Yet again, America has come under attack by its terrorist enemies from abroad.  This time in the form of a malfunctioning bomb in the terrorist's underclothes that did little if any damage to anyone but the terrorist himself.  The Administration Officials, after the incident, repeatedly insisted rather comically that "the system worked."  We can only (then) assume that their definition of "worked" seems to mean something other than what we have traditionally taken the word to mean--much like "the Stimulus worked" or "Cash for Clunkers worked" or "Healthcare reform will work." "Work" to our leaders now seems to mean "unsuccessful effort."  Perhaps this is the best explanation for our high unemployment figures.

At any rate It would appear that our Government's efforts to placate the enemy by arresting CIA Agents and Army personnel, in addition to allowing the enemy access to our court system--and going so far as to offer an extended hand--has not yet proved effective.  Perhaps sacrificing a few more of our best and brightest might just impress the enemy enough to make those big, mean terrorist bullies go away and leave us alone.

In other events this past week, as America readied for its "most wonderful time of the year," Obama's elves in the Senate Workshop were scurrying about, even at the strangest of hours, busily crafting what they referred to as the most important piece of legislation since the New Deal.  We would agree that it is indeed important but for vastly different reasons.  Important, as We see things, would be in its efforts to further weaken our budget deficits, damage our medical system and even hasten the intended rationing of care for our Seniors--which--on that point one must remember that the Democrats have actually intentionally done what they have been accusing the Republicans and Conservatives of trying to do for at least three decades.

The irony of all ironies is that if this piece of now-pending legislation were to actually pass it would,  inevitably,  be important in the exact way that Hurricane Katrina was important, or the Financial meltdown was important, or the 9/11  tragedy was important--all were "important" but only in their resultant devastating consequences.  One positive note in all of this is how openly if not repulsively the Democrats have executed their sausage-making duties in the prostitution of various Senators by the leading Senate Pimp-- Harry "I got your Babe" Reid--in his purchasing of Senate votes by exchanging exorbitant future-cash position layouts from the government for votes to the affirmative for certain sweetheart states (which held out).

Slithering Salutations ...(Oh!  And Avoid All Early Tests...NOW)

Knowing that this violates the Constitutional fairness doctrines with regard to the States did not encumber Reid in the slightest.  When challenged on this basis by the true Senators, Reid promptly accused them of being "proponents of slavery" and "partisan" (for Heaven's sake).  The fact is that if Reid actually molted his skin on the floor of the Senate and emerged as the pincered reptilian "Kurog from the planet Greazidom" with twitching antennae and all-- most of us would be nonplussed--such as have been his over-the-top anti-constitutional antics of this past year.

In fact, the actual rationing of care could be said to already have begun when one looks at the increasingly bizarre revised recommendations by mutiple "citizen-centric" health organizations regarding mammograms, colonoscopies, prostate exams, etc.  The age-based suggested testing ranges for each of the above tests dealing with the obvious health maladies associated with them have been strangely and yet revisionistically altered to a substantially more mature age by some organizations to the point that even traditionally liberal women are wondering what the heck is going on?  Are the ideologies doing an extreme switchabout?  Meanwhile, the House Democrats are all readying for the negotiations and conferences for the upcoming session.  One can only wonder if the Senators and Congressmen will be practicing "safe legislative practices" by keeping on-hand large quantities of prophylactics for what they seem to be repeatedly doing  to American Citizens.

On second thought...We now prefer boring

As we depart the year of 2009 and warily tread into 2010, we are reminded of the old Chinese insult "may you live in interesting times."  While some might find the new paradigm of  "instability in all things" as invigorating--most Conservatives seem to find themselves weary of what new and exciting developments will be lavished upon them yet again.

Whether it be some strange new piece of legislation, disturbing news item, or even another economic ill portent--the proportion of discerning Americans who know how things should be, as opposed to the predictable reactionaries in our midst, seem less and less  inclined to dutifully bend over for yet another invasively mysterious procedure of pain that figuratively yields nothing more than the words "you may now put your clothes back on" from some disembodied voice of authority that seems more of an echo than a statement.

The incessant stream of Intensity regarding economic languidness, in addition to governmental excess, has taken its toll on us all.  Most Americans who have stolidly continued their daily work routine, not to mention those who are now yet searching for their "lost ability to contribute," are ever more tensed for the "shock of the day" that must be endured, filed in the "what might this mean" category of their consciousness, and then cheerfully if not disingenuously retort "it's all good"! and continue struggling in a mist of disbelief.

Getting What We Deserve...and Then Some

Unfortunately, we are faced more and more with the reality that "most of it's bad and getting worse in certain areas," while also noting at the same time that the public shift in the collective consciousness is one of promise for the not-too-distant future, while still mourning the current state of all things in the present.

The consistent optimist can and will see bright points here and there while still noting the "waxing and waning twinkling effect" of said bright points that it more often than not yields.

To sum it all up as best as one can--most seem to feel that their ideals of what America means to them from their youth onward, in addition to what America means to the world, has now been betrayed-- and it only took the democratically controlled legislative bodies a scant three years to do the job--plus one new and heavily left-leaning executive position.

Forgiving Ignorance

While noting that the majority of Americans are of a more conservative bent, the Liberals and the members of the Left are all askance at the state of things that remain yet in a form of traditional purity if not smitten with smugness that We, "typical Americans," are getting our comeuppance and it's been a long time coming.

This unfortunate mindset has often brought to my mind the words from the most famous and influential of all persons in history:  "Father forgive them...for they know not what they do."

These people of the leftward who seek to change what has been in what is yet the most successful and the most charitable nation in history,  are often reviled and hastened to the "evil" category by many conservative/traditional Americans simply because the word "evil" is attached to the idea of that which is not good.  It is my perhaps naive belief that these people who seek change away from our traditions of capitalism and self-sufficiency simply do not understand that the prescription for success in a nation's endeavors more often than not requires hard choices that seem to serve liberty at the expense of comfort or security.

Checks and Balances

Does wishing for a new form and structure to a successful Republic automatically constitute evil?  My answer would be No--at least not for the utopian- seeking unlearned soldiers of the leftward.  The leaders, however, of such a movement, granted, might be another thing altogether.  Isn't it fascinating that ultimate motivation is often the defining aspect of whether or not a thing is good or bad?  The trickery we have seen performed with regard to the current legislative agenda as, in part, outlined in brief earlier--seems to be gilded by a terrible need to achieve legislative finality prior to some future arbitrary date.  Many Conservatives and otherwise now feel that this mysterious date is, in actuality, the tipping point of the American populace's knowledge of what exactly is being legislated.  Once a preponderance of the Citizenry is in full knowledge of what is being legislated, the outraged cries will be far too loud to ignore.

One part of the Senate Healthcare Bill language, as attested to by our Republican Senators, indicates that the Medicare Panels, that will often determine how and to what degree care is administered, are contained within a provision that the particular section on said panels cannot be repealed nor otherwise altered by any future legislation.  This attests to a certain amount of trickery at work in our opinion, not to mention the fact that such language could render the entire bill as inviolate simply because the Constitution does not allow for absolutes such as this, nor does it historically allow for unalterables within legislation.  This lends even more weight to what many have referred to as the "Death Panels."

The thing to remember is that the goal of this Healthcare reform legislation has been stated to be, by both legislators and the White House, a concerted effort to make health insurance available to all and to reduce the medical costs of US citizens by alleviating the financial burden that exists to the people, the institutions providing such care, and the government. In effect, finally correcting a problem (that does not actually exist) within the general population.

How the Constitution Is Shredded with This Legislation

The bill, in its stated form, is unconstitutional as it currently stands because it forces a financial instrument--that being health insurance--independent of the government on its populace, suffering fines and incarceration.  The Constitution in Amendment 9, has forbid Government to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people as it plainly states with the enumeration of such rights as set forth within the bill.  Supporting Amendment 9, in Amendment 4, the Constitution states that the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.

The keyword being "Persons" in this instance and perhaps even "papers and effects" in the second.  A policy of health insurance would be considered as papers and the lack thereof would, indeed, constitute a crime per this legislation.  The simple fact is that the act of living by a citizen in this nation should not then include a fine against said Citizen in the event that his or her health should diminish to the point of being a financial burden to society due to the lack of the financial instrument that is a health insurance policy.

If indeed various financial burdens, in whatever form they might take, impairs a Society--as in the case of health costs--then I would submit that anyone who might require financial assistance from the Government in the form of welfare and other such financial considerations then has now also become the selfsame burden upon Society as the individual who has failed to purchase insurance coverage.  By this reasoning, we now can see where this legislation is so terribly unjudicial.

A Framework of Ill-Logic

Shall those current members of society who are insured through Medicaid and already benefit from various forms of government assistance be held in higher regard than those individuals who pay their taxes and actually contribute as much as possible--yet are still unable to afford health insurance?  Those whom rest on some arbitrary borderline that disqualifies them from receiving government aid?  Once again, this seems to be the framework of ill-logic that both the Senate and the House are offering as "corrective legislation."

The Founding Father John Adams has indicated in his "Thoughts on Government" that the happiness of the people was the ultimate purpose of government and that "an empire of laws and not of men" was the true idea of a Republic.  He further indicated that "a representative assembly should be an exact portrait in miniature of the people at large but it must not have the whole legislative power.  For this reason, much like an individual with unchecked power, it could be subject to fits of humor, transports of passion and particularities of prejudices."  He further wrote that "a single assembly could grow avaricious...exempt itself from burdens...become ambitious and after some time vote itself perpetual."

His wife, Abigail, in the same instance wrote him back the following:

"He who is most strenuous for the rights of the people, when vested with power, is as eager after the prerogatives of government.  You tell me of degrees of perfection to which human nature is capable of arriving, and I believe it, but at the same time lament that our admiration should arise from the scarcity of the instances."

Barry Secrest

Sources: US Constitution, Bill of rights, The book " John Adams" by David McCullough, Bill H.R. 3590

*Artwork by Kim Stallings