Pelosi: House lacks votes to OK Senate health bill
In part a consequence of losing the all-important 60th vote in the Senate Tuesday night, it looks like the Democrats have decided at least to slow down on the massive government takeover of the world's best healthcare system. Are there problems with today's healthcare? Of course. But a takeover by the government bureaucracy is not the answer. Health care reform should be targeted where it can obviously and sensibly do the most good - put the full control of health care management (dollars and decisions) in the hands of the individual. I should be able to manage my healthcare as a budget item the same way I manage my mortgage, my savings, and my investments. Give me the liberty and responsibility to decide what's best for me and my family in the realm of healthcare. Wishful thinking, perhaps.
Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain-Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment
Money is a problem in politics. Always has been. But that does not mean the government should be able to restrict my freedom in how I choose to spend the money I earn. While I have never donated money to a political candidate (and I can't really see ever doing so), the government should not have the power to tell me how I spend my money. Financial support is an expression of free speech, and it is guaranteed by the First Amendment. McCain-Feingold is a restriction of the First Amendment. Should corporations and unions be allowed to spend money in the form of lobbying and support for political candidates? As private institutions, that should be up to the Board of Directions and the rank-and-file memberships of those organizations. But all donations received by politicians should be reported in the public domain - full transparency. In all other cases, the government should not have the power to handicap such freedom of expression.
UN abandons climate change deadline
Climate change is unsettled science, in the sense that the planetary climate is always changing, and scientists still don't really know why. The good news here is that in the wake of recent scandals involving allegations of fraud with respect to data climate models, the UN is having to back down on its efforts to impose upon the world arbitrary restrictions of man-made emissions. The UN is an unelected body, and has no legal jurisdiction to mandate that its member governments do anything. Submission to the UN is entirely voluntary, and to do so is often to subjugate and surrender rights. When it comes to the environment, I absolutely believe that as caretakers, we have a responsibility to care for and protect our environment in all its mysteries and wonders. But it should not infringe upon our liberty and rights as associated with property and progress. Climate change, energy policy, and environmental policy are topics that deserve a lot more reasoned evaluation and discussion. But for the UN to back down even a little from mandates based on the fallacy claiming that this is all "settled science" is a victory for rational, scientific logic. Let's identify solutions to real problems, with a goal of preserving our environment, without going geo-statist to control what and how developing countries improve their economies and way of life. And above all, allow the decisions that affect those living in the land of America stay within our own borders, as established by our representative government under the Constitution.
Because I believe, for us, for America and for the world: "Freedom is a pretty darn good thing."
To quote:
Who wants to spit on the Constitution of the United States of America? Anybody?
All right. Now, who's for the Bill of Rights?
Who thinks freedom is a pretty darn good thing?
Come on! Let's see those hands! ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment