“[N]o country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep
religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law and that
the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more.”
– Mark Twain [Samuel Langhorne Clemens] (1835-1910)
“[N]o country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep
Nobody know for sure who fired the first shot on that faithful day of April 19,1775 just after the crack of dawn in the town of Lexington aka the Battle of Lexington Green that set off a chain of events that would change the world for the better and this battle would signal the start of the American Revolution or should I say … The “First” American Revolution.
The grievances between the people of the original 13 colonies and England is well documented by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and the very first line in the document defines us as nation and who we are:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That one sentence may be one of the most famous sentences ever written.
Now let’s fast forward to the “standoff” at the Bundy ranch in Nevada.
Here is an excerpt from a column written by Kevin D. Williamson at NRO Online
Is government our servant, or is it our master? The Left has long ago answered that question to the satisfaction of its partisans, who are happy to be serfs so long as their birth control is subsidized. But the Right always struggles with that question, as it must. The thing that conservatives seek to conserve is the American order, which (1) insists that we are to be governed by laws rather than by men and (2) was born in a violent revolution. Russell Kirk described the conservative ideal as “ordered liberty,” and that is indeed what we must aim for — keeping in mind that it is order that serves liberty, not the other way around. And it is the government that exists at the sufferance of the people, including such irascible ones as Mr. Bundy, not the other way around….
Prudential measures do not solve questions of principle. So where does that leave us with our judgment of the Nevada insurrection? Perhaps with an understanding that while Mr. Bundy’s stand should not be construed as a general template for civic action, it is nonetheless the case that, in measured doses, a little sedition is an excellent thing.
This question is a question that MUST be answered to the satisfaction of all the citizens of the United States… Is government our servant, or is it our master?
Can the government come in and seize a man’s property (in this case cattle) without with notice or due recourse? Absolutely not! If the government is our master then they can do it through force and intimidation or if they are servants that they must abide by the same laws that apply to all of us.
It’s sad for We the People to watch what is go on in D.C. (aka District of Corruption); the Rule of Law has now become a meaningless phrase, we have a government that breaks the law on a daily basis, a government that spouts lies after lies and “Equal Justice for all” depends on what your party affrication is and the color of your skin.
All reasonable people should be able to sit down at a table and discuss their differences but brute force and intimidation is not a solution and will only lead to the unthinkable …”Who fired the first shot of the Second American revolution?
Repeal, now more than ever!
Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare, the CBO projected that 9 million people would buy Obamacare-compliant insurance through newly established government-run exchanges. Now, after an enrollment period that his administration expanded by about two months—to more than half a year—President Obama says that 8 million people have “signed up” for (but in many cases haven’t actually bought) insurance through those exchanges.
The Obama administration’s stated goal was to have 39 percent of those who bought such insurance be between the ages of 18 and 34. Now Obama says the actual percentage is 28 percent.
Only in Washington, D.C. could someone put up numbers like these and then brag about them.
But, in truth, all of this talk about enrollment numbers is beside the point. Back when the Democrats defied public opinion and rammed Obamacare into law using the Cornhusker Kickback, Gator Aid, the Louisiana Purchase, and all the rest of the unseemly gimmicks they employed, opponents of Obamacare didn’t claim that the reason why the health-care overhaul would be bad was because it wouldn’t hit the coverage numbers the CBO projected. (If anything, opponents argued that Obamacare would surpass those numbers, as employers would dump people into the exchanges against their will, thereby costing American taxpayers even more than the CBO was projecting.)
No, Obamacare isn’t bad because it didn’t hit 9 million in Obamacare-compliant exchange purchases, nor because it didn’t include 39 percent young adults among its purchasers. It’s bad—horrible, actually—because it requires private citizens to buy a product of the federal government’s choosing for the first time in our nation’s entire history; because it funnels unprecedented amounts of power and money to Washington, D.C. and away from everyday Americans; because it incentivizes employers not to hire people and to cut hours for millions of people they’ve already employed; because it bans millions of people’s health insurance policies (except when Obama lawlessly un-bans them); because it causes people who like their doctors not to be able to keep their doctors; because it raises health costs; because it requires young people to subsidize maternity coverage and pediatric dental care for 60-year-olds who have no need or desire for such coverage; because it effectively bans doctors from expanding existing doctor-owned hospitals or building new ones, makes it difficult for doctors to stay in private practice, and tries to corral them into hospitals where they can more easily be controlled; because it will raise federal spending by a projected $2 trillion over its real first decade; because it will cut projected Medicare funding by a whopping 10 percent over that same decade, siphoning that money out of Medicare to (partially) pay for Obamacare; because it particularly goes after Medicare Advantage funding; because it stifles medical innovation; because it disrespects religious freedom; and because it mandates communal funding of abortion.
Charles Blahous is the director of spending and budget Initiative, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a public trustee for Social Security and Medicare. He specializes in domestic economic policy and retirement security (with an emphasis on Social Security), as well as federal fiscal policy, entitlements, demographic change, and health-care reform.
Earlier this month there was tremendous press attention to new data indicating that enrollment in the Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s health insurance exchanges had surpassed 7 million. The White House took a victory lap while much of the press, desperate to write something positive after months of reporting on website glitches and insurance plan cancellations, characterized the milestone as good political news for ACA supporters. Our national discussion, however, is missing the truly significant story here; what is unfolding before our eyes is a colossal fiscal disaster, poised to haunt legislators and taxpayers for decades to come.
It is quite possible that the ACA is shaping up as the greatest act of fiscal irresponsibility ever committed by federal legislators. Nothing immediately comes to mind as comparable to it. Certainly no tax legislation is, because tax rates rise and fall frequently, such that one Congress’s tax cut can be (and often is) undone by a later tax increase. The same is true for legislation affecting appropriated spending programs. But the ACA is a commitment to permanently subsidize comprehensive health insurance for millions who could not otherwise afford it, which the federal government has no viable plan to finance. Moreover, experience shows that it is very difficult to scale back such spending once large numbers of Americans have been made dependent on it.
Let’s walk through the salient features of this unfolding fiscal disaster:
An Expansion of Spending Commitments Comparable to Enacting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid: Our biggest fiscal problems today stem from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security costs rising well beyond original projections. The ACA was enacted even though these longstanding financing challenges have still not been met, and represents an additional expansion of federal commitments comparable to these other programs’ creations. CBO now estimates that the gross costs of the ACA’s coverage expansion will be $92 billion in FY2015, or about 0.5% of our total GDP of roughly $18 trillion. This far exceeds, even relative to today’s larger economy, the initial costs associated with the entirety of Social Security and Medicaid, and is comparable to the startup costs for all original parts of Medicare combined. Consider this: just five years after enactment the ACA will absorb more of our total economic output than Social Security did fully sixteen years after it was enacted.
People are complaining that when they went into the ObamaCare website in order to get an estimate of insurance costs they had to sign up and when they decided to opt out they found out you can’t, it’s like the Roach Motel once you get in, you can’t get out.
Last week Obama did a victory lap over the claim that 7.5 million people signed for ObamaCare. That 7.5 million number is very questionable and Jay Carney, the administration’s mouth piece said it will be quite some time before the public can get a breakdown of the demographics.
This I can believe, the public will get that breakdown sometime in late November right after the election.