Today I’ve read with amazement these words of James Madison from Federalist Paper #10:

“ The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is…an insuperable obstacle to an uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties. “

How many of us are taught that the founders were not only aware of the potential for a free society to divide into classes of “haves” and “have nots”, but they considered it the primary role of government to protect this inequality of property? In fact, Madison goes on to say that increasing the number of “parties” (by which he means interests and classes as described above) within a republic directly contributes to the security of liberty. Wow!

We are sold the liberal-progressive mantra that the only important type of diversity is based on culture…or more specifically race and sex? Do you believe you can look at a picture of a group of people and determine if it is diverse? Are we not led to believe you cannot have a “diverse” group of people unless it includes a person of color, a woman, and a Muslim? Never mind whether they all share the same views on government, economics, values, resources, or any of the other factors that determine the course of mankind. Our founders embraced diversity too, but of thought and opinion. Further, they were aware of the impact of your environment on shaping thought and sought to protect people of all classes respecting this diversity. People should be given equal opportunity and equal voice, but not guaranteed equal outcome. Diversity of culture is important too, but is secondary to diversity of thought and opinion to shaping any successful enterprise. It is an age old and proven axiom that leaders who surround themselves with “yes men”, people that offer no counter-argument, are doomed to failure because of the myopia of their enterprise. It matters not if these sycophants are culturally diverse. It is the emphasis on diversity of capability, knowledge and opinion that allows our unique and special American society to get beyond the cultural differences that tear many other societies apart.

The liberal-progressive dream is to bring the poor out of poverty by taking the money from the rich making the entire society a generic and bland middle-class; where none can excel and none can suffer. No more would we be inspired by amazing rags to riches stories of self-made millionaires and people that have overcome incredible adversity. None would be inspired to excel because excelling wouldn’t be permitted. Instead, additional focus would be placed on our cultural differences as that would be the only way to distinguish ourselves…unless the progressives decided those cultural differences were not allowed to exist either. We’d all be born into and die in a grey society of eunuchs, eventually crushed under the weight of our apathy; or, our society would tear itself apart at the cultural seams. These are the end states of the liberal-progressive ideas of equality and diversity. 

In the 60s, Reagan warned us of the danger of accepting socialized medicine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYrlDlrLDSQ). His warning was that the introduction of socialized medicine would be a stepping stone for other socialism and eventually lead to the undoing of our republic. In the late hours of 3/21 he was proven right.

The weed sown in the 60s was Medicare. Of course, we all love Medicare and the wonderful benefits it delivers. It is great...right up to the point where it goes bankrupt. I'm sure Madoff's customers felt the exact same way. Medicare is a massive Ponzi scheme and its bankruptcy has only been delayed a few years by replacing it with a bigger Ponzi scheme - Obamacare (the Senate Health Care bill).

The Obama formula is not new. It is currently employed in Massachusetts; and it is failing miserably. The Massachusetts state treasurer Tim Cahill (a democrat turned independent) tells us that the Massachusetts system has a $300 million deficit and rationing of services has started; all of this after only three years in existence (ref. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589754,00.html). This is why the most liberal state in the union, where Ted Kennedy, the father of universal health care served, elected a republican whose main platform was to stop Obamacare. Even the liberal people of Massachusetts find socialized medicine repugnant. Further, the Massachusetts system would be dead today had Massachusetts not been saved financially by the federal government. Who will save the United States when Obamacare brings our financial system to collapse; something the treasurer of Massachusetts predicts will happen in four years (ibid)?

The Obamacare formula is also used by most European nations. Supporters of today's bill point to this as a measure of America’s backward and inhumane thinking. Europe is leading us in socialized medicine. They are also leading us in the age of their diagnostic technology, post treatment mortality rates for cardiac issues, and most common forms of cancer (ref. http://stanford.wellsphere.com/healthcare-industry-policy-article/concord-study-us-and-canada-have-top-rates-of-cancer-survival/413611, and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234276/Britain-sick-man-Europe-Heart-cancer-survival-rates-worst-developed-world.html). Mortality rates in some cases as much as 60% higher than in the US. It is no wonder that the heads of state and aristocracy from Europe, the Middle East, Canada, and just about every where hold their own private medical care or come to the United States for specialized treatments.

Common sense tells us not to reserve a spot in the garden to grow a patch of weeds. The weeds take up good growing space and will eventually takeover the garden. The weed we planted in the 60's is proving the wisdom of this metaphor. The roots for the Obamacare bill, in legal as well as practical terms, can be traced directly to the formation of Medicare. Other weeds such as Executive Orders, the Patriot Act, the Community Reinvestment Act, and corruption have sprung around this weed. 

How do we spot the weeds? We do so by personally understanding the Constitution and familiarizing ourselves with the writings of the founders. Despite what our public education would lead us to believe, it is clear that our Nation’s foundation was Divinely inspired, based on the limitation of the centralized government and the strength of the people. The founders also believed our rights are given by God and Nature, and the laws should be consistent with these rights. These God given natural rights guarantee our ability to strive, not to thrive; to act, not to have. Through these rights man is blessed with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not guaranteed goods or services. This is how nature works and it is inviolate.  Rights so given cannot be revoked by man because they are not defined and resourced by man. The limited roll of government is to protect these rights. This foundation provided the structure for making the United States the wealthiest, most educated nation in history in 125 short years producing over 50% of the world’s food and goods with only 6% of the population (ref. Skousen). 

During the past 100 years, the liberal progressives in both parties have attempted to define a new set of rights. These rights enumerated by FDR include the right to health care, the right to a home, the right to food, the right to a living wage, and others. Unlike the natural rights guaranteed by the Founders in the Constitution, these rights can only be provided by moving goods and services from a person who has them to those who don’t. The progressives believe that if you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody. Sound familiar? They have played on the compassion of the producers in this country to pass laws for each of these misguided new rights. Interestingly, while they use compassion as a weapon, they have none of it themselves. In every population including our own, the progressive agenda has resulted in little if any benefit, and has often resulted in oppression, despotism, and even genocide. It is only because of the progressive’s arrogance that they continue to try the socialist form.

So, I asked myself ‘what do we do now?’ Here are a few ideas. Oppose with the utmost fervour any and all additional expansion of the Federal government. Work with equal diligence on the dismantling of the Federal bureaucracy while providing some transition services for those who have become dependant upon the government teet. Strengthen our state and local governments and make sure they are proactively addressing the people’s work so the need for centralized Federal government is diminished. Send only candidates with honour, integrity and a love of this country and an understanding of its history to represent you in government. Mandate term limits and allow a line item veto to help prevent undue influence and earmarks. Teach our children and talk to young people about the Founders and why they believed in limited government; the success it has brought to our country and the utter failure of communist/socialist forms. Finally, make it personal; get involved in politics, be a good citizen, and live your life as an example for others to follow.

...in Defense.  The continuation of F-22 production to the 480 aircraft the US Air Force says it needs would save 100,000 jobs at $42 billion in cost.  Move forward with the Air Force tanker acquisition, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and the replacement of many aging military systems.  Commercialize the logistic support of these systems.  These simple measures WOULD create millions of jobs while not expanding the role of government beyond it's Constitutional mandate.  It would have the added benefit of assuring the security of our nation.  Why are Defense programs being cut while the Administration is looking for programs to stimulate the economy? 

What is the President thinking?  First, he claims the loss in Massachusetts is because health care and change didn't happen fast enough.  Really?  A state with a 50 year tradition of electing Democratic candidates elected a Republican senator that campaigned on blocking health care reform and less government.  And, this was done because the citizens of Massachusetts secretly wanted more change?  Really?

Now the President is after the banks.  He's trying to nationalize student loans and fee large banks to repay TARP.  The same banks he is trying to break-up through new regulation.  Really?  So, the large banks, who coincidentally have repaid their bailout...with hundreds of millions in interest, are evil  and must be held accountable for the repayment of the remaining TARP funds.  And, do it while subject to regulation to limit their size and scope.  Really?

The President is not a dumb man.  So, what is he thinking, really?

On 12/11 I received a reply from your office outlining why you are supporting the Senate health care reform legislation. There are a number of disturbing points in your reply, but one point you made that is common among your colleagues I find particularly offensive. In your response you indicated that "Senator Reid's bill will reduce the Federal budget deficit by $130 billion over ten years."

You are naive to believe that adding (100s of ?) millions of recipients and expanding benefits on a Federal system already so over budget that it is on the verge of bankruptcy will result in savings. Or, you believe your constituents to be stupid and forgetful. In either case, your position shows that you are unfit for service. I will actively and monetarily support your opponent in the next election.