February 2nd, 2014
By Barry Secrest
The State of the Union Address?
...And the words fell from his lips like the manure from an ass...only the manure being of greater value since it can at least be used as nourishment for one's garden.
One need only listen carefully to the strategically enacted coughs coming from the gallery to precisely locate where the bovine excrement was at its deepest.
As in year's nauseatingly past, watch what he does while giving very little weight, if any, to what the man says....indeed, the only places where the acts actually meet the oratory are generally where America can expect to suffer the most damage.
Obama essentially kicked off his " State of Union Address," with a diatribe representing his view that "Climate Change" aka "Global Warming" is "fact."
One supposes, Obama's "fact" concerning climate change will most likely mimic many other of the President's "facts" including his most famous fact of all:
"If you like your Doctor and you like your health plan, you can keep them."
The following is what the President stated regarding global warming:
“The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way,” Obama said. “But the debate is settled."
"Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say, ‘Yes, we did.’”
Notable sentiments to be certain, if only they were true-- and yet one has to wonder whether or not our children's children might also be asking us questions concerning why we left them in so much debt that America eventually devolved into a second world debtor nation.
But while the President was waxing prophetic over climate change, during his SOTU address, and bragging about taking control of the government with his pen and phone, the following was what was actually happening in what is supposed to be the warmest region of America, that being the Deep South:
Report from (CNN)
Empty streets, shuttered storefronts and abandoned vehicles littering the side of the road.
That was the scene across much of metropolitan Atlanta on Wednesday as people hunkered down to wait out the aftermath of a snow and ice storm that brought the nation's ninth-largest metropolitan area to a screeching halt.
A day after up to 3 inches of snow in parts of Georgia caused horrific gridlock on ice-covered streets -- particularly in metropolitan Atlanta where thousands were trapped on the roads overnight -- several major thoroughfares remained a mess due to lingering accidents and other problems.
In neighboring Alabama, there was a similar scene playing out."There are still four or five areas on our interstates that are still treacherous. The traffic is still proceeding very slowly, but we are making progress," Gov. Robert Bentley said.
And as bad as things remained in parts of Georgia and Alabama early Wednesday evening, state officials feared it would only get worse as the night wore on and the temperatures dropped.
They pleaded for people to stay at home.
We're working on clearing the abandoned vehicles. We're just pushing them to the shoulders," said Karlene Barron of the Georgia Department of Transportation. 30px;">In Georgia, the governor and the mayor acknowledged they could have planned better for the storm.
Thousands of schoolchildren who had been trapped on buses and in Atlanta-area schools overnight were reunited by early Wednesday evening with their families. Last night, we had at least 95 immobile buses.
We had cleared them all by this morning, and that was a big task," he said. "Our next task was getting students home from school, and now we have achieved that." In Alabama, the weather forced more than 5,000 students to spend Tuesday night in school buildings. Some teachers who stayed in their classrooms overnight to care for stranded students were facing a possible redux Wednesday night, according to Bentley, who said in a post on Twitter that roughly 200 schoolchildren remain stranded. (End Report)
So, is the globe actually warming or is it perhaps cooling, during what has inarguably been one of the coldest US winters on record?
Here are some other stories gleened from the web, which seem to paint a picture owing to something quite the opposite from what the President seems to insist upon, in climate change, and pretty much at every juncture:
"Favorite Runner-up": Opinion: Record cold doesn't disprove global warming
"My personal favorite" : Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold
"Also Ran" : You Might Be Cold Right Now, But Your Planet Isn't
That's just a few of a slew of thousands of stories reporting the "one thing " that is actually occurring, even while simultaneously claiming a set of beliefs in climate change, which parenthetically oppose what is actually being reported.
To say that global warming is the cause of record cold US temperatures is about the same as stating that the 92 million Americans out of work are a result of Obama's improving US economy....
It would appear that we can use much, much, more of Obama's phantom global warming, and fast, before we all freeze to death.
Keystone XL: All Eyes on Obama as Democrats Suspend Environmental Marxism for 2014 Election
The US State Department says "There's nothing wrong with the XL pipeline," after a State Department study concluded that pipeline posed no significant threat to anything except US joblessness.
-While not coincidentally coming under repeat enfilade fire for the Benghazi debacle, along with what is now a well know lie that it furthered concerning the 9/11 video.
-The Trade Unions are fit to be tied over both Obamacare and the jobs being denied to thousands of Union pipeline workers, due mostly to the President's procrastination by deferral.
-The environmentalist whackos are threatening civil disobedience if Obama goes along with pipeline.
So, Obama finds himself under pressure from all sides.
Watch what happens very closely-- both with another possible "accident" leading to an oil spill somewhere in the US, which the White House can then advantage:
Or the ulterior possibility with regard to the XL pipeline:
Obama defaults to his base, and continues the XL deferral until after the 2014 election, based on some little-known study published by some little-known Leftist organization.....
(From Fox News Obama blocked the Keystone XL pipeline in January 2012, saying he did not have enough time for a fair review before a looming deadline forced on him by congressional Republicans. That delayed the choice for him until after his re-election.
The President also said in a New York Times interview last year that there was "no evidence" the pipeline would be a "big jobs generator," claiming it might create 2,000 jobs in the construction phase and far fewer permanent jobs.
But pipeline supporters have challenged that claim. President Obama is facing increasing pressure from Senate Democrats to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, following the release Friday of a State Department report that raised no major environmental concerns. “Today's Environmental Impact Statement confirms what Alaskans already know -- there are ways to safely and responsibly diversify our domestic energy supply,” said Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska. “Move this project forward.”
Fat chance, on that note, and yet then we receive the following kernel of fascination from yet another Liberal faction belonging the none other than Jon Stewart:
Jon Stewart Laughs Insanely at Nancy Pelosi's Answer on Why Health Site Doesn't Work (Youtube)
In this classic vignette, Nancy Pelosi seeks to now surpass her colossally ignorant 2009 answer regarding what was in the dreaded Obamacare bill, that being:
"We'll have to pass the bill to know what's in it"
In the latest case, Jon Stewart asks former Speaker of the House Pelosi, who was one of the main architects of the bill's passage, "why is it so hard to get a company to execute that [healthcare website] competently?"
Pelosi's response was:
"I Don't Know"
When asked why she didn't know, after Stewart stopped laughing insanely, the Speaker answered:
"Well, it wasn't my responsibility"
Pelosi, it would seem, brings a rather deranged if not spastic perspective to the words "fire and forget," and yet the factional blowback didn't stop there, as semi-Conservative Bill O' Reilly, treated viewers to his rather singular half-wit regarding free market economics...
Bill O'Reilly Backs Obama on Minimum Wage: But What Does Economist Milton Friedman Say?
Bill O'Reilly, in his ongoing display of complete and total ignorance, at least when it comes to economics, recently indicated that he's all for a $10 minimum wage.
However, this isn't the first time that Bill has represented himself as a colossal gem of ignorance, O'Reilly has in the past, frequently taken the liberal side on economic issues.
"Since it's only six percent of American workers get minimum wage, I say, 'Fine. Up it.' I don't think it's a big deal," stated O'Reilly, who also thinks that America shouldn't sell its energy to the world, at least the last time we checked on his often enigmatic proclamations.
But what did world-renowned economist Milton Friedman say about the minimum wage? Glad you asked:
" The fact is, the programs labeled as being “for the poor,” or “for the needy,” [by politicians like President Obama] almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have.
Let me give you a very simple example – take the minimum wage law. Its well-meaning sponsors [like President Obama]– there are always in these cases two groups of sponsors – there are the well-meaning sponsors and there are the special interests, who are using the well-meaning sponsors as front men. You almost always when you have bad programs have an unholy coalition of the do-gooders on the one hand, and the special interest on the other. The minimum wage law is as clear a case as you could want. The special interests are of course the trade unions – the monopolistic trade craft unions. The do-gooders believe that by passing a law saying that nobody shall get less than $9 per hour (adjusted for today) or whatever the minimum wage is, you are helping poor people who need the money. You are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is to assure, that people whose skills, are not sufficient to justify that kind of a wage will be unemployed.
The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That’s what the law says. The law says that here’s a man who has a skill that would justify a wage of $5 or $6 per hour (adjusted for today), but you may not employ him, it’s illegal, because if you employ him you must pay him $9 per hour. So what’s the result? To employ him at $9 per hour is to engage in charity. There’s nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in the position to engage in that kind of charity. Thus, the consequences of minimum wage laws have been almost wholly bad. We have increased unemployment and increased poverty.
Moreover, the effects have been concentrated on the groups that the do-gooders would most like to help. The people who have been hurt most by the minimum wage laws are the blacks. I have often said that the most anti-black law on the books of this land is the minimum wage law.
There is absolutely no positive objective achieved by the minimum wage law. Its real purpose is to reduce competition for the trade unions and make it easier for them to maintain the higher wages of their privileged members."
It's easy to be a knee-jerk Liberal, Bill; however, when facts typically trump emotional opinion, one should simply punt, or.... at least bellicosely interrupt someone sitting nearby.
You see, Bill, "being for the folks" typically does not include anything that this President tries to impose, indeed, where the hell have you been for the past five years?
January 26th, 2014
By Barry Secrest
In February of 2013, the US Department of Homeland Security made the decision to halt further funding of a dirigible-based southern border program known as TARS. The program, which stands for "Tethered Aerostat Systems," utilized radar equipped dirigibles in order to detect low-flying aircraft ostensibly seeking to evade the US air radar net along Mexico's border.
The system provided high resolution radar coverage over the US border while extending its range into Mexico, the Florida straits, and even a section of the Caribbean Sea, while also providing drug-trafficking surveillance for the US DOD counter-drug programs. In addition, TARS was considered a segment of protection for the North American Aerospace Defense Command with regard to their air sovereignty missions for the continental US.
The TARS dirigible
The discontinued TARS anti-incursion program was designed to be extraordinarily low-cost and had been in service since the early 1980's, run largely by private contractors under government supervision. Despite increasing concerns over terrorists' ability to use the porous border as a means to create havoc, especially in the air, the TARS program was said to have been of low priority, too expensive at about $ 3.5 million, and even technologically irrelevant in the modern day, which were all reasons being offered in 2013, for the program's discontinuance.
TARS to JLENS
On January the 26th of 2014, the Washington Post reported that the TARS system has been, in essence, re-activated as a test program designed to scan an area in radius spanning from North Carolina northwards to Boston and extending as far west as Lake Erie, in order to offer greater radar protection.
Of even greater interest was the fact that the epicenter of the new surveillance dirigible program will focus on Washington, DC, which already utilizes what could easily be described as the most exhaustive radar net in North America, if not the world.
The announced three year test, which is being run by the US military, will tether a starting team of two dirigibles, set at an altitude of about 10,000 feet, over the Aberdeen proving Ground, which is an Army base located in Maryland.
JLENS, visually, a startling similar platform as compared to TARS, except at about $2.5 billion dollars more
The base is only about 45 miles north of Washington DC.
The stated goal of these dirigibles will be to detect cruise missiles launched from somewhere off the East Coast, a long-held problem apparently, which is only now being unveiled as a valid concern, at least in some upper-level circles.
However, many believe the updated program which will be identified under the acronym JLENS (Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System) may have another use altogether, which centers on extraordinarily unique surveillance capabilities centered along one of the most populous corridors in the entire US.
These same aerostat systems were used to great effect over both Iraq and Afghanistan while using state of the art surveillance systems powerful enough to detect movements of both insurgents and US soldiers, individually.
A Higher Perch
Despite the Army's recent statements of "no plans" for surveillance cameras, the system has already been touted as having the ability to detect and radar track cars, trains, and even boats, however, the system has been stated to have no actual capability of tracking individuals, despite the use of the word LENS being omnipresent within the acronym.
Experts offering a defense of the program, indicate that the high angle of view for these types of heightened surveillance systems severely limit such system's capability to detect a face or a license plate. This despite the fact that a JLENS system over Kandahar positively identified the images of recently convicted Sgt. Robert Bales, returning to his base during the night after murdering numerous Afghan civilians in their sleep.
The dirigible, long a mainstay of dystopian science fiction novels, may become a permanent part of the US urban skyscape, at least if government designs are maintained
Indeed, the other questions of such surveillance systems over the US, center on the extraordinary abuses still being discovered concerning NSA eavesdropping on US citizens, and drones being used to strike civilians. In March of 2013, Conservative Sen. Rand Paul, supported by the ACLU and other Liberal groups, instituted a US Senate filibuster designed to force the Obama Regime and Atty General Eric Holder, to answer the question of whether or not drones might be used by the US government to strike US citizens.
The US military, under direction by the White House, has plans for at least 16 surveillance systems such as the one being test deployed over the nation's capital. However, the possibility of an aerostat system theoretically being used to direct drone strikes can't be dismissed, as the US continually seems to be more and more directing its security systems inward towards its own civilians, while previously stating that the same system along the US-Mexico border was both too expensive and largely outmoded by modern technology.
Strategically, while the US East coast might be construed as vulnerable to cruise missile attacks, the JLENS system's first deployment might beg the question of why the East Coast? The US Pacific Coast appears far more vulnerable to attack by certain increasingly hostile Pacific powers, which are significantly more likely to use the Pacific Ocean as an attack approach to the US, rather than the Atlantic.
The JLENS development cost, currently pegged at $2.7 Billion for 2 systems, is far higher than the discontinued TARS program with it's cost of about $ 3.5 million annually, despite being described as using essentially the same technology.
January 17th, 2014
By Barry Secrest
It's happening tectonically, throughout the entire continental shelf of American politics.
The backlash towards the political left even now has reborn, as Obama has ultimately proved himself to be the long ago predicted Pied Piper of Establishment Progressives, leading to a long overdue inner-beltway exodus. Indeed, no amount of skullduggery nor media leveraging should be able to separate the Socialist- Democrat party from its grand comeuppance coming in November.
Both US healthcare and finances, by election time, will lie increasingly tangled and bloodied if not mortally wounded, within the nettlesome briars of culpable blame. Unlike in previous legislative agendas which ostensibly affected only those it sought to aid, there can be no gradual improvement in the body politic of US healthcare, especially when the poison of excessive Liberalism finds its full circulatory purchase.
Much like an executioner's cocktail of impending doom, America's healthcare can now only worsen in both severity of cost and decimation of care, and there will be no secondary avenue of blame available for the liable, at least not this time around.
Of a certainty, this time as opposed to most others, it's profoundly different due to the fact that the overarching agenda sought only to serve its own selfish ideological aims-- but even worse--by the use of an element that most Americans find sacrosanct and inalienable even unto natural law, that being eviscerated individual health plans by edict with impaired economic prosperity served as the missing but so-ordered affectation.
However, the upheaval doesn't stop there, but rather the cracks within the mantle of establishment US politics also stretch deeply if not inevitably into the foundation of the Republican cabal as well. The formerly useful idiots of a trusting voter-party have now come full-circle outstripping by leaps, if not bounds, if not even leagues, those of their own elected leadership. This phenomena can increasingly be seen in the prevailing imperious postures of both the Democrat party and its own GOP commiserators, each to its own and undeniably towards their formerly loyal opposition.
The game, as they say, is now up and the sight is not pretty at all--especially for an America now soaked within the ichor of dually elected leadership default, almost as a sacrifice to the demi-Gods of Statism. The lies of the political left's overall impetus will inevitably pound hard into its own Leftist membership, as the low-information supporters will also gain a wide array of experience into the laws of unintended voter consequence and meaningfully.
Which brings us to one of the heralds of obtusivity, demagogic pundit Michael Gerson. He, who unlike most GOP opinionists, seems rarely admired from within his own subset, but grudgingly adored by the nominally opposed mainstream media....he begins:
Gerson: A political backlash has commenced within the Republican Party against tea party and libertarian groups that have limited interest in securing Republican victories and majorities. Elected leaders, party officials and business groups have begun pushing back against self-destructive legislative strategies and unelectable primary candidates.
CR: Here, Gerson spouts nonsensical establishment Republicanisms like a Saudi gusher.
The backlash is occurring, alright, but it should be seen only as the omni-desperate ploy that it is from the party-control stalwarts from within, that being those whose consistency in failure is only rivaled by their obstinate establishment vacuousness.
The limited interest exhibited by true Conservatives, which Gerson speaks of, is but a powerful electorate symptom that the Republican Party leadership has mostly lost its way. What good is a Republican majority if it's led by Democrat-lites," Gerson? But then also, which "unelectables" does Gerson have in mind?
Might he be referring to Conservatively disavowed John McCain (for President) or might Gerson have in mind, Mitt Romney (for President), who, by the way, actually lost the 3 million Conservative votes which could have won the last major election for the GOP?
Both of those, by the way, were the moderated selections of a repetitively cannibalizing GOP leadership.
It becomes even more fascinating when any major Republican candidate loses, the establishment GOP will typically leap into action tossing the unusable candidate into a crumpled and tangled heap of losing candidates and then redesignate them as either Conservative non-electables or Tea Party Whacko-birds, even after having dutifully funded them....neat trick.
Gerson: But the GOP's political reaction often concedes a great deal of ideological ground to anti-government populism - what its advocates describe as "constitutionalism." Our national recovery, in this view, depends on returning to the severely constrained governing vision of the Founding Fathers, as embodied in the Constitution.
Many Republicans now seem to be saying: Yes, this is the conservative ideal, but it is just not practical to implement at the moment. This cedes too much. In a new essay in National Affairs, "A Conservative Vision of Government," Pete Wehner and I argue that the identification of constitutionalism with an anti-government ideology is not only politically toxic; it is historically and philosophically mistaken.
CR: Not true, once again, but this time in even bolder spades.
Gerson, it should be pointed out has never, ever, liked the Tea Party nor has he been a indefatigable fan of the US Constitution. Indeed, there are some few Liberals who would actually agree with certain aspects of the Tea Party's goals, at least more than so-called Republican-Gerson. First up, of the establishment Republican lies which are also, by the way, borrowed from the Obama regime , is the one about the Tea Party's being anti-government.
The Tea Party, and by default true Conservatism, is not at all anti-government; au contraire, the Tea Party's heroes, it can easily be pointed out, all hail from our founding governmental Fathers. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams--all figure dominantly as the Tea Party's greatest heroes. Does Gerson not wonder why so many of our number show up in those oft establishment despised tri-foil hats?
So, Gerson's founding hero, in Alexander Hamilton, is an authoritarian banker incipiently opposed to libertarian Thomas Jefferson at each and every juncture...makes perfect sense in a very telling way.
Nor should it be lost on Gerson, with regard to the political Left's greatest heroes-- including "patriots" such as Chi-Comm mass-murderer Mao Tse Tung, or Marxist revolutionary Che Guevera, or even collectivist extraordinaire Saul Alinsky, for Heaven's sake.
In fact, we, of the Tea Party, love our government as founded and as America's primary foundation for success, but we also understand what happens when government becomes far too big and excessively authoritative, if not tyrannically unwieldy.
The worst of big oligarchic government, throughout human history, will use its various officialdoms as henchmen to attack the very things and the very people which tend to lend a nation its mantle of greatness. Meanwhile and as an example, let's look at the excessiveness of the NSA's domestic spying, or the President's actual bugging of the entire Associated Press building, or the attacks by those who control the IRS on those who loyally oppose such authoritarian excesses, as formerly described.
Further, let's not forget the government's takeover-by-proxy of the US healthcare system, additionally, a massive debt that threatens our economy at $17 trillion dollars, and the withering train wreck which has unfolded from there. All of the things we initially warned America about have now but largely come true, and in a scant five years while the GOP sits around navel-gazing with what is essentially a thumbs-up-its-rump approach to each of these exacerbative problems.
So, which one of us is right, Gerson, or has everything played out uncommonly well for the GOP at this point?
Gerson: It is not enough to praise America's Founders; it is necessary to listen to them. The Federalist Founders did not view government as a necessary evil. They referred to the "imbecility" of a weak federal government (in the form of the Articles of Confederation) compared to a relatively strong central government, which is what the Constitution actually created. Though they feared the concentration of too much power in one branch of government, they believed that good government was essential to promote what they called the "public good."
And they assumed that the content of the public good would shift over time. "Constitutions of civil government," argued Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 34, "are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages. . . . Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen."
CR: As if someone in our government actually is listening to our founding fathers?
"And the words fell from his pen as the manure from a horse, only the manure being of greater value since it can at least be used as nourishment for one's garden"
There can, at this point, be no active doubt, that our government has strayed obscenely, from the charters of freedom. The problem with folks like erstwhile Gerson is that sooner or later they often begin to believe that their shriveled-up-phallus of ideas will be regaled as mighty and potent, and perhaps they actually will to some, but only to those of the more diminutive subsets who can pleasurably receive and appreciate, such miniscule insertions.
Banker and Federal reserve precursor Hamilton, it should be noted, had nothing but problems with Declaration of Independence writer Thomas Jefferson, nor is Hamilton considered anywhere near the likes of the more familiar Tea Party's heroes. Ergo, since we are dragging out Founder quotations, let's try another:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
Sounds far too much like the father of our nation was of the Tea Party, does it not? Further, most people don't actually think of Hamilton when they consider Founding Father heroics. So, which hero do you prefer America?
Washington or Hamilton?
Gerson: In the tradition of the Federalist Founders, Abraham Lincoln believed the federal government should be capable of adjusting to changing circumstances and active in pursuit of national purposes. In his "Fragment on Government," Lincoln described a number of matters requiring the "combined action" of government, including "public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism" and "providing for the helpless young and afflicted."
Conservatives naturally want to be seen as defenders of the Constitution. But "constitutional conservatives" need to recognize what both the Federalist Founders and Lincoln actually envisioned for the republic they respectively created and preserved. Far from being constrained by the political and economic arrangements of an 18th-century coastal, agrarian republic, the Founders fully expected the United States to spread across a continent, undergo economic and social change and emerge as a global actor. And they purposely designed a constitutional system that could accommodate such ambitions.
CR: So, this time Gerson dredges up Lincoln, one of the first actual Republicans who as President also navigated and presided over this great nation through its lone Civil War--overseeing 1.5 million casualties and 620,000 deaths.
Granted, it may not be politically correct but I personally have often wondered how a President with such a horrid American death record, could somehow be seen as greatest.
Indeed, taken as a comparative measure of today's US population, that number would be over 6 million souls lost.
But Lincoln's legacy doesn't end there, for instance here are but a few grand feats of Liberty which Lincoln stunningly achieved:
- Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.
- Lincoln “detained” Maryland's entire legislature, thereby blocking a vote on state secession.
- Lincoln sent troops to occupy Kentucky, also in an attempt to block a vote on secession.
- Lincoln later expanded martial law to all states
- Under martial law, the President became the law, and in effect, a dictator.
- Lincoln actually sought to deport the freed black slaves out of the US and into various colonies because he did not feel they belonged to life within America.
No wonder Lincoln often surfaces as one of Obama's greatest American Heroes.....
All of the liberty eviscerating atrocities aside, could peace and an end to slavery not have been achieved, without that terrible war, or is that a question which should never perhaps be considered? Aside from that particularly heretical point, most individuals should not logically doubt that Lincoln, also, had in mind a vast array of government involvements into pretty much every activity under the sun partaken by its sovereign citizens.
Further, Gerson's assertions seem to point to a mindset that fails to consider or perhaps forgets the fact that the Constitution has been nominally relegated to executive toilet paper status and throughout the vaunted halls of government, at least at this particular point and back in the modern day.
The question it would seem, in this, the nadir of supposed enlightenment, belongs not to the Constitution's flexibility, but rather to its ultimate loss as the principle compass of the Republic's Rule of Law, or lack therein as the case may be.
Gerson: This is not to argue that the Founders would be happy with the current size and role of government. But, after protecting a variety of essential civil liberties, they placed such matters mainly in the realm of democratic self-government. They made it procedurally difficult for majorities to prevail. But they placed few limits on the public policies that durable majorities might adopt in the future - leaving "a capacity to provide for future contingencies."
CR: Did you note the strategic placement of the two "Buts" within the above paragraph?
"The Founders would not be happy with the current size and role of government "But," and "they made it procedurally difficult for majorities to prevail, But"--it would seem that the "Buts" have the floor with regard to Gerson's incipient gratuities regarding anti-Constitutional behavior.
Gerson: In our time, durable majorities have endorsed the existence of Social Security and Medicare. These roles of government were not envisioned by the Founders. But they do not violate a principle of our system nor run counter to the prescient mind-set of the Founders. People are free to argue for and against such programs. But this debate can't be trumped or short-circuited by simplistic and legalistic appeals to the Constitution as a purely limiting document.
CR: Nevermind the fact that both Social Security and Medicare now find themselves at the very heart of an increasingly extreme US unfunded liability problem. Duly noted, as well, that the rise of Medicare (and let's not forget Medicaid) has proliferated the annual increases in private premiums due to the cost-shifting of healthcare expenditures into the private sector --which is primarily due to what has become inarguably morose reimbursement ratios from the government to the actual providers.
Oh, and why do we have an unfunded liability problem? Easy: Because the government has been spending the funds which were allocated to a highly secure lockbox with a very large hole in the bottom. Indeed, "we have met the enemy and it is us," in other words.
Gerson: The broad purposes of the modern state - promoting equal opportunity, providing for the poor and elderly - are valid within our constitutional order. But these roles are often carried out in antiquated, failing systems. The conservative challenge is to accept a commitment to the public good while providing a distinctly conservative vision of effective, modest, modern government.
CR: According to whom with regard to the broad purpose of the modern state?
The Broad purpose of the modern state should be no different than when it was initially founded, however, it is certainly not as a forced charitable organization attending to the poor and the elderly, nor should it be the guarantor of an equality which can never humanely exist on this earth-- those auspices would be more in line with the broader purpose of a modern collectivist state within the throes of its ultimate demise.
Most Americans would submit that a broader purpose to the modern state should go something like the following:
"In order to form a more perfect Union the modern state should establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our descendants' Posterity"
Gerson, it would seem, has taken both his and many others' of the slightly political right into the heretical ideology of statist government as propitiated towards secular revisionism. Expounding on the ideas of Republicanism by applying the stunted lip service of complete constitutional denial will not guarantee any of Gerson's egalitarian goals.
Indeed, Gerson speaks the language of one who waits patiently by the vat as the Kool-Aid is being stirred into potency.
Gerson concludes by stating:
"A shift in mind-set is first required among conservatives: thinking of government as a precious national institution in need of care and reform. This would honor the Founders. The real Founders."
A precious national institution, like an innocent little fuzzy kitten, Gerson, seriously man?
No Republican in his right mind would view government in such a profoundly ignorant way, quite frankly. Gerson is nothing if not a heretic to his own cause, whatever on earth that might be, it should be noted at this point.
What if, just for a bit of black humor, we adjusted Gerson's assertions a tittle or so, and watch what happens:
"A shift in mind-set is first required among the establishment: thinking of the US Constitution and the citizens it serves, as a precious national institution in need of care and affirmation. This would honor the Founders. The real Founders."
Now, ladies and gentlemen, which of these paragraphs would seem more in concert with the true intent of the Founders?
You see, the Founders entire reason for establishing a just and balanced government was to take every precaution possible so as to keep the US government from becoming the very thing it has now become, and therein lies the fatal flaw with Gerson's ridiculously pitiful assertions, and certainly the greater establishment's mindset as a whole.
The greater good of government was never before, nor is it now, the ultimate goal.
January 8th, 2014
It was predicted and it is happening, now.
As the sign-ups in various red and blue states wane, to a panoply of ideological disdain, loyal free market adherence and, of course, a witches brew formula of ill-portents, the Huffington Post is now blaming an "obstructive GOP" on the healthcare mandate's universally admitted lack of success.
With catastrophically-styled high deductibles, abysmal network access, and sky-high premiums, many might say that it's well beyond amazing than even 1.1 million Americans have actually signed up.
However, below is the oft-predicted story, which you will see more and more of as the self-parroting media begins to virally spread Obama's latest excuse, aka White House talking points, gone mainstream media wild, i.e.--it's not the Mandate's fault; it's somehow now the Republican Party's fault:
While Republicans at the national level have thus far been completely unsuccessful in attempts to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act, Republicans at the state level have succeeded in preventing people from obtaining health coverage under the new law.
Data compiled by Theda Skocpol of Harvard University for the Scholars Strategy Network, a progressive group of academics, illustrates how states' decisions to not create their own health care exchanges or expand Medicaid under the ACA have suppressed enrollment. According to Skocpol's research, the 14 states that are expanding Medicaid and running their own exchanges have seen enrollment in Medicaid and exchanges at around 40 percent of projections. In contrast, in the 23 states that refused to expand Medicaid or cooperate when it comes to an exchange, enrollment percentages are in the single-digits.
Well, what did these progressive eggheads actually expect?
Of course the states that widened eligibility for Medicaid will see an increase over their red state counterparts; however, they will also see a spiraling increase of free medical care costs and an increased lack of service providers.
The story continues:
Under the Affordable Care Act, states can either run their own exchange or have the Department of Health and Human Services run it for them. Alternatively, seven stateshave opted for a federal-state partnership exchange. Many Republican governors wanted no ownership over the Obamacare exchanges and deferred to the federal government. The website of the federal marketplace, HealthCare.gov, has been plagued by a botched rollout with many glitches.
Thanks to the Supreme Court decision that declared the law constitutional, governors are free to decline the federal money to expand Medicaid without losing the federal money they already received to insure low-income people. For reasons similar to why they didn't set up exchanges, many Republican governors decided not to expand Medicaid under the law, despite the fact that the federal government plans to pick up all of the cost for newly eligible enrollees in the first three years and no less than 90 percent permanently.
While community organizers in red states with high populations of uninsured have tried to organize their own campaigns, the data suggests that it takes the power of a state to implement the health care law.
The power of a state? What power might that be?
The Obamacare mandate stripped the states of much of their power--so much so that about half of all states took their case to the Supreme Court and actually won.
However, a poorly planned and executed law, that is both inhumanely forced and supported by only half of those in power, at best, is prophetically doomed to final and ultimate failure, and that' s what we appear to be seeing, even now.