Posted By Bonnie Alba On March 24, 2010 (6:33 am) In Top Page News

“I swear … to support and defend the Constitution of the United States … so help me God.”  Our President, Congress, and Supreme Court Justices do so solemnly swear upon entering their offices. The oath of government officials has become one of mere formality, nothing more. The Constitution is just an outdated document to most of them, holding no meaning or knowledge of the original intent of the founders.

U.S. Constitution U.S. Constitution 

There was a time when a man’s word was as good as gold; a handshake meant a promise to be kept. Remember what we as children swore by: “Cross my heart and hope to die?” Did we believe we would die if we weren’t telling the truth? Yet today’s adults swear and make promises which they have no intention of upholding.

 The Republic envisioned by our founding fathers has been scrapped; our Constitution has been dumped on, spit on, trampled beneath the calloused footpads of elected and appointed officials. It’s not about labels of conservative or liberal, republican or democrat. The limitations on government have been arrogantly ignored and the Republic fails from lack of protest from the people — until now.

 We the people are the other half of the equation of the failing Republic. From the 60s the cries of “freedom from responsibility” and “I’m a victim” have persuaded many citizens that Big Brother is Sugar Daddy — he’ll take care of you from birth to death. Educationally dumbed down, several generations have been indoctrinated to expect the redistribution of wealth. Ignorant of their own nation’s governing documents, the people  compel government growth of social programs centralizing more power and control over we the peoples’ lives.

 In some courts, the oath is no longer used to swear in witnesses. Why? Because many Americans have rejected belief in God. Over 175 years ago, French historian Alexis de Tocqueville observed a court case in Chester County, New York. The witness declared he didn’t believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence of the court in what he was about to say. As reported in The New York Spectator,” the presiding judge remarked, “…that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice; and that he knew of no case in a Christian country where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief.”

 That judge would be called intolerant by today’s politically correct standards. Today the oath means nothing which leaves no way to judge the truth of any matter. According to moral relativism, there are no standards. In the same way the Constitution’s truth has been treated, left with no standards. There is no accountability.

 The U.S. Constitution, dusty and unread, sits in silence while the governing bodies go their own way and the people cede their liberty. Tocqueville also observed, “In the United States the sovereign authority is religious (Christianity)…,” whereas in France he almost always saw, “…the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions.”

 Such a small thing is an oath, but when taken, it defines the person who swears by the words — the promise. Is there still hope for our fading Republic? Is hope possible when oaths no longer hold to truth and the words “…so help me God” have no meaning to those swearing?

 Belief in God, a future accounting for the lies and actions of today, heaven or hell, hangs  just below the promise, the oath. When the people no longer believe in God, then the truth no longer exists in the peoples’ minds, and the oath has no meaning and becomes  unnecessary to public life.

 We appear to be in a transitional period, having departed from Republic governance, now well into a Socialist Democracy, we are on the road to fascism. To quote Benjamin Franklin, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

 Is there hope for a return to governance under the Constitution, to oaths under God? Saving the Republic? Is it possible to return to a government…. of the people, by the people, for the people?

 There are signs; the people have awakened from their apathy. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

 Other articles that you may enjoy

Article taken from SmallGovTimes.comhttp://www.smallgovtimes.com
URL to article: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/03/death-of-the-oath-and-republic/

BY William Anderson

August 31, 2009, Vol. 14, No. 46

We are berated, ad nauseam, with imprecations that America is the only advanced nation that fails to have universal health care. This statement is often followed by the rueful remark that the debate over government controlled health care has been going on without progress for 60 years and, ipso facto, it is time to settle it.

All right, let’s do that. Let’s look a little deeper. Why is there no settlement of the issue, and why is America unique in its obstinate reluctance to follow the example of our older cultural brothers in Europe?

When a debate continues for decades without resolution, it is prudent to consider the deeper underlying assumptions. Principles which underpin the arguments are likely being ignored and marginalized rather than addressed in a forthright manner.

America is the only advanced country whose founding assumption is popular sovereignty. This is a proposition that stands with hardly a seconding voice throughout the contemporary international community. Yet it is the taproot of American exceptionalism.

Even here, however, the principle of government subordination to the people is by no means universally accepted. It has never been firmly ratified by our political class, those spiritual descendants of Europe’s nobility. Our soi-disant elite appear to view with dismay their countrymen’s continuing preference for self-rule.

Thus arises the question of corporal ownership. For Americans, the answer has been settled. Since the terrible bloodletting of the Civil War, and now excepting military service, ownership of one’s body is a matter between the individual and God, with no intermediation by government.

Yet assertions are now being made that government should have responsibility for, and thus authority over, the maintenance of our bodies. It necessarily follows that government must have the power to approve or withhold care. This concept collides destructively with the founding principles of individual responsibility and autonomy upon which popular sovereignty depends.

This is the reason that the debate never ends. It is also the reason that any resolution of the question will necessarily either confirm or deny the original intent of the Founders.

So let’s make up our minds. Does the government, in the last analysis, own your body, or do you? If your answer is the former, be aware that you have opted for veterinary medicine, for you are now accepting the moral status of a domestic animal. If your answer is the latter, you must accept responsibility to make mortal decisions for yourself, and pay for the care that you want with money that you have reason to see as your own.

Such money is not out of reach. Medical savings accounts, amalgamated with catastrophic insurance, could take the place of the ad hoc hodgepodge of plans, schemes, dissimulations, and promises under which we are now burdened and threatened.

And there would be greater efficiency and encouragement of individual choice. We all have an enhanced interest in thriftiness and fair value when we, and not third parties, are the payers.

The wisdom expressed in the Federalist Papers began with the insight that men are not angels. The system that the authors designed placed liberty at the head of other considerations. The Founders were determined that concentrations of power should be confounded.

The system now congealing in Congress for health care is not informed by such principles. Access to the most intimate personal information, direct interaction with bank accounts, and mandated Procrustean protocols remain features of the various schemes under consideration. Such programs would be managed by impenetrable, impersonal, and unaccountable bureaucracies. Do we wish to place such profound coercive powers in the hands of anyone, much less those who now stand expectant and eager to receive them?

The view of human nature recognized by the Founders is now in grave peril. Whither goes America? Was liberty merely an 18th-century fad, or is there still something exceptional about our country?

William Anderson, a retired physician, teaches at Harvard University and consults to the intelligence community.

Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.

By JOHN MACKEY

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people’s money.”

  —Margaret Thatcher

 

With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people’s money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

Chad Crowe

Mackey2

Mackey2

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor’s Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an “intrinsic right to health care”? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.

Read the Daily Breeze article here.

Read the full article here.

News & commentary from the liberterrain…

California, struggling with budget deficits, growing debt, and possible bankruptcy, has been seriously considering legalizing their $14 billion per year cash crop, marijuana.

A bill in the state’s Assembly would impose a $50 per ounce fee on legal sales, bringing in “nearly $1 billion a year” depending on which expert’s opinion gets quoted in which newspaper.

In Colorado, candy and soft drinks are legal but they’re exempt from the state sales tax.

The Centennial State, having already closed a $2.1 billion budget gap, faces a billion dollar shortfall in next year’s budget. The state’s politicians see a 2.9-percent “Twinkie Tax” on sweets as a way to sweeten the public pot. A bill to do just that passed the House Monday and, if approved by the Senate, is expected to raise “3.58 million this year and $17.9 in 2011.

In January, New York Governor David Paterson, staring a $7.4 billion deficit in the face, went looking for $1 billion in new taxes and fees even after carving out nearly $800 million from New York City and slashing other taxes.

A $1 tax hike is proposed for that old favorite of politicians everywhere, cigarettes, which will raise a pack to $3.75. Other proposals include a 1-cent per ounce soda tax, legalizing and taxing cage fighting, collecting more revenue from wine by allowing sales in grocery stores, and introducing 50 new speed cameras to catch and fine motorists as much as $100 (thereby belying the claim that speed cameras are justified purely as a “safety” concern.)

Commentary…

So what will happen if California and Colorado and New York and every other state with fiscal afflictions get the increases they want? History tells us that in a year or so they will each spend 150% of their new taxes, face yet another fiscal emergency, and go looking for more things to tax.

Giving more tax money to politicians is like giving a shot of José Cuervo to a stumbling blind slobbering drunk.

They could tax everything in the country with a pulse and never have enough money.

(Or, as libertarian columnist, editor, and author Vin Suprynowicz recently put it, “If you pay taxes, you’re ‘rich,’ so you should expect more taxes.”)

Anyone who believes that politicians and taxes can ever solve any problem anywhere is in greater need of rehab than the tax-addicted politicians or the alcoholics they mimic.

Read the Marin IJ article here.

Libertarians respond to State of the Union address
Posted By Libertarian Party On January 29, 2010 (7:19 am) In Libertarian News

WASHINGTON – Libertarian Party (LP) Chairman William Redpath issued the following statement today in response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address:

“Tonight’s speech was a reminder that, for decades, the policies of Republicans and Democrats alike have failed. Libertarians are asking people to take matters into their own hands. Instead of just complaining, we’re encouraging ordinary Americans to step up and run for Congress on the Libertarian Party ballot line.

“I can say exactly the same thing about President Obama’s speech tonight that I said about George W. Bush’s State of the Union speech in January 2008: ‘Tonight’s State of the Union address went much as expected. Instead of calling for a more limited role of the federal government in American society, the President laid out plans that would only increase the government’s intervention into the realm of economics, health care, education and foreign policy.’

“I am weary of the President’s unspoken premise that only government–indeed, only the federal government–can accomplish good in our society.

“President Obama seems to be totally blind to the concept that government can cause problems rather than solve them. His speech was filled with ‘More’: more handouts, more spending, more programs, more bailouts, more regulations. We Libertarians want less government, not more.

“Not to be outmatched by the Democrats, the Republican Party conveyed its lack of seriousness in addressing this nation’s government spending problems by having Bob McDonnell, Virginia Governor for eleven (11) days, deliver its rebuttal to the President. If they were really serious about addressing the dire fiscal circumstances of this nation, they would have had Paul Ryan, a six-term congressman from Wisconsin, who has proposed the most serious plan of anyone in the two older parties to keep us from going off a fiscal cliff.

“Last week, Alan Auerbach, Professor of Economics and Law at UC Berkeley and US government fiscal policy expert, said that the Democratic and Republican parties are in a ‘death embrace’ with their government spending. The only political party that is rationally and forthrightly addressing the need to cut government spending and end our culture of ever expanding entitlements is the Libertarian Party.

“As Americans lose hope in Obama, we Libertarians are warning voters against running back to the Republicans who got us into such big messes in the first place. Republicans started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans made the false intellectual case for bailing out banks and car companies. Republicans argued that deficits don’t matter. Republicans gave us the giant Medicare expansion bill.

“The President’s suggestion of a ’spending freeze’ was especially ludicrous and insulting to the intelligence of Americans. The amounts involved are minuscule, and Congress won’t accept them anyway. Will Obama sign the spending bills that ignore his ‘freeze’? You bet he will. Instead, the President should demand across-the-board cuts in all areas, including entitlements.

“The President talked a lot about jobs. Unfortunately, the policies he supports are responsible for most of the unemployment we see today. High taxes, minimum wage laws, hiring regulations, firing regulations, mandatory unemployment benefits, and other government interference make it much more difficult for businesses to hire and keep employees. As expected, the President’s prescription is to increase the dosage of this government poison.

“While our nation is declining dangerously right now, a turnaround could be straightforward and simple with steps like these: 1. Bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan; 2. Stop rewarding failed companies with bailouts; 3. Cut taxes and spending and let the free market work.

“Finally, on the matter of political rhetoric, I call upon the two older parties to stop spoon feeding politics to the American people as if we are a bunch of overgrown children. These are difficult times that call for more than rhetorical flourish or positioning a group of diverse people around a politician. Older party politicians need to be specific about their proposed policies, as Libertarians are.

“And, I know I’m probably just wasting electrons, but can’t we go back to the days in which the President sent a copy of his speech to Congress and left it at that. The speech last night took 1/7000th of an entire year. I think the vast majority of the American people would agree that we have better ways to spend our time.”

Read the Libertarian News Examiner article here.

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.