If you get sick, Republicans want you to die quickly--Alan Grayson

Image via Wikipedia

There is an interesting video at youtube that lists some of the statements made by our elected officials that are of concern.  If you also consider that Alan Grayson also said recently on a radio program that, "Everyone who shouted 'Drill Baby drill' should be rounded up and thrown in jail" and Nancy Pelosi wanting to conduct investigations into who is funding the opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque there is a pattern that bears consideration.

To be fair, Nancy Pelosi did later add that maybe we need to look into the funding of the Mosque would be good too.  If you have not seen Peter Johnson Jr.'s commentary on the Mosque issue I recommend it.  He does the best job of expressing where I stand on this issue. 

That said, I'd like to share my reaction to Alan Grayson's remark.  When I heard him say this I wondered how he reconciled the "Complete Lives System" proposed by Ezekeil Emanuel.  The above link takes you to a paper written by him and some of his colleagues: "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions."  Among the eight simple principles for allocation are classified into four categories according to their core ethical values.  The one that concerns me is the "promoting and rewarding social usefulness."  I do not mean to say that I don't recognize that there are and will be times when there are shortages.  I just want to be assured that the individuals who are making the decisions have a strong moral base in the sanctity of life.  Have and will hard decisions need to be made? Yes.  I just want us to strive to make those decisions on certain basic values.

I believe that our system of government was established as a Constitutional Republic in order to ensure that we continued to make decisions based on our core principles.  We are abandoning the system of checks and balances and that is not conducive to using those core principles to make tough decisions.  This, coupled with statements made by the Fabian Socialist, George Bernard Shaw, urges us to take a closer look.   In this video GBS recommends that people come before a sort of "panel" and be asked to "justify their existence."  If they are not doing their share or perhaps a little more then he ultimately suggests some sort of humane gas to end that existence.

That sounds scary, but I do not intend to use it as a "scare tactic."  If you entrust your well-being to someone whom you have elected to represent you and those you love I believe you need to know their character and on what basis they make their decisions.  You don't have to agree with everything, but it's good to know when times get tough that the person has a core set of values that doesn't change.  I'd like to also add, for your consideration, a recent article that came to my attention via Hot Tea Radio.  The comment was titled: "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo, which cancer drug has to go?" (or something like that :-)  The link takes you to an article that includes the phrase "death panels."  I know that phrase has been labeled a scare tactic, rhetoric, and/or propaganda, but I urge you to take a closer look at what people mean when they say that.  If my medical options have to change for whatever reason, I believe the decision-making should remain as close to my family, my doctors and myself as possible.  I feel that the further away it gets, the more like a "death panel" it becomes.  And it won't necessarily look like a "panel."  It will involve the slow, steady, and dispersed establishment of various restrictions and regulations that you might not even know about until it hits close to home.

This all leads me back to something I read in The Road to Serfdom.  Hayak writes on page 6:

"...the fatal flaw of socialist planning (is that) it "presupposes a much more complete agreement on the relative importance of the different ends than actually exists, and that, in consequence, in order to be able to plan, the planning authority must impose upon the people that detailed code of values which is lacking....and why, even democratic planning, if it were to be successfully carried out, eventually requires the authorities to use a variety of means from propaganda to coercion to implement the plan."

My belief in our system of government does not reflect an opposition to change.  It reflects the belief that the farther removed the decision-maker from those who are impacted by those decisions the more danger there is in abandoning those principles and values that are so important.  The checks and balances are there for a very good reason:  our government and country consists of flawed human beings. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Nancy Pelosi Calls For Probe Into Funding Of Opposition To 'Ground Zero Mosque' (huffingtonpost.com)
• Nancy Pelosi: Mosque Opposition Should Be Investigated (rightpundits.com)

Email: Proposed 28th Amendment

Image via Wikipedia

You've probably seen it.  The chain email that discusses the proposed 28 amendment to our Constitution because:


Congress members can retire with the same pay after only one term  As this link shows this is not true.  The age at which they can begin to collect their pensions depends on years of service and can be found at this link.

They exempted themselves from many of the laws that they have passed.  An article at Senator Chuck Grassley (Iowa) senate web page has information regarding the Congressional Accountability Act signed in 1995 which made Congress subject to 12 laws that they had previously exempted themselves from.

The email singles out that they "exempt themselves from fear of prosecution for sexual harassment.  This is where Snopes response can be misleading. They cite the CAA mentioned above, which includes sexual harassment.  However, according to a July Politico report that is not exactly true.  While they may be subject to the sexual harassment law, the taxpayer, not the politician foots the bill. That's sort of like being exempt, don't you think?  (Stuff like this is making me wish there was a snopes site to check out the veracity of the snopes responses.)

The email also states that they exempted themselves from the Healthcare Reform. Snopes gives you the section of the bill that tells their readers that this is erroneous.  However, you might want to check out an article that gives you a little more information.   An exemption was carved out for Senate committee and leadership staff.  Also exempt are the President, Vice-president and all those Czars running around Washington.  So, the devil is in the details and definitions.  I am once again reminded that a presidential order was signed forbidding Federal funds being used for abortions.  That wasn't worth much since some states are already putting systems in place to use the funds for abortions.  Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Maryland have applied for and been granted exemptions.  


And, finally, as far as the actual process for amending our Constitution you may want to take this opportunity to start familiarizing yourself with what it actually says so that you armed with the truth. 

Maybe it would be a good idea to send this post, instead of the email, to 20 of your friends.  That way we can all get a little more familiar with our Constitutional Republic and that's a GREAT use of our time.