My Political Philosophy

Here are some of my thoughts on Washington, D.C.

Congressional offices need term limits. If an elected official is in the nation's capital for the sole purpose of representing his constituents, he will not feel the need to wade into political pastures outside of his calling like the regulation of steroid use in Major League Baseball, and inquiries into pay raises and bonuses of private corporations. How much tax-payer money is wasted on each of these hearings, and what else could be getting accomplished with all that effort? If you want to see politicians run on true identities and absolute platforms, let them know that they can only be there for a few election cycles. I promise this will cut excess "pork" spending, end unnecessary government programs, and make for a trustworthy entity, whose approval rating will be able to rise above 30%.

Lobbying groups and lobbyists are a legitimate part of bureaucracy. Do they have an easier time achieving personal contact with members of Congress and their staffs? Yes, they do. Do they have as much of an influence on the voting trend of our representatives, as groups without lobbyists claim? Probably not, because in the end, who controls whether that Congressman is elected back to Washington?

Congress and its committees need to remain out of private sector issues, fixing a naturally climate issue, and issues involving the intelligence programs and military activities that are above their security level.

For the most part, our elected officials are active members of their communities: doctors, lawyers, educators, and so on. There are a few who are career politicians, but none are experts in multiple or, most often, any field.

Right now, America is in the middle of a bitter dispute over Obama-care, a nationalized insurance ring that will have an affect initially over every sector of the medical and pharmaceutical fields, but will expand to raise costs on nearly every other practice and work area also. A major complaint is that none of the members of Congress are experts on this issue; of the 535 members of Congress, a whopping 16 are medical doctors, and eleven are Republicans against any form of this health care overhaul. That's 3% of Congress. It seems like if anything, any and all reform should be left up to them, because compared to the other 97% of Congress, they're the experts.

This type of ineptitude is seen all over Congress, and in some places it is quite dangerous. 121 members of Congress have military service, but many of those who are not veteran's of the U.S. military still have leadership positions in committees dealing with foreign affairs, military funding, and intelligence. Just as you wouldn't want your mechanic telling you how to complete your taxes, or lawyers on how to regiment your health care, non-experienced politicians shouldn't be seated in positions of power over career military personnel. Many of these committees require security clearances that are definitely not granted to average citizens, so, pardon me, but, why does a former teacher or banker now qualify to be briefed on top-secret and classified information? As we unfortunately see on a daily basis, swiss cheese is better at stopping leaks than our members of Congress and their staffs.

There is too much information floating around on every type of issue for Congress to become experts on every topic. With the American people's support, we can lasso Congress back to its roots and back to the issues that it was created to resolve.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't need to know how the CIA stops terrorist attacks, and Al Franken doesn't need to tell my doctor how to care for me.

When we as Americans begin to have more self-respect for ourselves than our nonchalant attitude towards Congress, they will begin to listen and will vote our thoughts and our beliefs, not just their agendas.

This is what I believe. Together, you and I will be a revolution.

The Beginning and Utilization of my Philosophy

(Sorry for the length of time between posts)

America, without question, is the greatest and most successful experiment in nation-building the world has ever known. What has led that development is the innate characteristic found within every man. That goal is the desire and pursuit of self-fulfillment and success. Innovation, entrepreneurship, initiative, ambition, and success are all pieces of the American puzzle. And each has played an exacting part on the development of our nation in the physical sense as well as in the psychology of its citizens.

From the development of the colonies from empty earth to the perfection of automated machinery, and to the development of the rule of a democratic republic to the international hegemony earned following the victory of the Second World War, the United States, and those it inspires, has led the world to heights never before possible. And no form of government has peacefully outlasted the one in which we own.


The Constitution was created as an everlasting document and it has and continues to serve its purpose, sporting a mere twenty-seven alterations and additions. This government of ours provides for us and by us the security we need to develop to our greatest potential. Unfortunately, it is now our government that is beginning to deprive us of our ability to develop to our fullest potential.

Now, we are using our Constitution as a crutch to enable our habits and wants to get around difficult decisions. We have begun to question the ultimate legitimacy of the Constitution, because it doesn't fit well with the rest of the world. We want the government to run parts of our private sector because we believe it can do it better. We want the community to have sole responsibility over the raising of our children. And we want the Constitution to say the things that it does not and can not say.

"The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things." Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Proponents and opponents want to use the Constitution to rule on the legality of marriage. In the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution states: "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." Simply put, because the issue of marriage is not found anywhere in the text of the Constitution, it is an issue belonging to the states and the individuals of those states solely. Therefore, any state can create legislation as it wishes regarding the legality or illegality surrounding marriages.

Abortions are another issue in which the Constitution is used to argue both sides, and unfortunately, the issue was forced by the Roe v. Wade case to allow the federal government's regulation of abortion options. This is an issue left solely for the citizens of a state. Arguing that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows for regulation of abortion laws is ludicrous. This is a decision completely left open to the states, just as is capital punishment, ironically.

Furthermore, as our nation rode a great wave of flourishing economic and intellectual growth in the second half of the Twentieth century, a shift began to start moving away from the idea of "What can I do for my country?" to "What else can my country do for me?". The majority of these thinkers can be considered "no-liability voters". Why give them such a name? They don't pay for public services in any way, hence they have no liability to anyone.

Welfare recipients, Medicaid patients, Housing and Urban Development beneficiaries, and other government funded individuals are almost always in the lowest taxable bracket, or fall completely under that threshold. They have very little "skin in the game," and have no inkling to enact a change in their lifestyle. As long as they continue to benefit from politicians promising no change to their program, they will continue to vote for him, no matter what other issues he advocates. Due to the political split of big government/small government these voters will continue to vote solely for Democratic politicians. This is very dangerous for America.

These no-liability voters give politicians a base, and elected officials know this. Get a population with 51% being no-liability voters, and you have yourself a never-ending dominance of political power.

No-liability voters are at the forefront calling for government-run insurance programs. And those who are just above the standards recognized for a no-liability voter are the very next ones in line, as they want to join in the "free" parade. Put those two groups together and Democrats have a majority voting block. Both of those classes know that they will not be paying for their benefits, but that doesn't matter to them, they are "no-liability", remember?

It is at this point that I want to announce the beginning of my campaign. I wish to challenge those individuals as well as the rest of our nation to stand up and have self-respect. Have dignity. Have honor. Get up in the morning and get to work. Educate yourself, advance, and make yourself better in the work place, as well as in the home. In a free market economy, the most efficient, outgoing, advantageous people are the ones who succeed. The "no-liability voter" mentality cannot survive in such an atmosphere. It can only drag us down.

Our Constitution does not live and it does not breathe. It doesn't say what it doesn't say. We can't sit back and expect the world to open doors for us.

We have to build the doors first.

This is what I believe. Come with me if you do, too.

(More to come soon)

A Smorgasbord Post

After a slight hiatus, TEOTW is back. We are also now on Twitter, so feel free to follow us and keep up to date on new blog posts and quick news. Now to our posts.

Over the weekend, the excellence of the U.S. military and the defining spirit of the American people was put on display for the world to see. After being taken captive by Somali pirates, a U.S. cargo ship captain kept his cool about him until an elite squad of U.S. Navy SEALS were able to eliminate his captors to allow him to escape. It made for wonderful news coverage, albeit no one was ever exactly sure where the entire event was taking place, nor what it looked like. Throughout the entire ordeal, we were made sure to know by the MSM that President Obama was being briefed and kept up-to-date on the situation. Then after the rescue/escape his administration finally came out with a statement, glorifying the graciousness of the President for signing an order to authorize lethal force if necessary. That's great! Except, it was not necessary for him to authorize anything. It was a hostage situation with a non-national entity; the military was in complete control of the situation from beginning to end, regardless if Obama signed a document or not.

For example, imagine a bank robbery in which hostages are involved. Will the SWAT team wait for executive approval from D.C., before they take down the hostage-taker if possible?

Obama and Rahm Emmanuel were sitting in Washington waiting for the outcome, ready to pounce on any good news and push themselves away from anything negative. Thankfully for our nation, we heard nothing but good news, but unfortunately we now have to live with the gloating of the Administration, as if they had been the snipers aiming at a ship tossing in the open ocean taking the impossible shots at a group of pirates with a hostage.

Over the weekend, one of the NBC shows was speaking to it's White House correspondent, and the conversation turned to the economy. Of course, being part of the MSM, they were busy talking about the need for greater regulation on corporations, easing of lending for homeowners to prevent foreclosures and the like. At the end of the conversation, the anchor opined that "Americans will just have to get used to the 'new normal.'" The correspondent readily agreed, citing Administration plans to level the economic playing field through continued increases in progressive taxation. This new normal is lower wages, lower yearly incomes, lower economic progress and lower expectations when it comes to anything "American." Is this "new" normal a result of the economic recession? Absolutely not; it is due completely to the policies of the administration and its dressing down of the economy. When taxes are increased, services are provided by the government instead of the free market, and private corporations are forced to deal with the reality that if they fall out of line they can be taken over all bode terribly for the economy not only in the short-term, but also for the long-run.

Finally, we have come to a new low for the American psyche. We have gotten ourselves to a point where we take the words of politicians at an elevated level, assuming that because they have been elected to Congress they are smarter than we are. Congress is made up of lawyers, doctors, teachers, business owners, and life-long government employees. Just because they won an election for Senator or won a majority of 350,000 votes for a House district they are not granted an immediate influx of knowledge. So why do we trust them to spend money, create policy and change the American way of life? Because they've held hearings? Because they won? Because they can?

It has just come out that so far in 2009, $19.6 billion has already been earmarked for pork projects. Anonymous spending without any type of approval from anyone, except those who are writing them in. Plans to restrict open airwaves for whatever type of political commentary because it isn't fair that the free market doesn't include everyone (even if no one listens to some). Cutting defense spending to increase welfare entitlements. Backing down on democratic principals established throughout the last century to open dialogue with extreme fundamentalist, communist, and totalitarian governments. The steps that these individuals are taking because they don't think you know any better are out of control. Every member of Congress must be brought to accountability by the members of their district for the deeds they have done and the attitudes they have developed.

If possible, please attend a Tax Day Tea Party tomorrow, April 15th, to protest the federal government and its outrageous spending habits. We'll be in Mobile, Ala., tomorrow at 12 noon and we look forward to seeing you there.

Balancing Those Who Write the Checks

(Article written by guest author, Drew Moore)

Since the inception of the FED in 1913, that organization has been shrouded in secrecy. The FED is responsible for our money, and our dollar is subject to a fractional reserve banking system. Over time, the FED has printed more money and raised or lowered interest rates to affect money supply and policy. In short, the dollar has been beaten and bruised. I would argue that the FED is not necessary and is unconstitutional because the Founders said "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts," but for the time being we have the Federal Reserve.

The president's administration has said on numerous occasions that there needs to be transparency in our government. Now you can argue whether the taxpayer is or isn't getting that, but that discussion is for another day. H.R. 1207 is a bill that has been introduced by the good Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX). This bill calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve. Now you may say why an audit? Well in 2008 there was a bailout with the price being $700B, can anyone tell me where ALL the money went to? If you can please contact me, if you can't then pause for a moment and think: This is just one isolated point in time where we don't know what happened to all that money. Now expand that thought to almost 100 years and still we the American people are in the dark.

In 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted, enforcing rigid audit requirements on businesses. Now, if the Federal Reserve is separate from the government, just like private businesses who face staunch regulation, why isn't the Fed. audited? I believe that an audit would show that you and I have been robbed. But as mentioned above there is real substance in H.R. 1207.

As a Libertarian minded Republican, this really gives me hope. But no matter if you are a Democrat or Republican, we have common ground found in liberty. The passage of this would be a giant step on the path to restoring our Republic, in the area of economic liberty. From one American to another, please read 1207, then contact your representative and urge them to read/support/co-sponsor this piece of legislation, H.R. 1207. Let's open the books of the Federal Reserve, together we can fix the crack in the liberty bell and this is the first step.

In Liberty,

Drew Moore

ADDENDUM: Click here to access the database for Congressional contacts both in Washington, D.C., and in local district offices.

GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE

This week, Congress and the Administration have come out with their hands raised in exasperation.

Knock it off.

They are complaining about $165 million in bonuses given to AIG executives. Ok, I understand the frustration that AIG were given bailout funds, but they were contractually owed, and in your stimulus bill, Mr. President - that you signed and all members of your party in Congress read (in the 12 hours from writing it to passing), a provision was inserted saying that all bonuses promised before February 11, 2009 could and would be paid.

Stop complaining - you let them do it! Quit trying to act like you had no idea. AIG turned over all its financial records to Geithner for him to review before approving more funds to be given to AIG. He either didn't take the time to read about the bonuses, or didn't care.

What's worse is that now your talking about raising taxes on just the people who got the bonuses from these companies. The House wants to put a 90% tax on individuals who receive a bonus from a company that received $5 billion in bailout funds. Besides being a violation of the Constitution (Bill of Attainder - Article I, Section 9, Clause 3; Ex Post Facto laws - Article I, Section 9, Clause 3), Congress and Obama are setting a precedent that if you make too much money or the federal government thinks that you are doing wrong, then it can take away your income. That does not make sense! Let me say it again:

Even if what your doing is not illegal, if the government deems it to be wrong they will take away your money.

Finally, this issue is minuscule. $165 million in bonuses. While to most Americans it seems like an unbelievable amount, think about this: $3.1 billion, with a 'B', in earmarks were slid through the latest spending bill. Why does no one care about that. How many individuals will be affected by each one of those dollars. At least with these bonuses, the money will be pumped back in to the economy. If $200,000 is granted to build a statute at a high school, where is the long-term financial benefit? The debate over this is utterly hypocritical.

Stop acting as if you, the Democratic Party and President Obama, are offended by this action and result. You let it happen. Senator Dodd has come out and admitted that he inserted the language that allowed the bonuses to be paid at the behest of the Executive Branch. Treasury Secretary Geithner either missed the bonuses or ignored them completely, one or the other. President Obama, you should have vetoed this legislation if you did not want these retaining bonuses to be paid. You are trying to save political face and you are violating the Constitution and the Judicial Branch will shoot your legislation down swiftly and exactly.

I do not care about the bonuses. Not one bit. And secretly, I think, neither do you, Mr. President, Mrs. Speaker, and other Democrats in Congress and throughout D.C. Here is my assumption:

This is a trying time in our nation. A small, undercurrent and counter-culture group is attempting to change the mindset of the citizens of the United States. You are angering the masses towards wealth. Those with wealth and excess wealth are inherently evil. They are the bad guys. It is the wealthy's fault for those who do without. You wish to tax the wealthy and the established in order to be fair to those who are not as well off. And this bonus situation gave you the platform to continue your movement. A mere $165 million and the wealthy are nothing but corrupt and incompetent. They are thieves of our citizen's money. If you can make the masses hate wealth, you can make everyone believe that mediocracy is valuable. If you make people believe that unnecessary sacrifice is patriotic, you can change the world. You can kill capitalism if you can make people believe that no one is smarter, better, or more valuable than anyone else.

The new members of the Democratic Party are trying to shift our nation away from our foundations and everything that the United States has stood for for over two centuries. Playing the blame game in this bonus situation, stirring up imaginary conflicts among members of the Republican Party, and attacking dissenting members of the media are all attempts by this new movement to hide their true actions - nationalizing corporations, over-regulating the economy, constricting wealth, and promoting the educational agenda of socialist/left-wing organizations.

We must not let the wool be pulled over our eyes. Keeping the Constitution at the forefront of every issue is the best way to defeat this attempted governmental conversion. Stay strong, fight for liberty, defend capitalism, and always respect the Constitution and we can never go wrong.

Leading by Example - Presidential Style

"No Earmarks!"
"No Signing Statements!"
"No Lobbyists!"
"No Back-room Politics as usual!"
"Spending Cuts and No Tax Increases!"

While a majority of our nation was swept up in the "shock and awe" of Obama's campaigning, most of his supporter's have been swept under the rug when it comes to the actualization of his campaign promises. For those who have never been behind Obama's ideas or visions, we have been completely thrown under the bus. It seems that 95% of Americans will not see their taxes "not rise." 100% of Americans will see some of their inalienable rights alienated. And politics are no longer "as usual," but are regressing further and further.

Obama has outright lied to the American people. He promised to veto any legislation that came to his desk with earmarks. Yet this past week he passed the $410 billion bill to continue government funding for the rest of the fiscal year. And the bill was laden with 4,000 earmarks. His excuse: we have no choice. Great example for the youth of America - say one thing and do another, and place the blame on someone else. Remember, we're in the financial crisis not because of Obama, but because President Bush drug us here.

In his attempt to take focus off of his administrations failures so far (multiple appointments crashing and buring in regards to taxes; inability to avoid lobbyists or earmarks; increasing troop numbers in foreign conflicts and extending his own proscribed deadline for bringing troops out of Iraq) the administration has used its mainstream media (MSM) cult following to shine the camera on voices of opposition. Labeling Rush Limbaugh as the head of the GOP, questioning how Sean Hannity can fuel the fire of Republican opposition, claiming the Republicans in the House of Representatives are the "Party of No," and using Robert Gibbs to belittle dissenters of the administrations economic plans, i.e. Cramer and Santelli. When will he stop being so PARTISAN. Making other people look evil does not make them evil, it makes you the bad guy.

50+ days in and the country is in much worse shape than it was at any point of the Bush Administration. But Obama continues to refuse to "let the buck stop here."

The Government and Medicine

Today, let us talk about the growing movement to nationalize, or should I say "standardize" the medical field. The Obama Administration has laid out plans to spend at least $634 billion (page 67) over the next ten years to expand health care in the nation. In it's budget, half of the "down payment" will come from raised taxes and revoked tax write-offs from those earning $250,000 or more a year.

Before I get started, however, we'll go over a few facts. Obama claims that 45 million people in this nation don't have health insurance. In other words, 85% of us do, and 15% don't. When the numbers are put that way, it doesn't sound like such a crisis, huh? Of those 45 million, 18 million make $50,000 or more a year, 10 million of those are at atleast $75,000 a year. 10 million more aren't even U.S. citizens. Finally, of those remaining not already covered, 14 million qualify for Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP, but simply aren't signed up. But that's ok, American's should have to sacrifice for those too lazy or cheap to get around to providing for themselves.

New York Post

What was it that the most liked member of the Kennedy dynasty said? "[S]o, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country." Too bad that idea was flushed out to sea with Johnson's Great Society, bringing entitlement programs to many and a "couldn't care less" inclination to most.

1986 can be looked at as a year in which Congress openly invited illegal aliens to flock to our giving nation. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act guarantees anyone, no matter their legal status, funding - anything - access to medical care, even with foreknowledge that payment cannot or will not ever be paid. Free emergency health care.

Wait, what about the Hippocratic Oath; doctors would never deny a person in immediate need, right? On one hand, no. If treatment was pertinent and necessary, doctors are held to a moral standard to save lives, but this law required them to perform any emergency task without even the chance of being remunerated.

Welcome, citizens of Mexico, who snaked your way through Arizona backcountry with a child who broke his leg on the way through; we'll pay your bill to fix him. Welcome, Mr. Canadian, who could no longer wait the weeks to get a doctor's appointment in your own country because of nationalized healthcare, but instead crossed in to Minnesota to back up our emergency rooms even more. Welcome, unemployed high school diploma holder, who instead of going to college, decided to provide for yourself by stealing and reselling copper wiring and sheeting from construction sites and lacerated your arm jumping over the barbed wire fencing around your crime scene; we'll stitch you right up and send you out the door, no cost to you.

Now, do we feel sorry for these people or for the doctors and hospitals losing their profits? Neither, the hospitals pass on the lost income to those who do pay: the patients with health insurance, the patients with the capability to pay their way. Thanks, Congress.

So far, we've seen how the federal government involving itself has done nothing but clog our health system and consequently indangered our health and safety, but that's the past. We now have to look forward for CHANGE.

Even with all the Fed interventions, we have seen our life expectancies climb up to near 80 years. Also, because the government has been blocked out of the research and development of drugs and medicine, private companies have been able to venture, investigate, and experiment with a huge variety of sciences in attempts to increase the overall health of the nation to even higher grounds.

Now, we have government intervention. And it is only beginning. $634 billion in a down payment. $634 billion over the next ten years of the government intruding in to the private sector. That doesn't even count the billions included in the stimulus bill just passed going to the computerizing medical records. The most difficult thing about this, is that Obama refuses to even say where the money is truly going and how "universal health care" will be dealt with.

1. For those of us with our own insurance, do we lose everything we've paid in to it and are forced to join some government program? If so, are medical records (now conveniently available on a computer network) going to be reviewed by government employees tasked with sending certain patients to certain doctors at certain times? Do we lose any privacy we once had with doctor/patient confidentiality?
2. Those without insurance, are they going to be the ones who have to buy in to the government program? If so, we the taxpayers are paying their way, correct? If that's the case, then we, as the guarantor, should have the ability to regulate the actions of the guarantee, i.e. you can't smoke, you can't drink, you can't engage in risky behavior, you can't be sexually promiscuous. With that, those individuals right's have been compromised because they are limited. So therefore, restrictions cannot be placed on individuals buying in to the government's universal health care. Since that can't happen, there will be no responsibility on the guarantee's part to maintain a healthy lifestyle and the guarantor will be giving away his income to pay for the irresponsible actions of others.

It is a long held belief that $1 in an individuals hand will be spent more efficiently and effectively than $1 in the government's hand. As such, if the government wants better health care for all, it should reform malpractice laws, which will lower doctor's overheads, which will then through the competition of the market, lower health costs, and finally lower insurance premiums, allowing more individuals - if they so choose - to buy in to health insurance. All this without the government really needing tax dollars.

If it truly wants to use it's might, perhaps revamping Medicare into a competitive market between a variety of companies and allowing seniors to purchase in at a rate of their choosing, i.e. more or less coverage, the "government" will be providing health care, saving senior citizens money, the taxpayers money, and encouraging economic growth by increasing health plan companies interaction in this growing market.

There are many more facets of concern facing the Obama Administration and its plan to change the American medical field. It's one thing to fix a broken system, but when the system represents the most productive, efficient, and profitable system in the world, government tinkering should be kept to a minimum.