Comments on America as a Christian Nation



In 2009 David Barton, founder of WallBuilders, wrote an  interesting article asking the question, Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?  His article was in response to the many proclamations up to that time by our President claiming on his world tour that in fact America was NOT a Christian nation.  You can read the article for yourself by pasting the link that follows in your browser:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23909

I found the article very enlightening and shared it with many of my friends and expressed my personal thoughts on America being founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and believing as it was at its founding, it is today a Christian nation.  In other words, I agreed with the position expressed within the article.  I got a few responses but one in particular caused me to rethink and reread the article as the person responding was someone I respected and knew had a sharp mind.  His response is as follows:

“In answer to your question, no Bill, America is not a Christian nation.  America is a nation where all religions are welcome and share (or should share) values common to most religions, certainly including Christianity.  I read this article.  The problem with your pushing this if two-fold.  First, you emphasize that which divides us, which is destructive at the least and offensive at most.  There are so many people in the US today who spend all of their time working to polarize and divide, which is the exact opposite of the founding fathers goals.  Second, there are so many more important things to spend time worrying about than whether or not America is a Christian nation.  I would suggest that those who spend their time worrying about this devote that same time to working to address some of the very issues in our society that Christianity very eloquently and genuinely is concerned about.”

This was a well written response and one that one must consider, and I did.  I responded immediately with some quick thoughts promising to reread and rethink the article and get back to him again later:

“Thanks for responding - you say you have read the article prior to responding and that is great - but I do not see where it divides when it clearly is a factual historical recounting of our founding principals.  It does not discourages ANY religion and makes clear that was part of the founding principals so in that way I do not see how that can be destructive and/or offensive.  History is clearly instructive and not divisive in any manner.  One can disagree with where it has taken us as a nation if one finds fault but one can not, in my opinion, find offense to factual history - can they?  It speaks to what it means to be a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principals - not pagan, or secular, or Islamic or anything else.  The article also speaks to not becoming a theocracy which I too agree with, and it speaks to what that has meant to its people, the country and the world.  Did you find something in the historical record presented that was in error?  I do not say that lightly, as I read a lot of history and if there is something inaccurate then I will gladly respond with the corrected material but I am at a loss as to your response.  The references to President Obama as to whether he believes we are or are not a Christian nation aside he did make this an issue by declaring that we are not a Christian nation, did you find his statements divisive and offensive as well?

But getting back to what I felt was the main premise of the article and what I ask you; to what do you hold in our existence that has allowed this country to experience its exceptional growth and standing, as we are no different beings then others around the world?  What has allowed this country and its people to prosper to the extent it has, as again we are the same species as everyone else?  It is the contention of many, the founders included, that it is our Judeo-Christian beliefs and ethos that has been passed along that differentiates us from the rest of the world and from that, the birth of our freedom and our individual responsibility for ones own pursuits of life, liberty and property that created capitalism and prosperity, what do you think? 

Thanks again and please know that I truly appreciate your thoughts and comments.”

Well, as you can see my response was not as succinct or articulate as my friends but I can only express my thoughts as best I can.  In any case, I think I may question his statement that he read the article prior to his writing in that his response seems to be more a gut reaction to the title of my e-mail and not to the content as that happens much more often then I would like to think.  However, in light of my previous statements I still will give him the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word about his reading the full article. 

If you do read the article you can not help but understand and agree that America was in deed founded on Judeo-Christian principals and that my friend has missed the point.  It was the Christian faith that played a major role in the countries awakening and their subsequent desire to free themselves from the tyranical rule of the King of England. 

An obvious principal founder was George Washington, the Father of our Country, and despite recent historians trying to paint him a Deist by reading Peter Lillback’s number one national best seller “George Washington: Sacred Fire” you can see in Washington’s own words, and in his own writings that his “fire was not a secular fire, but a flame fueled by the holy.”  One can read that Washington, when describing himself, “repeatedly used the words ardent, fervent, pious, and devout.”  He composed and penned hundreds of prayers in his own words and in his own hand.  He spoke of Jesus Christ as “the divine Author of our blessed religion…and took an oath in a private letter, on my honor and the faith of a Christian.”  No, George Washington was a devout Christian as were most of the other founders and the vast majority of the American people at that time, and thus was the foundation that strengthened their resolve and ushered in this new country.  

Listen to founder John Adams, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . the general principles of Christianity.”  Another founding father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall agreed, “…a Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles.”

One must acknowledge written within this article and within American history itself that although most “Americans” of the day were one denomination or another Christian, there were in fact those who were non-believers as well as those who believed in non-Christian faiths – but all were welcome and it was stated as such by our founders, but despite that ALL knew they lived in a Christian nation. 

Again quoting Mr. Barton’s article using his quote of Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) – “In what sense can America be called a Christian nation?  Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that people are in any manner compelled to support it…Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders.  Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all.  Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially.  In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.  Nonetheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, the leading Christian nation of the world…Consequently, a Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles.”

Or to use Mr. Barton’s own words, “We are a Christian nation because Christianity has so largely shaped and molded it.”

In closing, I will borrow a few more quotes from Mr Barton's article, those of several Jewish leaders as I think they say it very well:

Jeff Jacoby, a Jewish columnist – “This is a Christian country – it was founded by Christians and built on broad Christian principals.  Threatening?  Far from it.  It is in precisely this Christian country that Jews have known the most peaceful, prosperous, and successful existence in their long history.”

Dennis Prager, a national Jewish columnist and radio host – “If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values bases and the central role of the Jewish and Christian bibles (its Founders’ guiding text), we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America’s non-Christians.  Just ask the Jews of secular Europe…Too many Americans do not appreciate the connection between American greatness and American Christianity.”

Daniel Lapin, Orthodox Rabbi – “…I can follow my faith as long as it doesn’t conflict with the nation’s principals.  The same option is open to all Americans and will be available only as long as this nation’s Christian roots are acknowledged and honored…Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the west is doomed.  Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah, and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in.  God help Jews if America ever becomes a post-Christian society!...”

Burt Prelutsky, a Jewish columnist and a patriotic Jewish American, gladly embraces America as a Christian nation and even resents the secularist post-modern attack on national Christian celebrations such as Christmas:

“…This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many millions of Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. It should never be forgotten that, in the main, it was Christian soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi Germany and who liberated the concentration camps. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours. Merry Christmas, my friends.”

Does the Rank-and-File Union Worker Know Who Their Bosses are Asking Them To Stand With? - Part II

Below is the conclusion to my most recent Blog that I just stopped in the middle of – too long for one Post.  Now the ending:

Fourthly, (Article Topic):

"Activists here and around the country have begun mobilizing to stop cold those who promote racism and hatred of Muslims."

"They drum up anti-Muslim hatred along with a phony populism. Their target is a proposed Islamic community center a few blocks from the WTC site."

"These racists’ short-term electoral goal is to defeat the Democratic Party in the upcoming congressional elections and debilitate the Barack Obama administration."

"Workers need anti-racist solidarity to wage their essential fight for jobs, education, health care and other social benefits."

"Fortunately, forces are mobilizing to confront the right-wingers’ fascist-like rally."

OK, in all the latest polls 70% of New Yorkers are against the Islamic Center being built in its selected location - these NY'ers all know it is the Muslims right to build a mosque there as they all know it is their right to protest it.  The question is, is it the right thing to do?  If in fact this is suppose to be a "bridge" to other religions, non-Muslims, as we are continually told, but yet seven in ten oppose the location, wouldn't it be the smart thing to move it to another location - if in fact you were truly wanting to build "bridges?"

Are ALL these people racist?

Are ALL these people Republican? (in one of the most Democratic Cities in the Nation?)

Are ALL these people against jobs, education, health care and other social benefits?

Do you think that all who oppose the building of the "Islamic Center" are anti-Muslim?  anti-worker?

Do you think that there are no Union members that oppose the mosque?

Why has one of the largest Muslim groups in Canada spoken out against the masque location?  Why do they think it is wrong?  What is their motive?

Why is the Islamic Center called the "Cordoba" Project?

As for his statement, "...right-wingers fascist-like rally." - either the author doesn't know, or he suspects his readers don't know, that fascism is a BIG government movement and part of the "Left" on the spectrum of political ideology.  The further Right one goes the smaller and smaller one gets on the size-of-government scale – the furthest right being Anarchism, which is no government.  Let me assure you, if he is attacking Conservative Republicans (we know he is) then none of them believe in fascism and its big government movement.  Most tend to follow along with the thinking of the Founders and their limited government philosophy.  It is the left on the political spectrum that is for BIG government (as you know), they want the federal government to control everything or almost everything, i.e. communism, socialism, marxism, fascism, progressivism, liberalism (in its non-classical sense).  Our Founders created this Constitutional Republic closer to the right end of the spectrum then the left - not mid-way between the two, but decidedly closer to anarchy with NO federal government then to the other end, TOTAL government.  But I believe the author of your article knows that, or should have, but as loose as he played with facts in his article he didn't really care, may not have known, and/or figured most would go along with his contention rather then question what he was saying.  Why not?  It has been a played moniker for a long time and many people don't really know what it means.  Fortunately for me, I do.

I have read it and researched who wrote it and from what ideological bent he came from and thus have my speculations, what are your thoughts?

Did you know the background of the author of this article?

Did you know the beliefs of the organization that sponsors this web site and the event?

Is this article and its rancor something you believe?

Is Marxism, Socialism, etc. your ideology?

What system of job creation do you think lifts up the common man and woman more - Socialism, etc or Capitalism?  Why?

What do you believe in, generally speaking?

Again, thanks for sending the article and I look forward to hearing back from you and engaging in a thoughtful discussion on your opinions.” 

Well, suffice to say he NEVER sent me a responding e-mail – and you know what?  He didn’t know about anything that I wrote to him about – he didn’t know about this organization and its founders and that they believed in the things I pointed out to him – he didn’t know his Union bosses were asking him to stand with these people – he didn’t know, and he works for the Union!  He works directly for the Union as one of their employees and he knew none of this – I am sure he didn’t know how to respond and more then likely he just didn’t believe it and disregarded the whole thing. 

He is an American.  He believes in America and wants what is right for America.  However, he has totally bought in to all the Union rhetoric, that Republicans are bad people that hate everyone, that they are racists, all rich, and love all companies and their management.  He believes everything he hears from the Democratic party must be true.  Everything he hears from NBC, CBS and ABC is true, but any other news organization is spreading lies.  He doesn’t know the big Union bosses have a completely different agenda then he has and they are as much big business as the companies he has been taught to hate – but they are much worse because they convince all these people that they “care” for them.  He doesn’t know the Unions don’t really care about him or the America he loves at all.  He doesn’t know the President of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, just stated yesterday that he “got into the labor movement not because I wanted to negotiate wages.  I got into the labor movement because I saw it as a vehicle to do massive social change…” – it’s not your wages he is interested in but rather it’s the Progressive agenda – corruption, power, back room deals - he wants to effect change and push his agenda around the world and that will take down America, and the sad thing is, that means the American worker too.  They don’t care about the Union worker except for their forced Union dues taken out of their pay-checks each week that gives them the tens of millions of dollars to buy politicians and exert the power they need to change the very fabric of this country – and the thing is, most all the hard working Union members DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEIR UNION BOSSES ARE REALLY DOING AND WHERE THEY ARE REALLY PUSHING THE COUNTRY AND THEM.  

Who are you standing with and why, do you know?

Does The Rank-and-File Union Worker Know Who Their Bosses are Asking Them To Stand With?

Below is a link to a web-site a long time union representative sent.  We were e-mailing about some political issues and he sent this to me in response to something I sent him:

Check out this article from Workers World:

 http://www.workers.org/2010/us/sept11_0902/

So, being a good e-mail debater I read the article and then took it to the next level, I researched everything in the article and all the people mentioned in the article – I don’t think he ever did that and I know he didn’t think I would!

So below is my response back to him – I think it answers the question posed in the title of this Blog.  What do you think?

“XXXXX,

Hey, good hearing from you and thanks for sending this article.  Sorry I took a while to respond but I had to do some research on the author and the organization, I did not know them.  You didn't give me any comments on it so I do not know if this is something you believe in or just sending to me to get a response.  If it is the former I do not mean to question your beliefs (but I will), if it is the latter, then you got me.  As I said, since I was not familiar with the organization nor the author I had to do some research so I knew from where they and you were coming from - very interesting and it gets a little long but as I said I didn't know most of this.  Did you?

Progressives to mobilize Sept. 11 to confront racist gathering

By John Catalinotto

New York

Published Aug 26, 2010 9:30 PM - Worker's World

First off the Author, John Catalinotto:

John Catalinotto is a journalist and lecturer at City University of New York. He was a civilian organiser with the American Serviceman's Union, an anti-war GI group, from 1967 to 1971.  He is a member of the Workers World Party (WWP) and is an avowed Marxist-Leninist. 

 

Second, the Workers World Party:

The Workers World Party (WWP) is a Marxist-Leninist sect that was founded in 1959 by Sam Marcy.  Marcy and his followers were members of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) until they split apart because, unlike that organization, they supported the presidential bid of the Progressive Party's Henry A. Wallace.  WWP describes itself as a party that has, since its founding, "supported the struggles of all oppressed peoples [and] has recognized the right of nations to self-determination, including the nationally oppressed peoples inside the United States." Viewing America as a nation infested with "racism" and "bigotry."

"We're independent Marxists who respect the struggles for self-determination and progress of oppressed nations," says WWP.  They advocate socialist revolution and the abolition of private property in the United States.  During the Cold War it always sided with the Communists, against America. In the 1960s, Marcy himself led demonstrations against the Vietnam War and called for the victory of the Vietcong.  It has a membership of approximately 2,000 people.  Today it is the driving force behind Ramsey Clark's International Action Center and International ANSWER (Whatever the nature of any conflict, Clark invariably sides with America’s adversary); WWP activists run both organizations. Several key ANSWER officials — including Brian Becker (self proclaimed Marxist), Larry Holmes (self proclaimed Marxist), Teresa Gutierrez (Self proclaimed Communist), Sarah Sloan (self proclaimed Marxist), and Sara Flounders (self proclaimed Communist) — are WWP members.

Thirdly, Progressives:

This I am familiar with as it was and is a political movement started in this country at the end of the 19th century and I have read several books on the topic.  Teddy Roosevelt(R) was a Progressive and Woodrow Wilson(D) after him as was FDR(D)after that and Johnson(D), Nixon(R), Bush(R), Clinton(D), Bush-2(R) and now Obama(D).  You will note that there were both Republican and Democrat Progressives although more Democrats would call themselves that today then Republicans, although I suspect that McCain(R) and the Republican Senator from SC, Graham, are both Progressives in the mold of Teddy.

Progressives at the end of the 19th century and the turn of the 20th century brought about some ideas to improve the country and the worker's plight but overall their philosophy was that the Constitution of the US is flexible and should change with the times, that it should be changed at their whim - it was not a rock solid foundation that the country was built on - that the smarter people, the elite should be able to tell the masses what to do and how to do it and the Constitution should not get in their way - this was the basis of post-modern thought, man knew better and could decide for himself what was right and wrong- who needed some old document.  Wilson was the past president of Yale, or Princeton (one or the other) and believed that the masses are to dumb and should just be told what to do - that a government of the people and by the people would just not due - a big strong federal government is best to control everything - it was by a push from Wilson and his administration that the way we elect our Senators changed (17^th Amendment) from its original Constitutional format thus altering forever the way our system of government was structured to keep the federal government limited by strong States rights and people rule.  Also, under Wilson he orchestrated the formation of the Federal Reserve - a private group comprised of the large, major bankers to control the US money supply - we are still living with those fiasco's today (isn't it funny, Geitner came from that group and no problems or sanctions were placed against that group for the economic times...hmmm).  Wilson, an extreme racist, re-segregated the civil workers as well as the military (yes, both were comprised of black and white working together until Wilson split them apart). 

The Progressive movement also embraced Eugenics and Planned Parenthood through Margaret Sanger (you might remember Hilary Clinton stating this was a hero of hers back during her campaign) - At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.  Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization: And she also spoke of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

We know what FDR did - extended the Depression by building up the Federal government and spending the country into huge debt (sound familiar) - he did the exact opposite of what President Harding did to stop the recession (a bigger recession coming off WWI then that which first presented itself to FDR at the beginning of his term) in its tracks in 1920 bringing forth the roaring 20's and the greatest move forward for the common working man in the world - even FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, friend and creator of the spend money policy said that after 8 years of his policy all we have done is "keep people out of work and increased the national debt."  And there is so much more on FDR, however I lack the time and space to write it all - but you can certainly read about it or ask any questions and I will respond. 

Anyway, these are just a few things associated with the Progressive movement in its early days.  Not a whole lot of difference today - they still believe that a big federal government is best, that people need to be told what to do and that the elites should rule - you and I are not part of the elite or ruling class - they still believe, as Obama himself said, "...the Constitution is a limiting document." - yes, it was intended to be, to limit the powers of the federal government and keep that power with the people, the way it was designed by our Founders - making us a constitutional republic with liberty and freedom for all.”

OK, I think you can see where this is heading as there was much more to this article then the rant against Republicans the sender intended - more to it then he knew - however, this Blog Post is getting to long so I will conclude it within a few days – stay tuned.

New Financial Taking Coming to America - Time to Decide

 

Check this out - the new Finance Law (the second huge bill with 2000+ pages passed into law that nobody read) just signed by President Obama now EXCLUDES the S.E.C. from any and all Freedom of Information Laws - they do not have to answer for anything they do - and yes, as you already know, this new law gives them the power to seize ANY financial institution they FEEL may fail - take it - control it - decide who works and who doesn't - how much any employee makes - I thought we lived in a Constitutional republic?  hmmm - yes they can take complete control and there is nothing anyone can do to check them out in that they don't have to produce anything that may justify,or not, their decision - our government now controls nearly 70% of the U.S. economy - do you think the government can run ANYTHING better then anyone in the private sector?  If so, please tell us one governmental program that is not over budget and/or bankrupt - what a wonderful country we live in hey?

First off, this bill was written by Dodd and Frank (and many others, including lobbyists), the two who have been in control of the Banking committees in Congress for 20 plus years and told us nothing was wrong with the system even when questions arose in 2004 and even much later right up until the collapse - this new bill (frankendodd) also does nothing with Fannie and Freddie, two major contributors to the economic collapse, not even any oversight as proposed by a bi-partisan committee as a minimum to protect the American people from future problems - now for the attorneys among us it does make it easier to sue so that little group gets a nice new cottage industry - the new law gives the Federal Reserve more power too, (as you should know, they are a nice little PRIVATE organization that was formed by and is controlled by the major U.S. bankers to protect their assets and now sets the U.S. money policy) and we can't even see their books or anything going on inside it, now it too has even more power over us, great hey - it creates another new government agency to watch over ALL bank accounts and tracks every credit card account too, (yes, yours and mine), how does that help our economic liberty?  It charges billions of dollars in new fees on banks, hmmm, and who do you think will pay for that?  And, how does that help an already devastated industry?  Get this, the new law passes the buck from congress, our elected officials, to appointed bureaucrats who decide how financial regulations will be implemented on society - thousands of faceless bureaucrats will decide who or what happens and our politicians get to say - what?, who me? not me, we'll form a task force to look into it!  And years later and millions of dollars later nothing will be resolved - no worries - how does the S.E.C., which totally missed the credit rating fiasco get even more power?  How does the treasury department that bailed everyone out, in complete violation of our constitution get even more power?  Oh there is more - this bill creates another new agency (yes, you pay for that too) the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection - this new created panel makes recommendations to outside institutions like the Federal Reserve, that the Fed is NOT required to follow - how do we take this, or them, seriously?

Now the S.E.C. said that they will TRY to answer people's questions, just e-mail them and they will get back to you, if they can - now that makes me feel better - you?

All you Obama people, still think he is the guy that will change our country for the better?  Is this the change you wanted?  Did you really understand what he meant when he said he was going to "fundamentally change America" that he was talking about a complete government take-over?  From a Constitutional republic to a some sort of social democracy, but definitely something with reduced liberty, freedom and opportunity?  Our President believes that he knows what is best, you don't - he is an elite and he knows much more then the common man (that's you and me) and that we really need to be "ruled" by the smart people (that's why the Constitution to him is no good - to restrictive, and he said so - just like Wilson and FDR before him, they hated it too) - we don't know what's good for us, we are just too dumb.

President Obama thinks, no he has stated, that wealth is bad and redistribution of it is the only way - (just so you know, Mr & Mrs Obama made over $7MM last year, so wealth is OK when its the right people getting wealthy - like the Clinton's before hand who had nothing when Bill got elected but yet cleared over $100MM last year - say, wasn't everyone complaining about the Bush's spending so much when one of their daughters got married - hmmm, no mention about the Clinton wedding which dwarfed the afore-mentioned by spending over $3MM this weekend) - anyway back to the topic at hand...his new Health Czar heading up medicare/medicaid and soon your national health care stated that the only good, and right "health care program must, must be redistributive"...from those who have more to those who have less among us - some of you may say that's OK, but you will soon find out that you, all of us, are the one's considered wealthy in this regime - remember, they are on a world crusade and even the poor among us are wealthy when compared to the rest of the world - avg incomes (h to l): Switzerland-55K; U.S.-47K; Germany-42K; Greece-28K; Russia-7K; Mexico-7K; Venezuela-7K; Brazil-2K and its worse from there - they are looking at and want the world to average out at $14,600/family - how much better is your life going to be when these radical progressive revolutionaries are done "CHANGING" AMERICA???

YOU HAVE A CHOICE:

- redistribution of wealth
- globalism
- big government/marxism/fascism
- class and race warfare
- dread and dispair

vs.

- individual liberty
- personal responsibility
- free markets
- freedom to succeed or fail
- pursuit of happiness

TIME TO DECIDE - IF YOU WANT YOUR LIBERTY, FREEDOM, AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED OR FAIL you need to STAND UP and voice your opposition to this "taking" of our rights as free-born American citizens.

Sorry, it was a long rant.

Some more on Health Care for you...

 

Congressional talking heads and even the President stated during their discussions for the need to pass this bill and even in the post passage afterglow glee, that Obamacare will immediately take care of kids with pre-existing conditions - oops - sorry, that is wrong, that provision doesn't kick in until 2014 - hmmm... maybe it would have been better to actually read it before making claims or better yet, before passing it in the first place - what else did they(we) miss in this bill?

Democratic Governor from Montana, Brian Schweitzer is claiming this bill does not get to the underlying costs of healthcare so we have done nothing to reduce costs, we have again just attacked prices, retail prices, or the consumers cost - not the actual costs to produce the service/product/good...many of us have been saying this for a long time but now at least someone from the other side admits it - so what does this bill really do - is it about control?

Didn't a Democratic Congressman tell us this past week about the process and the health bill that "...we need to control the people" - oops, yes that was said I do remember - a little revealing that this is much more then health care, much more.

case in point...

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the influential Finance Committee, said the overhaul was an "income shift" to help the poor. Hmmm...that contrasted with the arguments Democrats have been making in the past year for reinventing the health care system: to expand health care coverage to the uninsured and tighten regulations on insurance companies while reducing the federal deficit. Now we are hearing that it is really to "shift" income - redistribute - how is that American? - to take money from achievers and give it to the non-performers by force - charity is a choice, not a government dictate - so much more then about health care.

"This bill creates 159 new agencies, commissions and bureaus. Now, the idea that the Department of Health and Human Services (or any government agency) can implement a bill that has 159 new offices is just a fantasy."   And this from the Heritage Foundation's Brian  Blase taken from his analysis of the Bill where it is clear its costs out weigh any benefits:  "Obamacare has increased Government control of Americas' health care choices; raised the cost of insurance; forced insurers to stop offering child-only policies; broken the promise that an individual can keep his insurance unaltered; and bailed out underfunded union early-retiree health care plans."

And now after this bill's passage and the latest federal budget and the trillions of dollars that imposes on our economy we find that most American voters believe it’s possible that the nation’s economy could collapse, and majorities don’t think elected officials in Washington have any ideas on how to fix it.  In a poll just at the end of this week finds that 79 percent of voters think it’s possible the economy could collapse, including large majorities of Democrats (72 percent), Republicans (84 percent) and independents (80 percent).

Todays News on our new National Healthcare Law

The New York Times (yes, that very same liberal paper) stated that "...every major part of the health care bill is about redistribution of wealth."  Also today, a Democratic Senator from Montana stated this new law is about "redistributive change..."

Haven't some conservatives been saying this for some time and been mocked, continuously?  Others have been saying this as well and were ridiculed too, but now after it becomes law those who passed it are saying the reality of its true goal - take from the slightly prosperous and give to the poor.

By 2020 (just 10 years from now) EVERY TAX DOLLAR BROUGHT IN BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL BE USED TO PAY SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND THE INTEREST ON THE DEBT - EVERY TAX DOLLAR - where is the money for the post office,  NASA, national defense, scientific research, the arts, etc.?

And something quite remarkable, a part of the Health Care Bill is about the control of our kids education by allowing no private sources of student loans for college - only the federal government can give student loans now - how does that have anything to do with Health Care?  Or is it a little bit about control...

Again, most everyone thought there were some changes needed in healthcare and I was one of them...but be honest, is this the type of change you were thinking about?  Were you thinking we needed to have the government totally control it?  Take from some and give to others?  Is that the role of our government in this free republic?

hmmm...

28th Amendment - the time has come to Act!

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress.  Many citizens have no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term that they didn't pay into Social Security that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed while ordinary citizens must live under those laws.  They have even extended some of these benefits on to their staffers by passing a law that states that staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to repay student loans.

No one has been able to explain why young men and women serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay as a retirement benefit.  However Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving one term.  It just does not make any sense.

The latest gift at the taxpayer’s expense is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that has just passed...in all of its forms.  Somehow, that doesn't seem logical.  We do not have an “elite” that is above the law.  I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever.

The self-serving must stop.  This is a good way to do that.  It is an idea whose time has come.  E-mails are requesting that each person contact a minimum of 20 people who in turn each ask 20 more to do likewise, and on and on...

In short time most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ".