way our federal government procures its tax funds.  They want to reduce the excessive power government holds over people, to unfairly take their hard-earned income.  In his inimitable way, Huckabee describes what a Fair Tax would do:

Under the FairTax, no one would be taxed—that is, penalized—for their work, investments, savings, or earnings.  After all, we want people to work, save, invest, and create capital, so we should cease to penalize it at all.  Income tax rates would be zero.  Corporate tax would be zero.  Payroll taxes would disappear.  Savings and investments would no longer be subject to the complicated tax codes.  The tax rate on capital gains would be zero.  There would be no paycheck deductions...Doing away with the idea of take-home pay is pretty good, but the best part?  We eliminate the IRS.  It would mean that  April 15 would be just another beautiful spring day and not the day we dread and scurry about trying to go through shoe boxes full of little pieces of paper and receipts to find deductions. (4)

The increasingly powerful federal government has had a field day since 1913, using funds generated by ever-increasing income taxes and other taxes raised at the expense of the profits of businesses large and small, and from hard-working taxpayers.  Those especially hard hit are those who try the hardest—those who work hard, invest much, and take risk.  Those who are profiting from the income tax revenue are not those who have earned it but those who are now entitled by the government to its programs.  The latest Health Care Reform Bill is yet another liberal plan of entitlement and thus control—for the government giveth and taketh away at will.

The common use of loopholes and other evasions of tax under the present system are further reasons why Huckabee feels that repealing the Sixteenth Amendment and instituting a FairTax is needed:

[Taxation by consumption] would also virtually eliminate the underground economy.  Part of the reason that taxes on people like you and me are so high is that we are not only paying our own taxes, but we are having to make up for all the people who don't join us in the lovely joy of contribution because they work under the table in underground economy.  Do you think that drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps, gamblers, or people in this country illegally are filling out the same IRS tax forms each year and reporting the money they illegally earned?  Of course, they don't fill out the forms or pay the taxes.  And because they don't pay tax on what they earn, you pay the taxes for you and for those who cheated the system. (5)

The Fair Tax would benefit our economy by growing Gross Domestic Product by 10.5 percent, capital stock by 42%, labor supply by 4%, output by 12%, and real wages by 8%.  It would get rid of all the hidden taxes that corporations pay that are passed on to us.  The FairTax would bring back offshore business taxes that are not paid. (6)

Huckabee predicted in 2008 that "if the average American really understood the total tax burden, there might just be another Boston Tea Party.  But I fear the next one wouldn't be as civil." (7)  I believe the Tea Party movement is part of an awakening to the unfairness and unconstitutionality of big government's tax and spend policies.  People are awakening, yes, but the movement has been marked by mostly civil, though outspoken and persistent, protest.  Yes, people have been angry, but to their credit they have become newly motivated to turn to the Constitution, not to rioting.  Meanwhile, Pelosi and other Democrats are asking for "party crashers" to infiltrate the Tea Party movement to make protesters appear ignorant (misspelling signs), racist, and violent.  Most attendees will tell you that they see instead patriotic, informed, and civil citizens and business owners at the rallies.  People who wave the American flag, distribute copies of the Constitution, dress up as historical personalities, and sing patriotic songs.  But they do not throw racial epithets.  We might suspect that the rare rabble-rousers are planted by the liberals.

I believe the Sixteenth Amendment provided the fuel for increasing the power and the socialization of the American government.  Because the income tax system begun in 1913 was progressive and not proportional or uniform, the net effect on our nation has been a trend toward more socialistic legislation and programs.  Politicians have more power to tinker when they have more money.  It is no accident that great entitlement legislation followed closely after the power to tax income, or that Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to amass such power over the economy.  Today, the "tax and spend" fever has reached a new all-time high, with the Obama administration and Congress tacking on ever-increasing programs, regulations, and taxes.  It is time we turn this around, as Huckabee says, starting with an overhaul of the taxation system:

We're hit with hidden taxes, and the corporate rate is so high that it forces U.S. companies to go elsewhere.  But things get even worse.  A business making something here in the United States finds itself at such a disadvantage relative to those who create and manufacture that same item overseas...In a time of huge trade deficits (especially with China), the miracle is that businesses attempting to manufacture in the United States are able to survive at all.  Truth is, they probably wouldn't, had it not been for the innovation of technology and the sweat equity of high productivity from the American worker.  Our workers have to work more efficiently just to overcome the built-in disadvantage created by their own government.  Imagine how truly competitive we would be if Congress wasn't bending the rules to help the other side. (8)

Imagine indeed!  Imagine how helpful to our nation's economy and freedom it would be if the courts would turn the tide of government's over-reaching powers by declaring the Health Care Reform Bill unconstitutional.  Imagine what a boost it would be if our national economy was infused with the $12 trillion lost to trade imbalance with China and offshore business accounts across the world.  Then imagine overturning the Sixteenth Amendment and putting in place a Fair Tax that would eliminate much of the corruption, loopholes, and unfairness in our present system.  Imagine the Constitution again being read and taught in our land. 

I am into imagining "change we can really believe in" today.



(1) Mike Huckabee, Do the Right Thing. (New York, NY:  Penguin Group (Sentinal), 2008), pg. 153.
(2) The Volume Library,  (Nashville TN: The Southwestern Company, 1980), pg. 910.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Huckabee, pg. 155
(5) Ibid., pg. 156
(6) Ibid.
(7) Ibid., pg. 157
(8) Ibid., pg. 159

Part 1

Determining whether the unpopular Health Care Reform Bill is just (reasonable, right) in this case may be easier than determining if it is jurisprudential, supported by case law.  Another five states have joined in lawsuits against the federal government, making a total of eighteen states.  In some of the newer cases, the Attorneys General have refused to bring suit, but their states will still proceed.  How will legal precedent figure into the courts' decisions?  A larger question is how heavily the courts will consider the philosophy of American Constitutional law that has historically upheld the Constitution as written. Recent cases give us some hope that the Supreme Court will defend the "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution.

For starters, most people realize that our Congress is made up of representatives of "we, the people."  We expect our elected representatives to vote in responsible ways that will help their constituencies.  Few of us would like them to ram through a bill that the majority of people do not want.  This would not be representative of the people.  Surely, the philosophical argument that the bill was passed against the will of the people will have some bearing on the opinions of the justices.

The courts will be faced with a very unusual case.  No Republicans supported the bill, and a majority of Americans feel it is a mistake.  Never before has such division occurred on legislation of this magnitude.  Social Security and Medicare were both big government programs that received over fifty percent of support from both Democrats and Republicans.  But with the current health care program, which would cause a far greater tax burden and encroaching government regulations, not a single Republican representative supported it  Yet the Democrat leadership forced its will and in the end bought the necessary votes.

Something is very wrong here.  According to the philosophy of constitutional law (if not the letter of the law), a bill forced through with so little support of the American people, using every imaginable arm-twisting means and back room deal, is wrong.  Why?  It is because this fundamentally goes against ideals of freedom and the rule of law "by the people."  The Constitution specifically protects both states' rights and the people's rights.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. – Amendment X of the Constitution

This, in legal terms, is known as the enumerated powers of Congress.  If it is a power not delegated (mentioned or given in the Constitution to federal government), then it is prohibited and given to the states individually and to the people.  If it is a delegated power mentioned, then it is given to the federal government.  A bill that is so unpopular with the people would hardly pass a test of giving power to the people.  Health care regulation has traditionally been within the province of each individual state, such as Kansas or Massachusetts, to regulate.  They license physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals and oversee insurance regulations.  Because managing health care or insurance is not in the Constitution, this area has been considered intrastate, not interstate commerce or care.  Therefore, the courts have been hesitant to give more power to the Congress and federal bureaucracies to control health care administration or insurance—properly, I believe.

People are beginning to have second thoughts about the "real change you can believe in" that President Obama promised during his campaign.  As they realize how expansive and expensive are the health care legislation and other programs such as TARP, the Stimulus, the takeover of banks, the student loan program, and General Motors, they are having serious second thoughts about more government growth.  Real concerns over their finances, their freedoms, and their future are beginning to grip most people as they realize the massive and intrusive implications of this federal power grab.

We may get a clue to President Obama's tactics in pushing through the Health Care Reform Bill from his reverence for another President—Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

FDR, as he is affectionately called, was our nation's 37th, 38th, 39th, and 40th President, if you count by terms of office.  He became President March 4, 1933 and served in office until his death in April, 1945.  He was known as the Big Deal President for all the socialistic programs he helped pass during the Great Depression, including Social Security.  Many analysts believe that the Depression would not have been nearly as severe or lasted as long, were it not for his takeover and repression of many areas of the economy.  In his books and speeches, Obama has often made reference to FDR and his own task of finishing the job FDR began.  How much farther left would Obama take us?  And what sort of methods will he be willing to take to get us left of FDR's America?  (1)

When Vice President Joe Biden thought he was off-mike and used an inappropriate comment to describe the Democrat's Health Care Reform Bill that had just passed, he described it as an (expletive) "Big Deal." 

Big Deal?  New Deal?  Old Deal resurrected?  I think it may appropriately be called Obama's Really Big New Deal.

Whatever way it is described, this Health Care Reform Bill is part of a gigantic takeover of America by the federal government.  If this bill is implemented as it stands, it will mean that 51% of the economy of the United States of America will be government-owned. 

We used to think some of our neighbors to the south had the banana republics, run by dictatorial thugs.  Now, our own government is quickly becoming such a government where the people are no longer in control.  States are losing power and sovereignty, which is why many states' Attorney's General are bringing lawsuits to protect their states and their people from the health care overhaul.  Banks have been taken over.  General Motors is now a government owned and operated company.  We can expect that any company that now disagrees with the President's takeover of health care will be harassed, audited, taxed, fined, and even taken over by government-appointed executives.  CEO's making too much money?  If they received any Stimulus or Bail Out money, they may find their books audited, their company executive officers called before Congressional hearings, and worse, the government quietly taking over their business.  Now, if they object to providing  insurance, they will fined whatever the bureaucracy decides.  Doctors could lose their licenses and presumably be put in jail for trying to own their own hospitals. 

If one carefully reads the Health Care Reform Bill (which is still being changed), one finds that the bill states it will be unlawful to change it and oppose any part of the bill.  Taking the scope even further, it will be illegal to dispute the decisions of the "Health Care Commissioner" or the "Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission" on your or your family's health care. (2)

If we think the IRS is intrusive, insensitive, overbearing, and unaccountable now, just wait.  They are mild compared to what is to come if this bill is not overturned.  It is evident that the new Health Care Reform Bill will place at least 16,500 more IRS agents in force to police American doctors, insurance companies, hospitals and clinics, as well as every business in America.  And that only touches the surface.  There will be a whole network of bureaucrats and supervisors to police us, our doctors and medical facilities, telling us what type of care we may receive.

I will keep drumming on this constitutional issue, because our country's freedom is at stake as never before.  We are in a precarious position.  It remains to be seen if our freedoms will survive and if America can retain its place as a super-power, and more importantly, a home of the brave and free if government controls our health decisions, takes our wealth in taxes and fees, and continues to spend money we do not have.  For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we must do all we can to turn back the tide, away from increasing socialism and back to personal responsibility and freedom in America.
------------

(1) The Volume Library, 1980, (Nashville, TN: Southwestern Company), 792.
(2) Document: "A Tale of Two Approaches," http://www.gop.gov

Part 3:

By now, avid news-followers have heard of the Commerce Clause.  We hear that it will be the first defense the Democrats use in arguing for the constitutionality of the massive Democrat Health Care Reform Bill.  In opposition to the will of most state governments, the  Democrat leadership will push for a far stronger, more repressive federal government.

The Commerce Clause, under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, defines and separates powers of the federal government and the state governments in the area of commerce. Webster's dictionary defines "commerce" as "the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale, involving transportation from place to place."  Since all citizens of the United States will be compelled to buy health insurance if this bill stands, Democrats will argue that the power of government to enforce it can be found under the Commerce Clause.

So far, fifteen states have joined the ranks of those who will challenge the constitutionality of this bill in the Circuit Courts, leading no doubt to a Supreme Court challenge.  The reasons and the extents of the suits will vary, with Texas questioning constitutionality on various issues.  In the Commonwealth of Virginia the suit is narrowed to one cause, of protecting their state sovereignty. 

Will the Democrats be able to bring their bill through the tests of constitutionality?  Or will state governments and others who bring suit against the federal government prevail?  What are the tests of constitutionality that apply?

1)  The Class of Activities Test
The Commerce Clause under Section 8 gives Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to provide for the common Defence..." and "to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."

Most Americans understand and agree with the necessary functions of the government to pay national debts and defend our country from attack.  However, it is two little words of the Commerce Clause — "general welfare" — that are the cause of disagreement between the two schools of political theory at this point.  Democrats and Republicans (more accurately, liberals and conservatives) generally divide over the phrase that follows:  "and [provide for the] general welfare of the United States."

Those liberals who are "loose constructionists" argue that the Constitution is dated and needs to be brought into the twenty-first century.  They are ready to bend this clause to cover many conditions.  They consider modern legislation for social betterment to apply to almost all types of business.  The "strict constructionists," on the other hand, believe that the Constitution should be preserved in the same language and meaning as it was when written.  They believe in preserving the rights of the states under the 10th Amendment, which states that "[the] powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

How will the Court determine if this bill passes the test of constitutionality?  In every other case where the Court has allowed the government to argue using the Commerce Clause, they have applied a "class of activities" test.  The Supreme Court uses a two-pronged inquiry when applying this test. 

(1) The first prong the Health Care bill would need to pass would come from examining the entire class of regulated activity.  Does this bill fit the class of things regulated by the Interstate Commerce in this clause?

(2) The second prong checks to see if this bill grants the petitioner — the Congress and President in this case — the constitutional power to regulate the states as members of that regulated class.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has established that Congress may regulate three categories of activity pursuant to the Commerce Clause.  The first two — A and B — would clearly not apply in this case.  The Health Care Reform bill is neither a channel nor an instrumentality of commerce:

Category A:  "Congress may regulate the channels of interstate or foreign commerce," which would include regulating railroads, highways, sea lanes, and aircraft lanes used as channels for transportation with foreign nations or between states.

Category B:  The Commerce Clause protects the "instrumentalities of interstate commerce."  This would include protection from theft or destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or ships, persons, or other things used in commerce or shipping between states or with foreign nations.

It is in the third category that the federal government is seeking to control states and individuals through this bill.  Once Congress passes a bill, in this case the Health Care Reform Bill, and the President signs it into law, the federal government and its bureaucracies will seek to support and implement the bill, unless the courts overthrow it in whole or in part.

Category C:  Over the last seventy years or so, the Court has granted more power to the federal government to regulate activities that "substantially affect interstate commerce."

Taking advantage of expanded powers granted of late by the Court, Pelosi, Reid, and President Obama hope to find even more powers to regulate not only health insurance but every detail and aspect of the health care citizens will be permitted to receive under federal control.  This sounds more like the Coerce Clause than the Commerce Clause. In fact, if allowed to stand, the Health Care bill will become an Anti-Commerce bill, for it will effectively destroy commerce while increasing the government's power to coerce businesses and individuals to pay in ways that will destroy them.

 

Part 1 of this series discussed what is doubtless the most problematic Constitutional aspect of the recently passed Democrat Health Care Reform Bill — the individual or private mandate.  Accordingly, we concluded that it is unfair and unconstitutional for the government to compel anyone to buy a good or service in order to be a part of this country. 

Part 2 will discuss another compelling reason to believe that this bill may well be (or should be) ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.  That problem is based on the Constitution's Enumeration of Powers.

2) The Enumeration of Powers
Our country's founders wrote and passed into law a Constitution aimed at restricting the power of the states, as well as limiting the power of Congress.  To do this, they devised a system of checks and balances to divide state and federal authority.  This was to prevent any one branch — legislative, judicial, or executive — from taking control over a free people. The national, or federal, government was created with a legislative branch called Congress, made up of a Senate with two senators per state, large or small, and a House of Representatives proportioned by population.  The Constitution imbues this Congress with limited and enumerated powers.

Article One allocates to Congress "[a]ll legislative powers herein granted," which means that some legislative powers remain beyond Congress's reach. The Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause similarly grants Congress the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof." (1)

One of the most famous justices from the early days of this country was Chief Justice John Marshall. He recognized and affirmed this fundamental principle:

"The powers of the federal government are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, this Constitution is written."  And in his canonical opinion interpreting the Necessary and Proper Clause, Chief Justice Marshall insisted that "should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the [national] government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land." (2)

Has this Congress mistaken the limits of its power and forgotten the Constitution?  I believe it has.  And I trust that the Supreme Court will eventually find that Congress has taken on powers to run health care that the Constitution never enumerated.  These powers will be held improper for the federal government to assume, because the states have always regulated and licensed health care providers.

3) Without Precedence
Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the power to force an individual to enter into a contract with a private party to purchase a good or service.  And since no decision or present doctrine of the Supreme Court justifies such a claim of power, the claims of power by the Health Care Reform Bill are literally without precedent. The only way this power of Congress could be upheld is if the Supreme Court is willing to create a new constitutional doctrine.  Of course, the Court did this over three decades ago with the so-called right of women to have an abortion.

Part 3 will discuss some of the counterclaims that the Democrats use to try to say that the Health Care Reform Bill passes the constitutionality muster, and why I believe their arguments will fail.

(1) http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/12/Why-the-Personal-Mandate-to-Buy-Government-Health-Insurance-Is-Unprecedented-and-Unconstitutional

(2) Ibid.

Part 1:

As of this writing, attorneys general of fourteen states have begun the process of suing the federal government of the United States of America to challenge the constitutionality of the Democrat Health Care Reform Bill.  Another twenty-plus are considering a lawsuit.  Why?  State governments fear that the mandates imposed by this bill, especially to provide more funds for vastly increased Medicaid requirements, will further burden their budgets and bankrupt them.  They will argue that this federal intrusion into state's rights is unconstitutional.

What grounds do the states have?  Beyond the general outcry against the government's strong and greedy-for-tax-arm into the citizen's lives, what legal remedies might state governments and the American people find?

The Heritage Foundation had done its research even before the passage of this monstrous 2,685 page bill (along with its added reconciliation notes). They have come up with several reasons why the Democrat Health Care Reform Bill is unconstitutional.  I will try to summarize these reasons in a series of articles.

1) The Personal or Individual Mandate
Never before has our federal government required people to buy goods or services in order to reside in this country.  Now for the first time under the Health Care bill, government will impose a duty on individual members of society to buy something.  Also, government will require us to purchase a heavily-regulated service—bureaucratically run health insurance.  Not only are we now required by law to buy this insurance, but a threshold of coverage is set, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost as much as $15,000 per year per family. And violators who do not want to spend money to contract with insurance companies will be charged civil and criminal penalties under sections 501 and 513 of the Senate bill.  In other words, it would become a crime not to own a federally-mandated health insurance plan.

Why would government force us to purchase health insurance at unnecessarily high rates?  The answer is that they need us to subsidize coverage for others and to fund an insurance industry already burdened with other costs and regulations.  In order to keep the true costs of government-run health care from the public, legislators have attempted to use the personal or individual mandate to keep the transfers entirely off budget.  They are calling these unconstitutional taxes and penalties shared responsibility payments, clearly a euphemism of socialistic ideals.  These gimmicks of transferring the money of citizens to the government, and forbidding them by law to be called taxes, are being used to make the bill appear to be revenue-enhancing.  Democrats want the American people to believe that this bill will reduce the national deficit, but they can only do this by using tricks and deception. (1)

Our congressional leaders ought to remember the oath they each took to uphold the Constitution, not their party lines..

According to the Heritage Foundation, "it is very unlikely that the Court would extend current constitutional doctrines, or devise new ones, to uphold this new and unprecedented claim of federal power." (2) We hope they do not.  But we must also pray that before these legal matters are resolved, perhaps five years from now, President Obama is not able to stack the Supreme Court with liberal appointees that might ignore constitutional precedent and impose their ideals of a fluid and changing Constitution.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(1) Senate Health Care Reform Bill, page 203, Lines 14-15:  "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax."

(2) http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/12/Why-the-Personal-Mandate-to-Buy-Health-Insurance-Is-Unprecedented-and-Unconstitutional

Part 4 in the Health Care Reform Bill series

What is in the Democrat Health Care Reform Bill that is being prepared and tweaked in the back halls of Congress? 

The people of America do not know exactly. Republican Congressmen and women have not been invited into the process.  It seems that President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi do not know exactly, either.  But since they are acting as little gods in control of government, they feel no need to tell us until it passes. Obama and Pelosi have both all-knowingly said, “Trust me. You will like it.”

Even if “Mikey” does not actually like it, one thing is sure. This is the biggest attempt ever made by government to take over individual American lives and to control them. The health care industry represents 16% of our economy. 

President Obama feels he is destined to extend the socialization of America begun by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930’s with Social Security. He admires President Johnson, who started the Medicare entitlements in the early 1960’s with a mere $10 billion a year. And Obama absolutely reveres Senator Edward Kennedy, who tried for years to pass government-run health care. This one is being done for past heroes of his and for the future hero he hopes to be. This is all about gods (little “g”) and Government (big “G”).  Good as he spins the benefits of government control, all of America will eventually suffer for Obama's audacity and sense of Destiny.

I had promised to reveal some disturbing, even shocking, things about this bill in my series on health care reform. Because of the sheer size and mystery surrounding the bill, I apologize for not being able to cover this sooner. Even now, we know there will be surprises. But here is some of what passing this reform bill would do:

Would Increase Government Ownership of America:

President Reagan warned us of socialism, and he even had some success in turning back the growth of government, but the rise of government control and ownership has been steady since FDR.  Translate that also into increased taxation and spending by every President since Reagan. Now, Obama has made a campaign of wresting the rest of private enterprise and individual freedom from American citizens and making our wealth government’s wealth. 

Would Further the Relentless Rise in Entitlement Spending:

President Obama frequently holds up Franklin Delano Roosevelt as an example of what he hopes to do for America (or to America, depending on one's perspective).  He hopes to add to the already bloated government expenditure and control through various bureaucracies.  Here are some examples of how major social programs supported by federal tax dollars have grown and will continue to skyrocket in growth under this extremely liberal administration:

1) As of 2009, 84.8 million people depend on government for programs of assistance.

2) Education grabbed its share on an average of $24.9 billion annually at the federal level over the last 10 years.

3) Agriculture has taken a $47 billion annual average over ten years for such things as price supports for farmers, disaster relief, national parks, and food stamps. (Over half goes to non-farm subsidies.)

4) Welfare low-income-assistance and healthcare, begun in 1962, reached an annual $807 billion by 2009. (Statistics from The Heritage Foundation. See http://heritage.org)

5) The CBO, using very deceptive figures given to it by the Democrats, has just estimated that the Senate/House compromise bill they “deem to pass” will cost a mere $940 billion over the next ten years. Of course, this does not count the $500 billion that will be raided from seniors under Medicare and the mandates on states to pay $38 billion and increase their coverage percentage of Medicaid.

Would Further The Loss of Freedom under the Proposed Health Care Legislation:

1) Doctors will have a patriotic obligation under the liberals’ plan to give up about 20% in Medicare reimbursement. In real terms, this may mean cutting doctors' incomes by up to half.  As many as 40% of doctors may be forced to quit their practices or quit treating Medicare patients. 

2) The IRS will become stronger, not abolished as we had hoped. This bill anticipates at least 16,500 new IRS workers, required to police Americans and fine those who do not want to buy health insurance, do not need it, or cannot afford it. You must buy health insurance or be fined $695.

3) Under this plan, more than 150 new government programs will be created.

4) Elective abortion will be paid for by the government in three ways: a) a federal fund will be created by charging every policy a minimum fee, b) every insurance company would have to provide one plan that includes abortion and one that does not, and c) payment for abortion would be covered under the public option if it is included.

5) There is no guarantee that the public option will not be included at some point; and given that Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a liberal, is on board to vote “yes" on the bill, it seems more probable.

6) In Obama and Pelosi's eyes, insurance companies have become the villains responsible for high health care costs; so they will likely be   eliminated gradually or taken over by government.

7) Because of the Democrats’ plan to create a “Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission” of unelected government employees who would decide which treatments are most effective, doctors will quit and students will be discouraged from going into medical careers. If this bill passes, 8% of doctors plan to quit immediately, and 20% plan to retire early.

Would Sneak in Student Loans:

And if all this were not enough, the Health Care Reform Bill expands the federal student loan program, putting it under government control. Of course, this amendment has nothing to do with health care, except maybe to sicken us with more taxes. 

This protracted battle over the health care bill is all about little “gods” and  big “Government.” It is about the takeover by government of capitalism and the free enterprise system we valued in the past. It is about the furthering of socialism and the loss of freedom. Americans must wake up and fight this loss of freedom, wealth, strength and ability to care for our families and the needy, which is coming to America if we fail to speak up.

I leave you now with the definitions of capitalism and socialism, so you, the reader, can decide for yourself which direction America is taking.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Definition of capitalism: “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in the free market.” (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary)

 

Definition of socialism: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods...a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state...a stage end of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary)

DO REPUBLICANS HAVE A HEALTH CARE REFORM PLAN?

Part 3 in Health Care Reform Series

One benefit of the February 25, 2010 Blair House Health Care Reform Summit was that Democrats for the first time acknowledged that Republicans had ideas.  According to the obvious talking points of various Democrat senators and representatives, these ideas were suddenly "many," and remarkably they were all "included" somewhere in the expansive health care bill.

However, we Americans were called to merely trust the President and his cohorts' words that this was fact.  We were given no real justification to believe them.  No pages or quotes from the Democrat bill were given to support their claims of bipartisanship.  Nothing was heard but talking points and a little scolding from the President.  Again, darkness would remain where we would have enjoyed light.

So what, if any, is the Republican's plan to reform health care law?  Let's look back at what they have presented as solutions thus far.

Back on October 31, 2009, House Republican Leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio presented the Republican's "common-sense health care reform our nation can afford," in an address to the nation.  He emphasized four reforms that would lower health care costs and expand access to quality care without a government takeover.  Republicans oppose the proposed Democrat plan because it would result in many unwanted effects, including:  jobs being killed, higher taxes on small businesses, and cutting Medicare for seniors.

On behalf of Republicans, Boehner proposed the following:

• Number one:  let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
• Number two:  allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
• Number three:  give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
• Number four:  end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

These simple steps would go a long way towards reforming health care problems that limit access and increase costs.  Certainly, it would take some time for people to see all the benefits of these beginning steps, but they would turn our country in the right direction.

Replying to the President during the Blair House Summit, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander expounded further, this time with six points.

• First, you [Mr. President] mentioned Mike Enzi's work on the small business health care plan.  That's a good start.  It came up in the Senate.  He will explain why it covers more people, costs less, and helps small businesses offer insurance.
• Two, helping Americans buy insurance across state lines.  You've mentioned that yourself.  Most of the governors I've talked to think that would be a good way to increase competition.
• Number three, put an end to junk lawsuits against doctors.  In our state, half the counties' pregnant women have to drive to the big city to have prenatal health care or to have their baby, because the medical malpractice suits have driven up the insurance policies so high that doctors leave the rural counties.
• Number four, give states incentives to lower costs.
• Number five, expanding health savings accounts.
• Number six, House Republicans have some ideas about how my friend in Tullahoma can continue to afford insurance for his wife who has had breast cancer; because she has a preexisting condition, it makes it more difficult to buy insurance.  So there're six ideas—they're just six steps.  Maybe the first six, but combined with six others and six more and six others, they get us in the right direction.

Senator Alexander made the point that the health insurance companies are not the main problem.

"Now, some say we need to rein in the insurance companies; maybe we do.  But I think it's important to note if we took all of the profits of the health insurance companies entirely away, every single penny of it, we could pay for two days of health insurance for Americans.  And that would leave 363 days with costs that are too high.  So that's why we continue to insist that as much as we want to expand access and to other things in health care, that we shouldn't expand a system that' this expensive, that the best way to increase access is to reduce costs."

Alexander also pleaded with the Democrats not to use strong-arm partisan strategies to jam through this unpopular legislation:

"Now, in conclusion, I have a suggestion and a request for how to make this a bipartisan and truly productive session.  And I hope that those who are here will agree, I've got a pretty good record of working across party lines, and of supporting the president when I believe he's right, even though other members of my party might not on that occasion.  And my request is this:  before we go further today, that the Democratic Congressional leaders and you, Mr. President, renounce this idea of going back to Congress and jamming your bill through on a partisan vote through a little-used process we call reconciliation."

It is now apparent, two weeks past the unsuccessful summit, that Mr. President and the Congressional leaders have rejected any ideas of working with the Republicans.  The strong-arm tactics and deal-making in Congress are occurring at levels many veterans say they have never seen. The President has postponed an important Asian trip that he planned to take with his wife and children who would be on spring break next week.  Instead, he has promised that he will pass this health care reform legislation, "if it kills me." 

This is definitely do or die for the President and Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  The reconciliation process will be forced, and Pelosi even has plans to circumvent the Constitution through her House Rules Committee.  While Article I of the Constitution says that Congress shall pass legislation with each member voting Yea or Nay and recording the votes, Pelosi plans to use the rules committee to proclaim that the House has already essentially passed the bill and it should go to the President without a vote.  This is blatantly unconstitutional.

It is clear that not only is Congress having its arms twisted, but the American people feel they and the Constitution are being twisted by the current out-of-control Democrat administration and congress.  There is still power in the people if we will demand our Constitutional rights.  The best we can do now is to call our representatives, hound them if need be, write letters to the editor—any way to let our voices be heard.  Oh, and pray, "God save America and bless her again!"

To answer the question, I think many were trying to listen and really want to hear. They are concerned with what they will stand to lose financially and if they will still have access to good health care if the Democrat reform bill passes.  They worry about how much more power the government will gain over their lives and how taxes will rise.  Yet, the Health Care Reform Bill is like a mountain whose heights and intricacies they seem unable to scale.  It is like a locked box that none of them has keys to open.  And sadly our President, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate leader Reid are not helping provide transparency.

By scheduling a six-hour "listening" session in the middle of America's workday, the President assured that few of the American people would be able to listen.  Probably the least appealing and convenient format for people to hear and ponder this serious issue was listening to Republican and Democrat leaders wrangling and posturing for hours.  But surprisingly, Americans were still interested enough in the issue of health care reform that many listened.  Callers and Twitter users flooded the lines of Fox News when asked to comment.  They were listening and wishing to know what was in the mysterious 2,700 page bill lying in front of several of the Republican members.

Here are my problems with the Blair House Health Care Reform summit and why I think it failed to educate the public adequately:

~ This summit made it too easy for the President to proclaim that Republicans had their chance to cooperate but stubbornly refused to do so. 

~ The President was able to dominate the meeting and keep inconvenient facts from being presented.

~ With the liberal media likely to give him a favorable spin, the President could get away with being slightly impetuous and with bending the facts.  Most people would have to rely merely on reports of events as seen by the network newscasters.  Few would see how he condemned those leaders who actually brought the 2,700 page bill--tabbed with sections they questioned--as merely employing an annoying "prop."  This showed how little seriousness he gave to openness.  The bill should have been opened and discussed.

~ Under this forum the President could claim unfair tactics were used by Republicans, such as Senators or Representatives actually bringing along tall copies of the bill or having their own facts and figures to present.

~ Because he alone controlled the time given each speaker, President Obama could complain that Republicans were taking too long to explain a complex issue and shut them off.

~ During the conference, the seemingly frustrated President dropped hints that he would have to push through this bill because the Republicans were not willing to change.  Those Republicans!  To me, it was obvious that this was a foregone conclusion to which he had come before the first words of the conference were spoken. 

Because the real, hidden issue before us--far beyond health care--is the "state-ism" that most liberal Democrats want to force upon Americans, it is important we hear the balancing viewpoints of conservatives before it it too late and the ink has dried on yet another Presidential bill signing.

Since health care takes nearly one-sixth of our national spending dollar, protecting this huge portion of the economy from government takeover is an urgent concern for all Americans.  Passing the Democrat Health Care Reform bill would mean another 17% of our economy that President Obama and his Democrat cohorts would place under federal government control.  This would also take health choice from local and private control and place decisions under elitist, unelected government bureaucracy.   They would replace the  private doctor/patient/family decisions and impose the rule of public governmental boards over access and medical treatment.

The federal government over the past year has taken control of the banks and General Motors, to mention two examples of its encroachment on the private sector.  We are nearing the halfway tipping point, in which the government will control and effectively own over half of our nation's resources.  This could mean the end of private enterprise and ownership--two very important bulwarks of self-government.  Under the current exceptionally liberal leadership, it appears Democrats will stop at nothing to gain control over Americans' lives. 

As Senator Lamar Alexander pointed out, it appears that the people are trying every means possible--through protests, town hall meetings, tea parties, and floods of calls to their representatives in Washington--to say that they do not want this enormous health care bill.  Americans want to listen, but all they get are selling points from the Democrats.  The American people may hope for health care reform, but right now they are disgusted that the politicians in Washington seem not to be listening to them and what they want.