In the recent bill proposed by House Democrats, the long term effects was my reasoning for the limited choice result. However, they made having individual private insurance illegal in the bill itself. It wasn't deeply hidden in the over 1,000 page document. It was on page 16. Details from: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854
The article explains three things found in their short reading so far:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts.
Excerpt over. So three big things in the first 16 pages of the health care bill. I knew it would have the long term effects of Socialism on this country, but I never thought the Democrats would mandate its progress to become law. Instead of simply easing us towards a Socialism model, through what I so far had hoped was a lack of understanding in basic economics, they are forcing it on us.
They say healthcare is a right. Apparently freedom of choice only applies to what they want. A good example is the strange divide on guns and abortion. Freedom of choice for an abortion but not for a gun. One gaurantees a death, the other is only meant for defense and hunting with no gaurantee of death. The whole ideology is contradictory. What they say and what they do are completely different. The lies need to end if our country is going to survive.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Protection From Tyranny
The founding fathers made the second amendment in order to make certain that the people could defend themselves from tyranny. If the social contract was broken the people would have the resources to make a new contract through force. This form of upholding the social contract can be implimented in two conditions: our primary method of ensuring the social contract is taken away (voting) or the second method (guns) are taken away. If the government attempts to ban guns the social contract allows for us to have a revolution and use those guns.
However, the primary, and thus far used in all cases except one (the civil war) method of ensuring the social contract is through the use of the vote. The civil war was an abuse of the social contract by those in the South because their right to vote was not taken away nor was their right to a firearm. Today, the right to own a firearm is under constant assault. Luckily, the bans so far have failed.
Should a ban on all non-hunting guns go through the social contract will have been violated and revolution is legitimate. However, unless a massive round up of weapons before it is placed to a vote occurs, the first method is a protection for civility to prevent chaos from occuring. Vote before you shoot. Vote again before you shoot. Never give up your guns, but make sure you hold on to them at the ballot box. Until it is actually taken away, no violence. When they try to take it away, you know tyranny will take away the vote once your ability to ensure the social contract through force is removed.
However, the primary, and thus far used in all cases except one (the civil war) method of ensuring the social contract is through the use of the vote. The civil war was an abuse of the social contract by those in the South because their right to vote was not taken away nor was their right to a firearm. Today, the right to own a firearm is under constant assault. Luckily, the bans so far have failed.
Should a ban on all non-hunting guns go through the social contract will have been violated and revolution is legitimate. However, unless a massive round up of weapons before it is placed to a vote occurs, the first method is a protection for civility to prevent chaos from occuring. Vote before you shoot. Vote again before you shoot. Never give up your guns, but make sure you hold on to them at the ballot box. Until it is actually taken away, no violence. When they try to take it away, you know tyranny will take away the vote once your ability to ensure the social contract through force is removed.
War In Honduras
It is happening right now. The mobilization of Zelaya's forces and the military forces of Mitchelleti are on alert for activity on the Nicaraguan border. From:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAkMGKIUDg_ngUiZboxQbYj5_DPwD99FUKI00
The article says:
Zelaya's foreign minister, Patricia Rodas, said he is "on his way" back, but refused to say how or when he planned to enter Honduras. "Our president will be in Honduras at some point and some moment. He is already on his way." "The establishment and installation of an alternative seat of government will be to direct what I will call the final battle" against leaders of the coup that toppled Zelaya, she said.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez — an ally of Zelaya — said he had spoken with Zelaya and the exiled leader told him: "I don't know if I will die, but I'm going to Honduras."
Rodas [said] that Zelaya's delegation has nothing to negotiate. It will simply demand that the "illegal regime surrender peacefully," and if it doesn't, Zelaya's side will declare the mediation to have failed, she said.
Former Cuban President Fidel Castro blamed the coup in Honduras on the U.S. Embassy and other top regional diplomats appointed by George W. Bush.
Excerpts over. Obviously his method of entry will not be disclosed due to the desire of his staff to see him get in. Now, the demanding of surrender, the creation of a new government for a final battle just seems to be the biggest sign of an intent for bloodshed.
Zelaya wants power now at the cost of his people's lives. Instead of putting his efforts to peaceful negotiations where the entire world is on his side he decides to push a forceful resolution to the crisis.
The world condemned the removing of Zelaya. The world has forgotten about Iran's hundreds of dead, and focused on Honduras. Two people at most, from what I can confirm, have died. The protests in Honduras were allowed to go forward as long as nothing was burned in the streets while people were gunned down in silence protests in Tehran. Obama said we should not meddle in Iran however condemns legal action by the government of Honduras to remove from power a violator of the Constitution.
This madness must stop. Sadly, the world may still support Zelaya when the final battle begins. This continued blind support for Zelaya will give Hugo Chavez a globally passive response to when Zelaya requests his assistance in restoring him to power.
War is coming to Honduras. It started with Zelaya a month ago when he stormed a military base to force the distribution of ballots. Now, how it ends I can not predict. I know that the next path is going to be war and it will most likely come after Saturday.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAkMGKIUDg_ngUiZboxQbYj5_DPwD99FUKI00
The article says:
Zelaya's foreign minister, Patricia Rodas, said he is "on his way" back, but refused to say how or when he planned to enter Honduras. "Our president will be in Honduras at some point and some moment. He is already on his way." "The establishment and installation of an alternative seat of government will be to direct what I will call the final battle" against leaders of the coup that toppled Zelaya, she said.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez — an ally of Zelaya — said he had spoken with Zelaya and the exiled leader told him: "I don't know if I will die, but I'm going to Honduras."
Rodas [said] that Zelaya's delegation has nothing to negotiate. It will simply demand that the "illegal regime surrender peacefully," and if it doesn't, Zelaya's side will declare the mediation to have failed, she said.
Former Cuban President Fidel Castro blamed the coup in Honduras on the U.S. Embassy and other top regional diplomats appointed by George W. Bush.
Excerpts over. Obviously his method of entry will not be disclosed due to the desire of his staff to see him get in. Now, the demanding of surrender, the creation of a new government for a final battle just seems to be the biggest sign of an intent for bloodshed.
Zelaya wants power now at the cost of his people's lives. Instead of putting his efforts to peaceful negotiations where the entire world is on his side he decides to push a forceful resolution to the crisis.
The world condemned the removing of Zelaya. The world has forgotten about Iran's hundreds of dead, and focused on Honduras. Two people at most, from what I can confirm, have died. The protests in Honduras were allowed to go forward as long as nothing was burned in the streets while people were gunned down in silence protests in Tehran. Obama said we should not meddle in Iran however condemns legal action by the government of Honduras to remove from power a violator of the Constitution.
This madness must stop. Sadly, the world may still support Zelaya when the final battle begins. This continued blind support for Zelaya will give Hugo Chavez a globally passive response to when Zelaya requests his assistance in restoring him to power.
War is coming to Honduras. It started with Zelaya a month ago when he stormed a military base to force the distribution of ballots. Now, how it ends I can not predict. I know that the next path is going to be war and it will most likely come after Saturday.
A Blog About Someone Else's Opinion
The following is an examination of the article at the following link:
http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/barack-mcnamara-obama/Content?oid=1106005
The article is a full attack on McNamara and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is a moral loss on the part of the writer, and lies are common. The title says much: Why can't Obama see his wars are unwinnable?
In that title one could presume the discussion may be about the ongoing healthcare crisis, or cap and trade, or the stimulus bills. Instead it is about McNamara's involvement in the war in Vietnam and Obama's involvement (so far) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here is the first problem I had with the article:
Some call McNamara's life tragic. Tragedy-inducing is closer to the truth. Yes, he suffered guilt in his later years. "He wore the expression of a haunted man," wrote the author of his Times obit. "He could be seen in the streets of Washington [D.C.]--stooped, his shirttail flapping in the wind--walking to and from his office a few blocks from the White House, wearing frayed running shoes and a thousand-yard stare." But the men and women and boys and girls blown up by bombs and mines and impaled by bullets and maimed in countless ways deserve more vengeance than a pair of ratty Nikes. Neither McNamara nor LBJ nor the millions of Americans who were for the war merit understanding, much less sympathy.
Excerpt over. To say that one should not attempt to gather understanding or give sympathy to anyone in pain is simply barbaric. The actions of terrorists are terrible and unforgivable. However, one of the most common thoughts about them is "why?". This is because when terrible things happen seeking understanding so that a prevention of future tragedy can be put forward is the most civilized response.
Take the example of the article's writer: McNamara was one of the initiators and promoters of the conflict in Vietnam which caused massive tragedy and suffering. Because he caused suffering when he suffers nobody should ask why or try to help.
Replace the example: A building collapses. The designer has immense remorse and it was his fault for a bad design. Should we not approach the designer to understand why he designed it that way so that we can make sure it doesn't happen again?
This is where the article enters the land of ignorance:
Why can't President Obama imagine himself living in a poor village in Pakistan? Why can't he feel the anger and contempt felt by Pakistanis who hear pilotless drone planes buzzing overhead, firing missiles willy-nilly at civilians and guerilla fighters alike, dispatched by a distant enemy too cowardly to put live soldiers and pilots in harm's way?
Excerpt over. First, the targets are selected on information. The drone bombings, whether legal or not (that arguement isn't made), are not weekend hunting trips that our military goes on. They are based on information that is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. However, the information gives us an enemy target. The willy-nilly approach is a lie.
Then it says we are cowardly for not putting our troops on the ground. We are not allowed by the Pakistani government to place our forces in Pakistan. Now an arguement to the legality of the drone bombings could go forward, but it doesn't. The author mentions World War 2 and the deaths of the Japanese. He writes the following:
At least Japan started the war. What of Afghanistan and Iraq, where approximately 2 million civilians have been killed by U.S. forces? Neither country attacked us. Shouldn't George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest be prosecuted as war criminals? Why not Obama? After all, Obama is leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq after the war there is supposedly coming to an end. He's escalating the unjustifiable, unwinnable tragedy in Afghanistan--there are 68,000 U.S. troops there now, probably going up to 100,000 by next year--while spreading the conflict into Pakistan.
Excertp over. The death toll is completely wrong. The highest of estimates have been proven false as they include repeat numbers. They are based on news reports, and combined reports of the same attacks. Iraq was a war we started. Afghanistan? This person should look up 9/11, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. Then, look on a map and see that the areas Al Qaeda and the Taliban were most active in was: Afghanistan. We were attacked.
Afghanistan was just justified in the paragraph before this one, and we should leave the odds to win to our forces fighting there. I haven't lost any trust in them. I'm sure they can do it.
The conflict in Pakistan is not being done by American forces. Pakistan is attacking the Taliban after a series of suicide bombings broke a cease-fire signed earlier in the year. It is not Obama's fault that the Taliban do not keep their word and attack civilians provoking a response by the Pakistani government.
He continues:
Like McNamara, Obama doesn't understand a basic truth: You can't successfully manage an inherently doomed premise. Colonialism is dead. Occupiers will never enjoy peace. Neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis nor the Pakistanis will rest until we withdraw our forces. The only success we will find is in accepting defeat sooner rather than later.
Excerpt over. Colonialism did have a hand in Vietnam when the French fought. We were fighting for an independant South Vietnamese state. The full evidence for this is the fact that we never put troops in North Vietnam. We were only defending the sovereignty of South Vietnam. As for colonialism in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iraq may have oil but it has multiple personality syndrome in the form of three ethnic groups that can't seem to live with each other. Afghanistan? It has field after field of illegal drugs. Not much of a gold mine there.
The Pakistani people, although some join the Taliban, are mostly in favor of the goverment of Pakistan. They are not an enemy of the United States. Nor are the people of Afghanistan. As a whole, most are peaceful. Iraq, same thing. It is so peaceful in Iraq we are now able to end full operations.
Finally:
. "We didn't know our opposition," concluded McNamara. "So the first lesson is know your opponents. I want to suggest to you that we don't know our potential opponents today."
Actually, it's worse than that. Then, like now, we don't have opponents. We create them.
Excerpt over. We create them? We created 9/11? The U.S.S. Cole bombing? The embassy bombings worldwide? The first Trade Center bombing? That was just off the top of my head. We invented Al Qaeda and pursue that figment of our imaginations at the cost of lives and money with no enemy in Afghanistan?
The writer should respond to my statements however contact information was not given.
http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/barack-mcnamara-obama/Content?oid=1106005
The article is a full attack on McNamara and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is a moral loss on the part of the writer, and lies are common. The title says much: Why can't Obama see his wars are unwinnable?
In that title one could presume the discussion may be about the ongoing healthcare crisis, or cap and trade, or the stimulus bills. Instead it is about McNamara's involvement in the war in Vietnam and Obama's involvement (so far) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here is the first problem I had with the article:
Some call McNamara's life tragic. Tragedy-inducing is closer to the truth. Yes, he suffered guilt in his later years. "He wore the expression of a haunted man," wrote the author of his Times obit. "He could be seen in the streets of Washington [D.C.]--stooped, his shirttail flapping in the wind--walking to and from his office a few blocks from the White House, wearing frayed running shoes and a thousand-yard stare." But the men and women and boys and girls blown up by bombs and mines and impaled by bullets and maimed in countless ways deserve more vengeance than a pair of ratty Nikes. Neither McNamara nor LBJ nor the millions of Americans who were for the war merit understanding, much less sympathy.
Excerpt over. To say that one should not attempt to gather understanding or give sympathy to anyone in pain is simply barbaric. The actions of terrorists are terrible and unforgivable. However, one of the most common thoughts about them is "why?". This is because when terrible things happen seeking understanding so that a prevention of future tragedy can be put forward is the most civilized response.
Take the example of the article's writer: McNamara was one of the initiators and promoters of the conflict in Vietnam which caused massive tragedy and suffering. Because he caused suffering when he suffers nobody should ask why or try to help.
Replace the example: A building collapses. The designer has immense remorse and it was his fault for a bad design. Should we not approach the designer to understand why he designed it that way so that we can make sure it doesn't happen again?
This is where the article enters the land of ignorance:
Why can't President Obama imagine himself living in a poor village in Pakistan? Why can't he feel the anger and contempt felt by Pakistanis who hear pilotless drone planes buzzing overhead, firing missiles willy-nilly at civilians and guerilla fighters alike, dispatched by a distant enemy too cowardly to put live soldiers and pilots in harm's way?
Excerpt over. First, the targets are selected on information. The drone bombings, whether legal or not (that arguement isn't made), are not weekend hunting trips that our military goes on. They are based on information that is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. However, the information gives us an enemy target. The willy-nilly approach is a lie.
Then it says we are cowardly for not putting our troops on the ground. We are not allowed by the Pakistani government to place our forces in Pakistan. Now an arguement to the legality of the drone bombings could go forward, but it doesn't. The author mentions World War 2 and the deaths of the Japanese. He writes the following:
At least Japan started the war. What of Afghanistan and Iraq, where approximately 2 million civilians have been killed by U.S. forces? Neither country attacked us. Shouldn't George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest be prosecuted as war criminals? Why not Obama? After all, Obama is leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq after the war there is supposedly coming to an end. He's escalating the unjustifiable, unwinnable tragedy in Afghanistan--there are 68,000 U.S. troops there now, probably going up to 100,000 by next year--while spreading the conflict into Pakistan.
Excertp over. The death toll is completely wrong. The highest of estimates have been proven false as they include repeat numbers. They are based on news reports, and combined reports of the same attacks. Iraq was a war we started. Afghanistan? This person should look up 9/11, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. Then, look on a map and see that the areas Al Qaeda and the Taliban were most active in was: Afghanistan. We were attacked.
Afghanistan was just justified in the paragraph before this one, and we should leave the odds to win to our forces fighting there. I haven't lost any trust in them. I'm sure they can do it.
The conflict in Pakistan is not being done by American forces. Pakistan is attacking the Taliban after a series of suicide bombings broke a cease-fire signed earlier in the year. It is not Obama's fault that the Taliban do not keep their word and attack civilians provoking a response by the Pakistani government.
He continues:
Like McNamara, Obama doesn't understand a basic truth: You can't successfully manage an inherently doomed premise. Colonialism is dead. Occupiers will never enjoy peace. Neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis nor the Pakistanis will rest until we withdraw our forces. The only success we will find is in accepting defeat sooner rather than later.
Excerpt over. Colonialism did have a hand in Vietnam when the French fought. We were fighting for an independant South Vietnamese state. The full evidence for this is the fact that we never put troops in North Vietnam. We were only defending the sovereignty of South Vietnam. As for colonialism in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iraq may have oil but it has multiple personality syndrome in the form of three ethnic groups that can't seem to live with each other. Afghanistan? It has field after field of illegal drugs. Not much of a gold mine there.
The Pakistani people, although some join the Taliban, are mostly in favor of the goverment of Pakistan. They are not an enemy of the United States. Nor are the people of Afghanistan. As a whole, most are peaceful. Iraq, same thing. It is so peaceful in Iraq we are now able to end full operations.
Finally:
. "We didn't know our opposition," concluded McNamara. "So the first lesson is know your opponents. I want to suggest to you that we don't know our potential opponents today."
Actually, it's worse than that. Then, like now, we don't have opponents. We create them.
Excerpt over. We create them? We created 9/11? The U.S.S. Cole bombing? The embassy bombings worldwide? The first Trade Center bombing? That was just off the top of my head. We invented Al Qaeda and pursue that figment of our imaginations at the cost of lives and money with no enemy in Afghanistan?
The writer should respond to my statements however contact information was not given.
My Proposed Honduras Settlement
To continue proving Republicans are the true alternative, I continue providing solutions. In Honduras, for the best outcome Mitchelleti should resign, Zelaya endorse the Supreme Court president to the presidency, and Honduras should hold an emergency presidential election in which Zelaya, Mitchelleti, and the Supreme Court president can not be on the ballot. Zelaya's endorsement of the Supreme Court president would legitimize the government and thus the election. Honduran people would have the final choice in this situation as it should be in a Democracy. Zelaya will be granted amnesty and allowed to reunite with his family.
WASHINGTON, July 16 (RIA Novosti) - The White House has expressed sadness over the abduction and murder of Russian human rights activist Natalya Estemirova in the North Caucasus, and called on the Russian government to bring the killers to justice.
Excerpt over. I completely agree. Too many Russian activists and critics have been killed without justice in the past five years. A Democracy is accountable to its citizens and should always remember that its citizens choose whether or not those in power stay in power. The time for political assassinations and the silencing of opposition in Russia must pass.
Excerpt over. I completely agree. Too many Russian activists and critics have been killed without justice in the past five years. A Democracy is accountable to its citizens and should always remember that its citizens choose whether or not those in power stay in power. The time for political assassinations and the silencing of opposition in Russia must pass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
