Obama Missile Retreat: Our Security In Israel's Hands

For a few years now, I have intrepidly sported a "Don't Worry America, Israel is Behind You" T-shirt. Obama's latest foreign policy flights of fancy render those words more prophetic and meaninful than ever.

Given the Prez's feckless abandonment of the Czech Republic and Poland, the subsequent plummeting of European confidence in Obama's unconvincing professions of solidarity with them, and recent expert assessments that Iran could well possess a deliverable nuclear warhead capability within a few short years (and a bomb in less than one), it is now academic that an Israeli pre-emptive strike--perhaps even nuclear--on Iran in the months ahead is a certainty.

Though OBH may be foolishly deriving much personal satisfaction from his fanciful and sophomoric leftist conviction that appeasing Russia will beget Moscow's cooperation vis-a-vis the imposition of tougher Russian sanctions on Iran, recent history clearly teaches that Russia has been a consistently unreliable--indeed, obstructionist--partner on nearly every issue of importance to the United States and its allies. Since the dissolution of the USSR two decades ago, Moscow's goal has remained that of reasserting its hegemony in the Baltic and Eastern European states, their historical sphere of influence, a process which has now been accelerated by Obama's retreat in Eastern Europe. Of course, this serves only to increase--not diminish--chances of Russo-American miscalculations and confrontation in the years ahead.

Very worrisome is the high probability that Obama's recent unilateral capitulation to Russian demands for cancellation of a "third site"ground based missile defense system in E. Europe will accomplish little more than to 1) tempt Russian regional adventurism, 2) encourage European appeasement of Moscow, 3) fast-track nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, 4) further embolden an increasingly defiant and menacing Iran and N. Korea, 5) encourage Japanese and Taiwanese nuclearization, and 6) seriously increase the likelihood of an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran. Obviously this volatile mix of probabilities serves neither the security and economic interests of the United States nor of its friends and allies anywhere in the world. Obama's retreat exponentially heightens prospects for further miscalculations and conflict in the future.

Of course, on the remote chance that American appeasement actually results in effective Russian and Chinese sanctions against Iran--a long shot in the extreme--then Iranian nuclear ambitions will have been halted without bloodshed and worldwide economic turmoil will have been averted. However, since vacuous wishful thinking, the realm of the idealist and foolhardy, is a terrible substitute for rational analysis, I believe that in the end only Israeli military intervention can successfully deal with the mounting Iranian threat to us all.

Despite himself, however, perhaps Obama's narcissistic belief in his messianic powers of persuasion and his characteristic retreat in Eastern Europe might not prove to be as catastrophic as I fear it will eventually be. For while the worldwide economic impact of an Israeli attack on Iran would be acutely painful in the short term, Iranian nuclear development will, at the very least, have been effectively crippled for a few more years. By the time Iran is able to resume nuclear development--if it then even dares to--grown-ups will, hopefully, have returned to Washington, and a resurgent American-Israeli alliance will then be able to exert the pressure needed to ensure a nuclear-free Middle East with the added effect of blunting the growing N. Korean nuclear proliferation threat as well.

So, donning my T-shirt once again, I am necessarily looking to our bold Israeli friends to defend us and our spinelss so-called European allies from Obama's myopia and feebleness.

In truth, when it comes to my homeland's security these days, I now have much more faith in Tel Aviv than I do in Washington.

("How many wars have been averted by patience and goodwill." Wintons Churchill, Prime Minister)

("Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table." George Shultz, Secretary of State)

On Leftists: ("They are the most disagreeable of people...Their insincerity? Can you not feel a sense of disgust at the arrogant presumption of superiority of these people? Superiority of intellect! Then, when it comes to practice, down they fall with a wallop not only to the level of ordinary human beings but to a level which is even far below the average." Winston Churchill)

Van Jones Ouster a Good First Step

Lamely claiming victimization by a right-wing “smear campaign”, and, notably, without an apology, Van Jones, “Green Jobs Czar” and self-avowed Communist, mercifully resigned over the weekend.

The indomitable Howard Dean described the resignation of Van Jones as “a great loss to the country.” Acid, anyone? But, most level-headed Americans of all political stripes would, I’m sure, appropriately characterize the ouster as a good beginning.

At issue here is not that Van Jones wasn’t vetted by the White House. The more distressing issue is that he, like many of his fellow radical and unaccountable appointees, was vetted by the White House. And that should give us all serious pause.

Let us never forget that five days before inauguration, the President, in his own words, pledged that he would “fundamentally transform the United States”. And judging from his many radical leftist appointments, he is obviously taking that pledge very, very seriously.

In truth, the departure of Van Jones is but the first step in a much-needed housecleaning. Most Americans would agree that for the internal security and stability of our country, all other Marxists, Communists and other radical extremists currently infesting this Administration should also be ousted.

Fortunately, Rep. Mike Pence has called for a halt to any further czar appointments as well as a thorough review of the consititutionality of such appointments. Good for him. Better late than never.

I can't help but wonder how heavy a sledgehammer is needed for us ALL to finally understand that the greatest experiment in governance, the United States of America, is now imperiled as never before—not by enemies from without, but by enemies from within. For me, any desperate hope that Barack Obama is anything but a Marxist/Socialist sympathizer has now been irretrievably shattered.

Grassroots Americans must finally understand that the once venerable Democratic Party, of which I was once a proud member, long ago abandoned its lofty Democratic liberal principles. The party has been effectively hijacked by all manner of radical leftist vermin who care not a wit for America, Americans or for our principles and way of life. Theirs is a craven appetite for power over others and nothing loftier than that. The New Democratic Party is a matrix of radical, self-aggrandizing leftist organizations whose principles are inimical to all that is American. Today, it is no longer a battle between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. It is now a seminal struggle between Socialism/Marxism and Americanism.

I'm afraid that our own complicit apathy, ideological shortsightedness, wishful thinking, disengagement and attraction to all that glitters have conspired to cultivate a welcoming breeding ground for socialism. And, unfortunately, the makeover is moving at an alarming pace.

Like bullies, radicals will ruthlessly push the envelope to achieve their elitist goals. When challenged, they’ll quickly pull back and, under the cover of night, strike again when no one’s looking. So, don’t let your guard down for a moment. It’s still a long, hard slog before we can fully restore our constitutional republic.

Objectively then, our democratic republic is, unquestionably, threatened as never before—not by enemies from without, but by cunning, calculating, carefully choreographed, and scrubbed-clean enemies from within. And we continue to blissfully ignore or tolerate this perfidious subversion at our own peril.

What can best be done to stem this Marxist-Socialist tide and infestation? Aggressive political engagement? Civil disobedience? Secession? Revolution? For the moment, I opt for aggressive political suasion, failing which all other options should definitely be on the table. We owe that to our children, our neighbors, and to our heroes who have fallen in defense of this great nation and all that it represents.

Finally, as Thomas Jefferson cautioned, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty; the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

Right now, we all have just cause to fear our government. And that’s just not the way it should be. And if we all push back as unyieldingly as the enemy pushes forward, America will once again gain the upperhand. I pray that is so.

Federal Healthcare Reform Poses Serious Constitutional Questions

When asked during his townhall meeting in Victor whether or not healthcare was a right, Rep. Massa paused, then, without elaboration, his chin firmly positioned against his chest, he meekly responded "It's a right".

What he didn't explain was whether he felt it was simply a "moral right" or a "constitutional right". I assumed he was ducking the distinction to preclude being challenged by a rather querulous audience.

Nonetheless, since exploring this question nicely dovetails with my earlier post entitled "Mangled General Welfare Clause Interpretation Imperils Constitutional Governance", for my own enlightenment I opted to briefly examine some of the constitutionality issues surrounding national healthcare. You'll note that I have more questions than answers, since I feel the latter are best left to those more thoroughly schooled in the area of constitutional development and law. But, be that as it may, nothing should prevent any of us voicing our educated opinions.

That said, while the healthcare reform debate has raged at the policy level, little, if any, meaningful or readily accessible discussion has been seen by me regarding the constitutionality of the sort of federal healthcare reform which is currently being promoted by universal healthcare advocates both in and out of government. And in this Progressive-dominated era, the burning question is whether or not Congress will substantively broach the subject of constitutionality at all when shaping or enacting healthcare or any other Progressive legislation. Only with rare exceptions, I fear, am I confident that such an important discussion will, at some point, take place. But, always the optimist, I will hold out hope.

For instance, does congressional authority over interstate commerce properly extend to government's right to require all individuals to purchase coverage or pay a percentage of their income as a fine? Proponents of the public option would likely expansively argue that any individual action which can in some way influence interstate commerce can be largely regulated. However, such a superfluous interpretation of the commerce clause was decidedly repudiated by the Supreme Court in US vs Lopez (1998) and US vs Morrison (2000). Also, and very importantly, in Gonzales vs Raich (2005) the court emphasized that interstate regulation may be justified only on "quintessentially economic" grounds. For the casual inquirer then, mandating individual conduct certainly falls far short of "quintessentially economic".

Nonetheless, it occurs to me that if government cannot compel you to accept healthcare, how can it compel you to carry healthcare insurance? Even among certain religious groups, receiving healthcare is a violation of their religious beliefs. Can these same persons who refuse treatment on religious grounds be coerced to purchase health insurance? And what of those who abhor abortion on religious or moral grounds? Can they be forced to purchase insurance which either directly or indirectly finances such a practice?

Thus, probably the overarching constitutional concern is the "individual mandate" which, either in a coop or public option construction, would require all individuals to purchase insurance. To wit, the Senate version of the bill would penalize those who failed to comply with this mandate. The House versions would simply mandate universal compliance. The choice, then, for the individual would be to contribute to either a healthcare cartel heavily influenced by political overseers in DC, or to the federal public option plan itself. Clearly, no meaningful individual freedom of choice here at all.

Then, of course, there's the broader question of federal authority in such matters (outside the confines of the District of Columbia and federal territories) by the "general welfare clause".
Said James Madison on the floor of the House in 1794, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution which grants a right to Congress expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." He went on to say that "the government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is not part of the legislative duty of the government." But, good grief, what does Madison know? He's only the "father of the Constitution".

Thus, as a policy matter, is not healthcare better left for shaping and enactment at the state level? As wisely envisioned by the framers, wouldn't the encouragement of state-level healthcare experimentation shield the nation from possible failed federal experimentation which would needlessly, adversely and limitlessly affect every person in the country? Conversely, why should Massachusetts and Oregon healthcare fiascos be imposed upon the rest of the country? So, again, why not consign heathcare reform to the laboratory of state experimentation. What works will be quickly replicated. What is flawed will die a well-deserved death without tainting the remainder of the union.

As a practical matter, however, most states have long ago yielded their 10th Amendment authority to a federal government intent upon bribing states with federal largesse. So, while sober constitutional arguments against the imposition of a federal healthcare program may be intellectually overwhelming, from a practical standpoint such carefully crafted argumentation may be for naught.

Very interestingly, HR 3200 does not cite the commerce clause or any other enumerated power to warrant its authority. In fact, the only reference to the Constitution in HR 3200 is a severability clause which is intended to spare the remainder of the bill's provisions if a part is declared unconstitutional. Maybe the drafters really do understand the constitutional ramifications afterall and are trying to cut their possible losses.

Though I'm not taking the time to exhaustively explore each of them, the Independence Institute succinctly and clearly cites these specific constitutional problems with HR 3200:

1. Outside DC and the federal territories, the feds do not have the constitutional authority to control healthcare.
2. As can be seen in current healthcare proposals, Congress cannot delegate any of its authority to the Executive Branch.
3. The federal intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship violates the "substantive due process" principle. (Note: simply put, "substantive due process" holds that the 5th and 14th Amendments' "due process clauses" must protect not only procedural rights but also "substantive" rights which are thsoe more fundamental rights of freedom to do certain things the government may not desrie the individual to do. It holds that due process cannot be completely just if it is applied to unjustly deprive a person of his basic human liberties.)
4. Citing the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court holds that Congress may not "commandeer" state decision-making in the service of federal goals.
5. While Congress may condition grants to states, if those conditions are "coercive" then the mandates contained in HR 32000 violate that prohibition against coercion.

Even liberal Justice Souter has cautioned that imposing national healthcare has serious "constitutional dimensions".

For me, it seems embarrassingly simple: there is no clear-cut Constitutional right to government healthcare, and most certainly not for mandated individual participation. If a public option healthcare reform is rammed through with individual mandates and penalities as the essential centerpiece, the GOP congressional resurgence in 2010 will surely nullify or effectively stymie implementation--but only if "we the people" and solidly conscientious legislators like Rep. Shadegg, Senator DeMint, Rep. Pence and Rep. Ryan, among other notable patriots, keep the pressure on.

Finally, does not this latest example of seemingly unbridled federal overreaching necessitate the enactment of the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 450) which is currently buried in the Democratic-dominated House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties. Gee, doesn't all that zealous congressional patriotism and rigid allegiance to our Constitutional principles warm the cockles of your heart?

("The genius of our system is that, no matter how convinced our elected officials may be that certain measures are in the public interest, their goals can be accomplished only in accord with the powers and processes the Constitution mandates, processes that inevitably make them accountable to the American people." D. Rivkin & L. Casey, Baker Hostetler LLP)

(I'm not sure much meaningful individual freedom will remain after the government claims the right to mandate how and when products must be purchased and from whom." Jason Arvak, Poligazette)

("One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it." Ronald Reagan, 1961)

Mangled "General Welfare" Interpretation Imperils Constitutional Governance

For a long time now, the Constitution which our leaders and representatives have sworn to uphold and defend has been routinely violated. As the years go by, the pace and breadth of violations has accelerated and expanded.

Understanding that Congressional overreach has resulted in our country’s being saddled with nearly $100 Trillion in Medicare and Social Security unfunded liabilities alone, there is little doubt that unrestrained federal encroachment and its signature “bread and circuses” profligacy is fast leading this country to insolvency and political dissolution.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates 18 specific powers granted to Congress. (Note: the original document enumerated 17 powers.) National healthcare, cap and trade, card check, bailouts, pork barrel expenditures and a litany of other legislative initiatives are most certainly not among those legislative powers.

All other powers not specifically granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 or in subsequent amendments are, according to the 10th Amendment, reserved solely to the States and to the People.

Clearly, these fundamental elements of the Constitution have been patently ignored or so liberally reinterpreted as to obliterate the original meaning and intent of the framers. It’s become painfully obvious that the Progressive stream of legislative abuses which has resulted from the dramatically expansive interpretation of Article 1, Section 8 is leading us to an ideological transformation which is inimical to our founding principles and way of life.

To get us all back onto solid Constitutional footing, the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 450) was introduced by Rep. Shadegg of Arizona and is currently co-sponsored by 48 House members. (The counterpart Senate Bill 1319 has 21 co-sponsors.) Very simply, if passed, HR 450/S 1319 would require Congress to cite the Constitutional authority for each law it passes. No constitutional authority, the bill can’t pass. With constitutional authority, the bill can pass. To me, this is a perfectly sensible and responsible way to keep Congress truer to their pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution and, yes, to prevent further and avoidable erosion of our Constitution. Frankly, it is inconceivable to me why any conscientious Congressperson would object to its passage.

But, on what basis has so much federal overreaching been justified? Further, with passage of HR 450, would we, in fact, once again find ourselves on solid constitutional footing? With these questions in mind, let’s ever so very briefly trace the evolution of the meaning and application of the “general welfare and taxation clause”.

As alluded to above, the Tenth Amendment provides 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.” Thus, one would think there should be, therefore, a reasonably clear and inviolable delineation between federal and State powers. But, apparently, not so, as we shall see. In fact, state powers are being rapidly eclipsed by the feds.

The Article 1, Section 8 preamble/clause reads as follows; “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” This is followed by 17 original enumerated powers.

James Madison, the “father of our Constitution”, warned that “if Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money [to] promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” Accordingly, Madison believed that “promoting the…general welfare” authorized Congress to spend money, but ONLY to carry out the 17 powers and duties specifically and originally enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. (Note again that in the original text, the "welfare clause" was considered by Madison as but a qualifier, a preamble to, but not a discrete power unto itself.)

Madison went on to explain that “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.” In effect, Madison posited that “I have always regarded [the words] general welfare as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in Article 1, Section 8) connected to them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution not contemplated by its creators.”
Thomas Jefferson explained it this way: "The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. Congress is not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless.”
Under the Articles of Confederation during and immediately following the Revolution, the central government could raise naval forces and requisition ground forces, but it could not impose taxes or duties to implement those activities unless nine colonies assented. Herein lay the Articles’ greatest weakness and the Constitutional Convention was determined not to make that same mistake again. Thus, the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8 and the means to execute those powers was included in the Constitution.

While Madison’s and Jefferson’s meaning of general welfare held sway in the early years of the Republic, in McCulloch vs Maryland (1819) Chief Justice Marshall championed the broader Hamiltonian view that the happiness and prosperity of the nation requires not only that the general government has ample powers to effectively ensure the general welfare, but that it has ample means for executing those enumerated powers.

Fast-forward to 1936 when the Supreme Court in an FDR-driven opinion (US vs Butler) held that the “general welfare clause granted Congress power it might not derive anywhere else [in the Constitution], but limited the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.” It further held that the “general welfare clause confers a power separate and distinct from those 17 powers later enumerated and is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them…” Thus, by legal fiat the number of enumerated powers increased from 17 to 18.

Later, in Helvering vs Davis (1937), the court rendered a more expansive interpretation by conferring upon Congress power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost exclusively to its own discretion.

Since then, the more expansive Hamiltonian interpretation which incorporates the preamble into the enumeration of powers has shaped legislative and Supreme Court thinking. (However, here it is worth noting that even to Hamilton pork barrel projects for specific localities exceeded congressional authority. To wit, “the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made [must] be general and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.”) So, if nothing else, HR 450 would at least halt the self-serving and costly epidemic of pork barrel spending.

Serving to further muddy the waters, the changing meaning of the word “welfare” itself underscores the conundrum. For instance, in 1828, Webster’s dictionary links welfare to protection (from unusual evil or calamity) and security (peace and prosperity). In stark contrast to this earlier definition, however, the current definition is as follows: “aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need; an agency or program through which such aid is distributed.” Mindful of the striking contrast and the impact of that contrast to governance, Noah Webster himself posited that “in the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place which…obscure the sense of the original language; whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced…mistakes may be very injurious.” No kidding.

Theodore Sky, Catholic University School of Law, notes that the expansive interpretation of the enumerated powers has led to an essentially “unbounded modern welfare state.” And that’s clearly where we now find ourselves as a nation.

So, even with passage of HR 450/S 1319, continued congressional reliance upon an already expansive interpretation of the general welfare clause will surely render further legislative abuse unavoidable. Ultimately, therefore, the only solution might well be a Constitutional amendment which would return Article 1, Section 8 to its original and more restrictive meaning and intent. But, can we hold our collective breath until that happens? Probably not.

Nonetheless, HR 450/S 1319 is a step in the right direction, and, at the very least, the unconstitutional expenditure of billions of dollars for “pork” could finally be thwarted. That alone should make passage of the Enumerated Powers Act a top priority in D.C.

For this reason, we should urge our representatives to fast-track passage of HR 450/S 1319. As said, it's a pivotal step in the right direction.

POSTSCRIPT:
Both HR450 and S1319 died in committee

Obama's Ministry of Propaganda: a Looming Threat to America

At long last, the left’s relentless assault on America’s honored traditions and values is being unashamedly and resolutely resisted by “we the people”.

At this juncture, the prospect for swift passage of the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act” (aka “card check”) and HR 3200 (aka “Obamacare”) are dim. Even “Cap and Trade” (aka “cap ‘n tax”), the centerpiece of leftwing socialist engineering, is running up against a rising tide of skepticism and suspicion.

But now is not the time for complacency or misplaced celebration. Our being lulled into a false sense of security and accomplishment could very well spell disaster for the Republic. Common sense and responsible governance in D.C. cannot be restored unless grassroots Americans continue to push back as resolutely and tenaciously as that of the well-funded and well-organized socialist revolutionaries on the left.

Going along merely to get along or to simply avoid spurious character assassination is shortsighted and, ultimately, suicidal. Without digging in for the long haul, any political gains will be ephemeral.

Bearing in mind Thomas Jefferson’s assertion that “the firmness with which the people have withstood the…abuses of the press, the discernment they have manifested between truth and falsehood, show that they may safely be trusted to hear everything true and false and to form a correct judgment between them”, it is imperative that we keep our eyes and ears on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) so that “we the people” may continue to exercise our right to freely discriminate between that which is true and false in the press, on the internet and on the airwaves.

To effectively eliminate opposing viewpoints in the public broadcasting realm, for a long time now the left has striven to muzzle conservative talk radio. Internet and satellite radio are also in their crosshairs. Up to now, the left’s usurpations in this regard have been purposely incremental, this to avoid detection and popular resistance. But with the Obama Administration’s cynical appointment of Mark Lloyd as the FCC Chief Diversity Czar, the left’s manifest effort to snuff out opposing viewpoints is on the fast track. In one fell swoop, the White House has taken the first step to brazenly establish America’s first Ministry of Propaganda.

Mark Lloyd, a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist-Socialist, who has openly praised Hugo Chavez’s media takeover in Venezuela, intends to replace the politically sensitive Fairness Doctrine with the principle of “local broadcast diversity of programming, news and commentary” in order to achieve the left’s unyielding goal to shut down opposing conservative and Christian viewpoints. For those who cherish their first amendment rights--freedom of expression in particular--Mark Lloyd’s appointment couldn’t be more ominous or alarming.

"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press," Lloyd said. "This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serves as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies." Sweet guy, huh?

Like its conservative broadcast counterpart, liberal talk radio has relied upon listenership to determine its commercial viability. As a result of objective supply and demand market forces, liberal talk radio has continued to be a ratings and, therefore, commercial disaster. Enter Czar Lloyd to artificially remedy that shortcoming from on high.

A self-avowed black liberationist, Lloyd wants to effectively impose local broadcast content criteria to curtail and, ultimately, to silence conservative viewpoints. In effect, he is leading the left’s charge against our broadcasting freedom in order to achieve a strictly ideological outcome.

Knowing full well that successful liberal talk radio cannot survive on a broader scale without FCC circumvention of the free market, he is pushing the following principles of “localism” to achieve Team Obama’s socialist transformation of America:

1. Restore national caps on the number of commercial radio stations a single
company is allowed to own.
2. Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
3. Require radio companies which fail to meet local public broadcasting
standards to pay compulsory fees to support National Public Radio (NPR).

These principles are in line with Obama’s expressed support for media ownership caps, network neutrality and increased minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets. These Orwellian principals of speech control are also strongly supported by the usual culprits, among them being Senators John Kerry and Dick Durbin, and Reps John Dingell, Dennis Kucinich and Louise Slaughter.

Essentially, listenership determines ratings and advertising revenues. Czar Lloyd’s intervention in the marketplace will ensure that ratings are rendered irrelevant. By imposing equal time, broadcasters will be forced to air unpopular and commercially unviable liberal talk shows. This will force broadcasters to increase advertising rates for conservative programming to compensate for liberal talk failure, or to pull the plug on both liberal and conservative talk shows altogether, thus accomplishing Obama's mission of squelching opposing ideological viewpoints.

But Czar Lloyd has indicated his interest in going much further than this. He is not only pushing for “diversity in local ownership” of stations, but is actually proposing that private radio broadcasters be required to pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs in order to benefit—get this--public radio broadcasting, already a bastion of liberalism.

So, folks, we have our work cut out for us in the months and years ahead to prevent our Republic’s being torn apart by these radical leftist conspiracies and machinations.

In closing, Czar Lloyd, who joins other Marxist appointments in the Obama White House, earned his doctorate in jurisprudence, and was once a Senior Fellow at the extremely liberal, George Soros-funded, Center for American Progress (CAP). NewsBusters reports that he is “virulently anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation.” And, like all other Obama Czars, he is, unfortunately, entirely unaccountable to Congress, the people and the Constitution. He is accountable only to our Socialist-in-Chief, President Barry Obama.

If this alarming trend toward tyranny and national socialism continues with White House sanctioning and direction, impeachment—or worse--cannot be far off. And the sooner, the better.

(“The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.” Thomas Jefferson, 1816)

(“To preserve the freedom of the human mind…and freedom of the press, every spirit should be rready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement.” Thomas Jefferson, 1799)

More "Public Option" Lies, Spin and Obfuscation

The Administration and the Democratic leadership have continued to label those of us who oppose HR 3200 as un-American mobsters, political hacks, health insurance company shills and, yes, even liars. Very inspired dialogue, indeed. Psychologists would readily characterize this ad hominem tactic as a simple case of guilt transference. But, hey, when one's got a lousy proposal, how else can one attempt to defend it except by attacking those who disagree with it?

The Prez has said that the 9 - 12 million illegal immigrants in the country would NOT be provided healthcare benefits under his plan. If true, then why was Rep. Dean Heller's amendment recently rejected along party lines in the House Ways and Means Committee? If passed, this amendment would have allowed only citizens and legal immigrants to access federal healthcare benefits by requiring two eligibility systems to verify their eligibility, i.e. the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) and the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS). Again, soundly rejected by Committee Democrats.

The Prez has also assured us that we wouldn't lose our private healthcare insurance with his plan. However, the non-partisan Lewin Group found that an estimated 56% of Americans WOULD, in fact, lose their current private health insurance under the House bill. Let me guess: the Lewin Group is also a bunch of misinformed, lying mobsters as well? (Note: the Democrat plan clearly allows employers to opt for the cheaper "public option", and who could possibly blame them?)

And on the issue of abortion, in all four mark-ups of health legislation (three in the House and one in the Senate), conservatives have offered amendments that would specifically prohibit federal funds from being used to cover abortions. Not one of those amendments passed. Instead, the House Energy & Commerce Committee passed an amendment by Rep. Capps which requires at least one insurance plan to cover abortion in every geographical region and further requires the public plan to cover all abortion services.

These items alone are surely sufficient to justify any thinking person's being circumspect about the Administration's vacuous claims.

But, of course, to the Washington elite many of us are but pesky, unwashed, stupid country boobs. But, come on, guys. You gotta' do better than this! OR, better yet, how about scrapping the whole damned thing and do it right. What a refreshingly novel approach to governance that would be.

Obama Healthcare Remedy Disingenuous

By so obscenely labeling genuinely alarmed grassroots Americans as "astroturf" extremists, health insurance company shills and unpatriotic mobsters, Team Obama and their Congressional minions have seriously undermined their credibility and may well have crippled their future political fortunes as well.

Clearly, the Democrats' incoherent and ideologically driven healthcare reform proposal is but a shameless bid for political power and not at all an honest attempt to address the legitimate healthcare needs of an estimated 10 - 13 million American citizens (not 47 million) who are in need of coverage.

Given that nearly 85% of Americans are satisfied with their healthcare, how can the government honestly believe that it can reduce healthcare costs while ensuring highest standards of quality care by simply throwing the baby out with the bath water? Well, it can't. And both Democrats and Republicans alike are quickly figuring that out.

For a less profligate and more common sense approach to reform, let's start with serious torte reform by capping financial awards for successful suits against the medical profession, the elimination of interstate barriers to competition among private insurers, and a very aggressive, widespread and unencumbered fraud prevention program which would rely upon financially incentivized private sector whistleblowers to conduct those investigations. These actions alone would instantly and very dramatically reduce billions in dollars of costs without adversely affecting the quality of care for all of our young and old alike.

As for those Americans saddled with potentially ruinous/catastrophic healthcare costs or coverage issues relating to pre-existing conditions, the states, with federal financial support, should provide an adequate and well-managed taxpayer-funded safety net. Again, initiatives like this would resolve these difficult problems at a fraction of the cost of an onerous and inefficient single-payer system.

Also, if healthcare coverage for all American citizens and legal residents is, in fact, the goal, and not merely the socialist transformation of these United States, then why not 1) federal tax credits to those who earn enough to take advantage of such credits so they can purchase their own coverage, and 2) the outright federal or state purchasing of insurance coverage for those who clearly cannot afford to do so on their own? The cost for these programs would be miniscule when compared to the unaffordable $1.5+ trillion single-payer plan the Administration continues to shamelessly and irresponsibly hawk.

My fear, of course, is that Washington ideologues aren't interested in common sense American solutions. Their goal is to engineer a socialist transformation of our country. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Washington's insufferable disdain for "we the people" is finally getting Americans off their duffs and into townhalls and on the streets. And none too soon. Let's just hope it's not too late to save the Republic.

("Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism." V. Lenin)

("The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between millstones of taxation and inflation." Vladimir Lenin)