Nidal Hasan– the Fort Hood terrorist who killed 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, and the man whom the administration still refuses to call a terrorist– contacted a Yemeni imam last year to ask him about killing United States soldiers.

  The imam, in an online interview, stated that Hasan contacted him just over one year ago to ask him if killing United States soldiers was “legitimate” for a Muslim serving in the United States military to kill his fellow soldiers.

He asked about killing American soldiers and officers and whether that was legitimate or not

The first message was on the rules about a Muslim soldier who serves in the American army and kills his fellow (soldiers.)

  Anwar al-Aulaqi– the Muslim cleric that Hasan was in contact with– apparently condones such attacks on our soldiers:

The target that Nidal targeted was a military target inside the United States and not anything else,” Aulaqi said.”I didn’t recruit Nidal Hasan and in fact America recruited him with its crimes and injustices and that is something that America does not want to recognize

  I do have to agree with  al-Aulaqi on one point– he claims that America recruited Hasan because of America’s crimes and that we do not want to recognize that fact. While I disagree vehemently that America recruited Hasan with her actions, I do agree that this administration is unwilling to recognize exactly who and what Nidal Hasan is– a terrorist.

  Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder, and as awful as this “crime” was it was more than just premeditated murder. This was a terrorist attack and it is about time that the Obama administration admitted this and charged Hasan with committing a terrorist attack on United States soil.

  But charging Hasan with terrorism still isn’t enough, somebody has to be held accountable for not preventing this attack in the first place. The warning signs were there for quite a while, Hasan never should have been left in a position where he was able to carry out this attack. But he was, and somebody is to blame for this oversight. Somebody was negligent, perhaps the president’s policies even led to the neutering of the military commanders to the point where they couldn’t do anything about Hasan. We may never know, but we deserve to.

Although the idea was originally mooted by Madison in the Federalist Papers 10 and 51, the term was coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in his book, Democracy in America. It is supposed to portray the situation wherein a political majority imposes its will (like Rousseau’s “General Will”) on a minority whose interests are diametrically opposed.

It should be obvious that the nature of democratic politics requires that whichever party or politician gains a simple majority (50% + 1) gains the legitimacy to pursue both policies laid out in a pre-election manifesto and any others it deems necessary to increase public welfare (albeit debated and usually compromised upon). Democratic politics should not be compromised upon because some people disagree with a party or a policy because this would be lead to inaction and even possibly tyranny of the minority of even one (“Democracy is the worst from of government, except for all the others that have been tried”- Churchill blah blah). However, this does not mean that there is no need to watch out for majority tyranny.

I think the concept of tyranny of the majority needs to be understood and “compensated for” through various institutions and/ or voting systems because of the potential risks to public order, political stability and even to democracy itself. These risks would be high when there is a persistent (perpetual) minority(ies) on whom policies which they view to be opposed to their interests are constantly pursued, especially when their views are not sought or taken seriously in the policy debate. This can lead to feelings of injustice and a sense of powerlessness, despair, and mistrust of the political system and other groups (other minorities and/or the majority). These could then lead to rioting, violence against other groups and the authorities, breakdown of law and order (ending in martial law) and general political instability (if unrest is large enough and not effectively controlled) as the minority try to ‘claim their justice.’ It could also lead to anti-democratic laws and policies being passed and followed (think US Patriot Act and  UK 42-day Detention as the government strives to control dissidents/ destabilising influences)

An example of disorder caused by fear and mistrust would be the 1992 Los Angeles Riots, after the acquittal of four policemen for the video-documented beating of Rodney King (a black man) by a jury consisting of 10 Caucasians, a Latino and an Asian (funny that). Some of the attributed underlying causes combined with the long-held view in black communities of police abuse (NWA- F**k tha Police anyone) have included;

1. Anger over the sentence given to a Korean-American shop owner for the shooting and killing of a black girl. There was some violence between Korean- and African-Americans (between minorities).
2. The effects of the recession especially very high levels of unemployment and poverty in South-Central Los Angeles. This could lead to resentment especially when compared with other affluent (and arguably more Caucasian) parts of LA.
3. (2) combined with cuts in public spending and lack of investment in the inner-city led to a lack of economic opportunities and “more than a decade of urban decay.”

I think a recent/ current example would be the US now (2009). The tea-parties and their vile rhetoric could be seen as a reaction to what they see as a majority (in government at least; although I suspect public opinion would be broadly pro-government <for instance, in the first poll at this link, 13% oppose it because it’s not liberal enough- this gives you 55:45 in favour of the proposed reform only varying by degree of reform> ) treading over their rights to be the only ones who have healthcare (for instance) and which they see is also trying to tread over their other rights to burn as much fuel as they want thus leading America into European/ Stalinist/ British heaven (all at once- this is aka Socialist Hell or Communist Abyss). (Sorry about this paragraph).

Conclusion

I think Majority Tyranny should be considered seriously because of the effects on public order and political stability of a persistent minority that is forced to bear constant injustice and has limited means of influencing policy in their favour.

What would a world look like, where everyone had the opportunity to access and use all the information available? Where cultural achievements could be shared and spread? Where affordable high-tech products and state-of-the-art technology was available to the poor? Wealth and sophistication would increase globally, international communication and understanding would improve and progress would be accelerate. So, what hinders us to enjoy all these benefits nowadays, as we have the perfect means to do all this? We do have a worldwide network connecting people and letting them share information immediately. Roundabout 1.7 billion people use the internet today, and counting. Today, we know the internet’s potential, facing huge networks like Facebook, media platforms like YouTube or Picasa and sharing sites like ThePirateBay.org. It is, technically speaking, a cakewalk to share all the knowledge we have with people from other parts of the world. And the accumulated knowledge of the world’s scientists and inventors is probably immense enough to cure the world from some of its major problems. But that’s the snag. Companies and regimes try to protect their achievements from copying in order to maximize their own profits. Countries want to keep their title as centers for technological innovation because they fear competition from other countries. Companies want to attain monopolies as means to dictate prices. It becomes obvious that those who already are prosperous and can afford expensive research and development programs are not willing to share their knowledge without retrieving an unreasonably high amount of cash. And of course, one can understand their anxiety for compensation as they spend billions on R&D. This issue, however, will be revisited later.

Intellectual property rights give companies the exclusive right about the production and selling of their certain product. These companies have the power to set prices and to maximize their profit. This, on the other hand, will reduce the consumer’s surplus (the benefit, consumers have from buying the product at a certain price, as it is below the price they would be willing to pay). The situation described has a simple and well-known name: Monopoly. Copyrights create monopolies – and the monopolies tend to overprice their products and exploit their position at the expense of customers. Also, often it is not only one company holding a copyright for a product without any close substitutes but a couple of firms producing relatively similar products. This market form is called oligopoly. And oligopolies are, similar to monopolies, price setters. Although some competition among companies within these oligopolies is present, the consumer often faces high prices, too. Furthermore, oligopolies are likely to create cartels which are responsible for price-rigging. In a nutshell, large corporations which are able to spend billions on R&D, tend to overprice their copyrights-protected products at the expense of customers, thereby creating monopolies or oligopolies. On the losing site are those who cannot afford these products. This does not only mean, that some people are excluded from the newest TV Set, Cell Phone or MP3-Player. More important, they are excluded from the best medicine, eco-friendly products and other crucial goods which were recently invented or improved (or are about to be invented). Furthermore, this does not only harm personal wealth but also impairs the situation in less developed countries. Many medicaments are too expensive for those countries to allocate them to the population and many diseases in third world countries could easily be cured, if medicine were cheaper.

Not only are poor countries excluded from purchasing these goods. They are also unable to participate in the process of developing new technologies and – more important – restrained from the development of technologies which could help themselves to overcome their problems. A free exchange of knowledge would enable poor countries to use the available knowledge. They could adapt technologies to their needs rather than inventing them new. Also, many economists claim that “good ideas” are not subject to diminishing returns. Basically, as every input factor increases, the utility generated progressively decreases. If one considers new technologies as input factors, an increase in technology would generate a linear or even increasing utility. Consequently, sharing technology with the poorest countries would help them to be more productive, more competitive in the global market and less dependent on other countries. Modern technologies provide a promising way of improving the economy of a country.

As a result, many countries see the obvious advantages from allowing infringements of foreign copyrights. Talking of China, the government has announced to crack down companies caught copying products und foreign copyrights protection. In reality, this announcement was made to calm Western governments and avoid pullbacks of investors. As long as China benefits from the sales generated by domestic companies which copy Western products, the government will probably not see the need to act tougher against copyrights infringements. Without international consent, copyrights cannot be enforced. And as long as emerging countries see copyrights infringements as a way too further economic growth and international competitiveness, this consent will not be given by any of these countries. Consequently, copyrights protection stops, where domestic jurisdiction stops – in closed entities like the EU, the US and their closest partners.

Supporters of intellectual property protection claim that without rigorous legal enforcement of copyrights incentives for further investments in R&D would decrease and progress would be slowed down. They draw on the misbelief that companies would not invest as their input would not be recovered. Other companies could simply copy their technology and produce the same goods without having to spend billions on R&D. I think that this claim is rather weak for several reasons.

First, the adoption of technologies is costly, as well, and it will take other companies some time to figure out what a product actually is composed of. This guarantees the inventor a first-mover advantage. Also, as they understand their product better, they have benefits in customizing and enhance the product. Of course, after a certain period, they would face some hard competition. Still, to remain competitive and to defend their position as one of the market leaders, companies would have to continue investing in R&D. They would be forced to invest even more – and if they fail to invest and start resting themselves as a result of inappropriate fear, other companies will fill in the gap. The result would be more competition, a faster progress and, in the end, better products at a lower price. It is very unlikely that huge corporation would stop investing in R&D for fear of competition as they want to continue being a major player in their market. Also, the threshold for new companies to enter the market would be lowered, thereby furthering competition and generating workplaces.

Second, if knowledge were made available to other companies, they would use these good ideas, combine them with their own ideas and finally improve the product. The original inventor, in turn, could profit from these improvements. Advancements based on mutual investments and research would be profitable for all participating parties – the original inventor, the competitors (which could turn out to be noncombatant but supporters) and the consumers. Furthermore, think tanks comprehending several firms from a certain industry could emerge. These strategic alliances would be another advancement concerning a product’s quality and the productiveness of the participating companies.

Third, ideas often are biased by the inventor’s cultural background. Germans, for example, like big sedans going up to 250 kilometers per hour on the Autobahn. Of course, the technology used in these cars is superb but a car riding that fast is useless in most other countries. Not useless, however, is the aforesaid technology. An Asian car manufacturer could use exactly the same techniques to construct cars at a higher fuel efficiency being more secure and reliable. This would not impair the BMW’s, Merc’s or Audi’s sales but improve cars in other countries, where not everybody can afford fuel and highways have to a reasonable but boring speed limits.

What I claim is not the complete abolishment of all copyrights protection. What I call for is a reform of the current jurisdiction. With different, more liberal laws, circumstances in many poorer countries could be improved drastically. Copyrights protection is a major reason for inadequate pricing of products, slow progress and the exclusion of many people, potential producers and consumers, from certain markets. Of course, companied should enjoy benefits from inventing certain technologies – but a more self-reliant manner would probably benefit both, consumers and producers. Calling for the domestic jurisdiction to protect the company’s inventions should not be a mean to protect profits.

Now that Christmas day is nearly over, I just wish to reflect briefly on the true meaning of Christmas. We are told it is about children and family and love and all sorts of wholesome sounding things. It is really about Jesus choosing to become one of us. The Incarnation is God’s second greatest gift to us after the Resurrection, without which we would not be celebrating the Lord’s birthday. (By the way Christmas begins today; it does not end, notwithstanding all the post-Christmas sales starting December 26.)

So, for those who see Christmas as everything but what it is–and you know who you are–make it your new year’s resolution to educate yourself on why Jesus was born (hint: to save us from our sins) and what He has done and continues to do for us. Speaking of those who do not get it, a few complaints/observations…

• People are so brainwashed that this nice young lady wished me “Merry Christmas!” without thinking before quickly realizing her possible mistake. It was followed by a “Sorry, I mean happy holidays!” to which I replied, “It’s ok to say Merry Christmas.” I mean, seriously, would I have died if somehow Christmas were not my holiday? I do not blame her; I blame politically correct, multicultural insanity.
• Ann Curry seemed allergic to the word Christmas when preceded by the word merry on the Christmas Eve edition of the Today show. After her interview with actor and comedian Steve Martin, he kindly wished her a merry Christmas (she is Catholic, to my knowledge) and she seemed shocked. She said something like, you too, and he saw her nerves and quickly joked, happy holidays. She asked him if he were being politically correct (even though she seemed much more comfortable with the generic holiday greeting) and he said he was just trying to make a joke. Ann, calm down. I think Brangelina will still interview with you even if you utter the C-word!
• Did you hear that the White House Christmas tree has an ornament with Mao on it? Very appropriate actually.
• Was that not sweet of Harry Reid and the Democrats to break down the next hurdle in their attempt to socialize and thus destroy our health care system? I heard it was a Christmas present for Obama. Funny since he reportedly does not believe in giving gifts to his own kids. (Folks, please remember this “gift” when voting next year; it is exclusively from the Democrats.)
• I can almost understand using the term holidays for much of December since there is Hanukkah and some other holidays that share the month. But when it is Christmas Eve and Day, the time for happy holidays is over. Clearly, it is Christmas that is the holiday. Also, if it were the other holidays that people were celebrating in droves, the sales would not start December 26 since that is the beginning of Kwanzaa. No, we all know the holiday everyone means, but many fear, is Christmas. The fear is not (generally) of Frosty and Santa and reindeer and candy canes; the fear is of Christ. Odd since He saved us but those who reject the gift of salvation feel the need to reject Him. May God have mercy on them; we should pray for these lost (and very destructive) brothers and sisters.

A man accused of involvement in a shooting of federal police officers was presented to the press at a news conference in Tijuana, Mexico, in October, holding an unloaded gun allegedly connected to the crime

What do all of these have in common? They’re all bankrupt, mismanaged, unemployed, falling apart, and long term examples of Democratic political management. This is what they want America to look like politically, and therefore physically, as well.

But of course they’ll blame anything and everything else.

I agree with this piece by Ron Brownstein around 95% (I think he’s too quick to dismiss pro-choicers’ worries), but it’s this final excerpt that I think is the most insightful:

The president’s strategy of enveloping potential opponents has brought him to the brink of an historic health care victory. But if Obama is to keep his head above water next year as he moves to issues like financial regulation and climate change, he may need to tilt his dial from conciliation toward greater confrontation with the powerful interests blocking his way.

I don’t expect Obama to become William Jennings Bryan any time soon, but I think it’s pretty clear that, when it comes to financial reform, adopting a position of reconciliation or compromise would be a mistake both tactically and strategically.

From BBC (emphasis added),

Leading Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo has been jailed for 11 years for “inciting subversion of state power”, after a trial condemned in the West. [...]

Mr Liu is a prominent government critic and veteran of the 1989 Tiananmen Square democracy protests.

A writer and former university professor, he has been in jail since 2008, after being arrested for writing a document known as Charter 08.

The charter called for greater freedoms and democratic reforms in China, including an end to Communist one-party rule.

Mr Liu is the only person to have been arrested for organising the Charter 08 appeal, but others who signed it have reported being harassed.

From VOA,

Rights groups suspect the date of the verdict, Christmas day, was chosen to reduce international attention to the case.

Diplomats from the United States, Canada, Australia and several European countries were among those who stood outside during Liu’s trial Wednesday, after they were denied entry to the court house.

China has denounced the foreign diplomats for what it calls “meddling.” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters Thursday that Liu is a Chinese citizen and, as a result, his case is an “internal” affair.

Liu has been in detention for more than a year for his role in writing the pro-democracy manifesto called “Charter 08.”

The U.S. State Department said Wednesday that China’s prosecution of Liu is an action “uncharacteristic of a great country.” A State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley, said the U.S. will continue to have frank discussions with China about human rights and China’s future.

Prof. Liu Xiaobo YouTube video at PEN American Center,

An earlier AP report,

I was recently reading about when Medicare was first made into law in the 60’s and it is amazing to see the similarities between that and the current healthcare reform bill that just passed in the U.S. Senate. When Lyndon Johnson was pushing the idea of putting a healthcare safety net under seniors the Republicans in congress were dead set against it. Among other things they were calling it a government takeover of healthcare. They warned that if the Medicare bill was passed we would turn us into a country of “socialized” medicine and everything would go down the tube as a result.  Sounds eerily familiar to what I  have been hearing the Republicans say in the last month or so.  Now remember that the 1960’s were not nearly partisan as now but no Republican initially voted yes on the Medicare bill.  But several of them did cover their bases by voting yes on the final bill when it was obvious it was going to pass.  I don’t know if any Republicans are still shouting the mantra of  Medicare being “socialized medicine” or not but I would not be surprised if some still think it.  But they would not dare say that today as most reasonable people know the success it has been.

Now I’m not saying that Social Security and Medicare are without their troubles.  But most of those problems are not the result of the programs themselves but are a result of previous congresses, both Republican and Democrat, borrowing all the surpluses from them. But then again the hypocrisy of the Republicans shows through on even that issue. They were insisting the we put a “lock box” on Social Security in the early 90’s after they spent 12 years borrowing it dry under Regan and Papa Bush.

Going back to even the original Social Security bill in the 1930s the scenario was quite similar to this too.  I know there is a person in my area that is going to run for congress based on the fact that the current healthcare bill is unconstitutional! If her logic holds up then she must also think that Medicare is unconstitutional.  I wonder if her parents are getting Medicare? I would be willing to bet that they are but to her that is probably beside the point. Whatever her point is!

I wonder if any of the Republican will once again vote for the final version of the bill that clears the conference committee? I wouldn’t put it beyond them. I might even be willing to project that they will say years down the road it was all their idea if, as Medicare, it proves the be successful.

The only thing that matters is that you are able to tell yourself that you want it and that you want it irrevocably! What? That you want to take part in life, instead of being an observer; that you want to make decisions about when to say no to evil – in brief, that you will have civil courage at the appropriate moment.

Svetlana Broz – Essays On Civil Courage ‘Having What It Takes’

By Jed Babbin
12/24/2009

Today the Senate will drop its huge lump of coal in our Christmas stockings by passing Harry Reid’s version of the Obamacare bill. And when it’s done, its members can join the already-recessed House for their much-anticipated if not well-earned Christmas vacation.

Congressional recesses, especially the Christmas break, were short vacations from politics until Bill Clinton invented the never-ending campaign. And Barack Obama has made the Clinton method a thousand times worse. In the “crisis for sale” environment Obama created, there is never a respite.

And in the few weeks between today and January 19 when congress reconvenes there will be none. Staff talks have already commenced and the moment they’re back the House-Senate conference on the Obamacare bill will begin. Who can doubt that the “crisis” in healthcare will be more urgent than ever when congress reconvenes?

So in those 26 days Republicans — especially the congressional leaders — have a lot to accomplish. They need to reach out to the voters — embodied by the Tea Party movement — that the Dems have not only failed to listen to, but refused to hear. The Republicans need to act upon the idea that right now — in less than four weeks — they can start the political tide that can stop Obama’s agenda and return them to congressional power.

This Christmas recess is more important than — and different from — previous recesses this year.  Since President Obama was inaugurated, Republicans have been able to rely on the grass roots opposition to everything from the so-called “stimulus” package to Obama’s bill to nationalize healthcare.

The grass roots responded enthusiastically, focused and encouraged by talk radio and conservative media such as we.  But let’s not take too much credit here: so much of the Tea Party uprising in the August recess, in the town hall meetings and the subsequent marches on Washington was fueled by the Democrats’ insistence that the Tea Partyers were “Astroturf”, phony grass roots, that had to be ignored.  Which only made the protesters more angry and intent on delivering their message of opposition to Obamacare.

The difference now is that Republicans have to lead, not follow, the Tea Partyers and the Republican base.  This summer’s uprising was a role reversal that allowed the voters to lead the leaders. Now, going into an election year, the leaders have to lead by convincing the potential followers to follow.

It shouldn’t be difficult.  The Democrats have made it almost easy. The Dems are so isolated from reality that they think voters will not take revenge in November for everything from the failed “stimulus” that created the “jobless recovery” to their intramural bribefest in which Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) openly and proudly bought support for the healthcare bill from his fellow Dems with political bribes that would have brought a blush to Boss Tweed’s cheeks.

These bribes aren’t earmarks: this isn’t small-time stuff. These are structural changes to the nation’s healthcare system and how we are going to pay for it.  These bribes are things such as Ben Nelson’s deal to sell his purported opposition to abortion funding for a Medicaid exemption saving his state $100 million at the expense of other states.  It’s probably unconstitutional, but to Nelson and the Harrycare crew, who cares?

Max Baucus, Tom Harkin, “Countrywide Chris” Dodd, Mary Landrieu, Bill Nelson, the Hawaii Dans — Akaka and Inouye — as well as Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad and others all lined up at Fast Harry’s payoff window to get their shares of the US Treasury.

With the national stage thus set, what can the Republicans do? As one radio talkshow host told me yesterday, the Republicans are making lots of great speeches, sending out press releases by the hundreds, writing op-eds and so forth.  True enough. But to little avail, because the mainstream media has erected an electronic blockade around them in Washington.

There’s great danger for Republicans as well as opportunity.  The danger is in misdirecting their fire, or in not explaining why some of their normal allies are doing so.  Too many are outraged by Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) using courtly language to describe Harry Reid and making a deal so that the final healthcare vote would take place Christmas Eve morning rather than that night.

But what they overlook are the six votes Reid promised McConnell on January 20, 2010.  All of those votes will be recorded to show the Democrats increasing the federal deficit when Americans are still suffering 10% unemployment, fiddling while the economy continues to burn.  President Obama is planning to give his State of the Union address on January 26, his chosen theme economic responsibility.

Which is going to be entirely laughable coming six days (or more if Obama delays) after McConnell’s six votes.  McConnell’s  maneuver may cost the Democrats more than one senate seat next year.  He should be congratulated, not condemned.  As should some of the House Republican leaders.

At a House Republican conference meeting on December 16, Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind) presented an aggressive media plan for the recess which required members to give up some of the time they’d otherwise have with family and friends.  About two-thirds of the Republicans immediately embraced the plan (and more are reportedly coming on board.)

They’ll be out there — on radio, television and in print — all through the recess. And what makes this most important is that they’ll be doing it locally, breaking through the electronic blockade the national media has thrown around them in Washington.

This is the key to turning the political tide: get around the national media and speak directly to the voters.  Ronald Reagan did it.  House and Senate Republicans can, if only they invest enough time and energy in pursuit of that goal.

Pence gets it, and so do the other members of the Republican Study Committee, the official conservative caucus in the House.  But, again, there is danger of misdirected fire.

After the December 16 meeting, more than one member of the Republican caucus called me to say they were worried that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Oh) wasn’t going to put enough energy behind Pence’s plan.  But when I spoke to Boehner the day after the December 16 meeting, he said that he’s totally on board with Pence’s plan and pushing it hard.

Leadership is vastly different from management.  Few people even understand the difference.  Part of it is to accept the fact that you’re often going to be challenged and responding to the challenges positively and creatively.

Republican leaders should be challenged to do more and held accountable at every milestone.  But let’s not forget that we have carrots as well as sticks.

Well they’ve made fun of Sarah Palin for talking about those “death panels” that didn’t exist. Well guess what they do, but in the legislation they of course don’t use the words “death panels” instead they’re called “Independent Medicare Advisory Boards.”

I’m including an Alex Jones video and I don’t agree with everything he does, but this video is very informative and he shows the articles as he tells you information about health reform. The articles are real, I’ve googled them and read them already just to make sure.

President Obama and Harry Reid change the rules in order to pass health care reform bill

At a debate in Los Angeles on January 31, 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama said, (speaking about health care reform), “That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process”.

On August  21, 2008 at a Town Hall meeting in Chester, VA, presidential candidate Barack Obama said, “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”

At 1 AM on Sunday, December 21, 2009, the Senate voted for cloture, ending further debate on the Senate health care bill. The Senate bill is being rushed to vote before Christmas, and is currently scheduled for 7PM on Christmas Eve.

Few negotiations have been televised on C-SPAN.  Most have been held behind closed doors, as was the discussion with Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) that garnered in his vote for the bill in exchange for increased federal funding to cover his state’s cost of paying for the expanded Medicaid population created by the bill.

In further disregard of public opinion, the bill being negotiated in the Senate includes a clause that requires a two-thirds vote to amend or repeal certain sections of the bill. Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment (page 1020) states that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” Unfortunately, the subsection that it applies to deals with regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) pointed out this clause on the floor of the Senate Monday night.  The video below is long, but it provides tremendous insight to the issues at hand.

Not only is this limitation unacceptable because it prevents changes to the health care bill once passed, but it also sets a precedent for using this tactic in the future. As Ed Morrissey points out in his article this morning, “The elected representatives of today should not have greater authority than those who will follow them. Any attempt to pass this into legislation aggrandizes the power of this Congress at the expense of those that follow.

And as DeMint points out, it sets a very dangerous precedent regardless of which party is in power. What will be next – a Republican Congress declaring any future bill that increases taxes out of order? Would Democrats sit still for that, too?”

Americans are still waiting for the transparency we were promised. Unfortunately, the change has already begun.

Examiner.com/Memphis

I hope you all enjoyed Christmas. I doubt I’ll be blogging again until the New Year. Its been a blast blogging in 2009 and I hope things will only get better in 2010.

I would like to say a big Thank You to Paul and Dave at Though Cowards Flinch, Phil the Very Public Sociologist, Anton Vowl of the enemies of reason, MacGuffin of Tabloid Watch, Sunny and everyone who’s written at Liberal Conspiracy this year, everyone who blogs at The Third Estate, Claude of Hagley Road to Ladywood, Angry Mob, Unity of the Ministry of Truth, Chris Dillow, Jamie Sport of the Daily Quail, Giles Wilkes the Free Thinking Economist, Duncan with the economics blog, the ever readable Tim Worstall, Eric the Fish, the entertaining and insightful Mr Eugenides, Five Chinese Crackers,  Paul Sagar of Bad Conscience, Paul Krugman, Ben Goldacre of Bad Science, Will Straw and all at Left Foot Forward, Carl Packman of Raincoat Optimism, Thomas Byrne of “best named right wing blog 2009″ ByrneTofferings, the Heresiarch of Heresy Corner and the much missed John Q Publican.

You are the boggers who inspired me to start blogging, or who I discovered through my first 8 months and helped me keep going. Thank you all and I wish you all the best of health and success through 2010.

A Happy New Year to you and all the blogosphere!

I came across this article today, from a young savant plitical analyst.

Enjoy.

Me with Dr. Paul after a Senate Candidate forum in Kentucky

Surely there’s no one among us who doubts the importance of the upcoming elections. With Time Magazine dubbing the 2000’s the “Decade from Hell”, it’s vital that we get leadership in Washington that will change our current path. Over 65% of the nation seems to believe we are on the wrong track, according to Rasmussen Reports. We’ve lost our way. 2010 is our chance to get it back. Sadly, our nation has been submerged in a deep partisan divide of blaming the other side for our current struggles. Rasmussen also shows that 51% of American’s believe the poor economy is George W. Bush’s fault and 41% believe the fault lies on President Barack Obama. Here’s a quote from Rasmussen’s story:

“The partisan divide is perhaps predictable. Eighty-four percent (84%) of Democrats say Bush is primarily to blame for the bad economy. Sixty-six percent (66%) of Republicans think Obama’s policies are more at fault, a view shared by 50% of voters not affiliated with either party.”

It’s a classic split and one that appears to be getting worse. Unfortunately, our “public servants” in Washington aren’t helping the matter, and we the people aren’t helping by sending the same old guys (and gals) to do the same old job. The party establishment is no longer working. This has been happening for far too long. Partisan hacks who only seek re-election instead of looking after constituents are ruining this country and it’s time to stop it. As Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence back in 1776:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”

The long train of abuses and usurpations has been chugging along for far too long. Now it is our right and our duty to throw off such Government and to provide new guards for our future security. Enter Rand Paul.

These guys certainly wouldn't "fit in" in Washington these days.

I first met Rand at an event in Harrodsburg right outside of Lexington. Being a “Rand Paul” event, he was of course the man of the hour. I had brought a couple of friends from UK and was excited to hear him speak for the first time in person. However I was shocked when Campaign Manager David Adams introduced me to him and he was kind enough to talk for a few minutes. In any of my meetings with him after that, including a lunch with him and other Rand Paul workers following a Town Hall, I’ve seen something out of him that I haven’t seen from any other politician–he’s an ordinary, down to earth guy. Many people will dismiss the importance of this in their critique of a candidate. “Who cares how “nice” he is, as long as he gets the job done, right?” Wrong. I’ve always considered this trait in a candidate of the upmost importance. As our “public servants”, don’t you agree that our politicians should be honest, humble and most importantly–represent the people? These are qualities that seem to be seriously lacking in Washington, as wealthy men born into rich families, given education at Ivy League Schools and basically anointed to political office seem to dominate the landscape in our nation’s capital. Do these people actually represent the people? Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington and Hamilton set up our Government so that men would be judged based on what they did, not who their parents were (which was a good thing, since none of them came from the “elite” class). I want my representative to represent me, not use this as a launching pad for his ambitions. I see this in Rand Paul. This ophthalmologist isn’t entering into politics because he wants to be a career politician, but shows a sincere desire to fix our countries problems with practical solutions. I know this because he supports term-limits on Congressman to two terms and promises he will only stay two terms if he is elected. Here is a man that will not serve his own interests and those of his career, but the interest of the people.

I’m not really sure how an eye-doctor can understand law better than lawyers, but that certainly seems to be the case. For some reason, following this document strictly has been seen by some to be “kooky”. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is our law and what we live by. You’d think it would be a simple guide to live-by to be sure that neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Judiciary, nor the people got out of hand. Not only that, but you’d think we’d want to cling to anything our Founding Fathers (some guys that knew a thing or two about oppressive Governments) had to say. The Constitution isn’t a “guide” for us to live by, but an essential law to be sure Government doesn’t veer off track, and according to recent polls, it appears that ship has sailed. Maybe we should try to get back on track by electing leaders in our country who, not only follow the Constitution, but actually care what it has to say:

A rather impressive display from Madame Speaker there, huh? I’m not sure I wouldn’t do a better job as Speaker of the House than Nancy Pelosi. Is it so hard, in this day and age, that the people could expect their elected leaders to actually follow the oath they took to “Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” Rand Paul won’t have to be reminded of his oath. He’s promised to understand every bill and will not vote for it if it is not Constitutional. A simple pledge, really, that maybe would have stopped the the Healthcare Bill from passing had our current leaders have had the same thoughts. With Rand Paul in the United States Senate, I take comfort in knowing that he will fight for our Constitution and will “protect and defend it” like he promised on the day of his inauguration.

The cornerstone of the American Republic is the boot the people out who don’t care about our values and don’t follow our beliefs. Every election cycle, we have the opportunity to show our displeasure with our previously elected leaders and put them in the unemployment line (Hopefully Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are about to feel what it really feels like to be unemployed soon). So, the question becomes: what do we believe in and does Rand Paul have those same values and beliefs? So, let’s hit the polls.

• 66% of Americans favor smaller Government with fewer services, lower taxes.
• 79% of Americans favor Auditing the Fed
• 76% of Americans Prefer the Free Market Economy
• Only 40% of America supports Healthcare Overhaul

I guess you could say these are “my values”. Now survey yourself. Do you, like most of the Country, believe in these ideas? Now, if you’re a Kentuckian, quickly look at a list of US Senate Candidates, Republican and Democrat. Which one would you say best represents these values? Its got to be Rand Paul. Him being a physician himself, he knows the potential effect of this Healthcare legislation and has already done what he can to fight it by holding Town-hall forums and giving his practical solutions. I would be willing to bet that you can’t listen to him speak without hearing the words “Free-Market” or “Less-Government”. Rand Paul is in touch with the values and beliefs of Kentuckians and those of Americans. This attribute is a must for any Senate candidate I vote for. Clearly, the people of Kentucky agree, as Rand Paul continues to dominate polls, leaving his opponents trailing far behind.

I can tell you that I haven’t always supported Rand. But after hearing him speak, I knew that his down-to-earth demeanor, promise to follow the Constitution and sharing of my values made him the candidate for me. If these things aren’t true for you: if you want to be continually shielded from the dirty politics in Washington and continue sending the same establishment picks who don’t care about your values but only their political gain and continue to allow these politicians to ignore the oath they took to protect and defend the Constitution, then I’m sure there plenty of picks for you. (In fact, I know there is)

But…..if you’re tired of everybody blaming everyone else and want to see a man stand up for you and your beliefs and give real, practical solutions instead of just blaming the other side and you’re tired of our elected leaders ignoring the Constitution and taxing not only us, but our children and our children’s children and if you’re tired of fiscal irresponsibility and politicians infringing on our personal liberty– don’t you think it’s time to do something about it? Do yourself a favor and listen to Rand Paul. This is Rand Paul. This is why he deserves your vote.

(Excuse it being a tad out-dated. It was intended for the August 20th MoneyBomb)