No account yet?
Subscription Options
Subscribe via RSS, or
 
Free Email Alert

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail alert with links to Dallas Blog posts.

New Site Search
Login
Bill DeOre
Click for Larger Image
Dallas Sports Blog
Local Team Sports News
THE OFFICIAL SITE OF THE DALLAS MAVERICKS
Texas Rangers News
DallasCowboys.com
Stars Recent Headlines
Good News Dallas
Lifestyles
America at the Crossroads PDF Print E-mail
by Tara Ross    Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 01:05 PM

By now you’ve heard the news: Democrats succeeded in passing the Senate version of health care “reform” late Sunday night. Some liberals cheered and declared the event “historic,” but polls indicate that the vast majority of Americans are unhappy with the outcome. A friend of mine somberly summed up the consequences of the vote: “We are all Europeans now.”

Are we? I don’t know. I hope not. But one thing is certain. America is at a crossroads. At this juncture, freedom-loving souls in America have only two choices.

Choice one: We can do nothing. We can throw in the towel, believing the war to be lost. But such a choice has consequences. Obamacare lays the groundwork to nationalize one-sixth of the American economy. More and more private decisions will come into the scope of what the government deems its own concern. If we allow this situation to stand, we will lose much of what has made America unique and successful. Slowly but surely, America will descend into socialism. Logically speaking, it is the only possible outcome.

Choice two: We can fight. We can rise up and take our country back. We can work to get this law repealed, in its entirety. It will be a long, hard road. In November, we will need record numbers of upsets in House and Senate races. But we know that American exceptionalism will be lost if our representatives in Washington do not believe in the Constitution—or in Americans themselves. The current congressional leadership trusts primarily in government institutions and mandates. But we know that individual effort, ingenuity, and perseverance can do far more. That has always been the American way.

Yes, bureaucracies are hard, almost impossible, to uncreate. The odds are against us. But, historically speaking, fighting—and winning—impossible battles is what Americans do best. We should now determine to follow in the steps of our founding generation.

In the late 1700s, the American colonists were saddled with an oppressive government. The original tea partiers were born, and their actions eventually sparked a revolution. The Americans were not supposed to win this war. The British army was bigger, better equipped, and better trained. The American army, by contrast, was a ragtag team of half-clothed, hungry men. Victory in the American Revolution, as George Washington once said, “was little short of a standing miracle.” He credited America’s success to the “singular interpositions of Providence” and the “unparalleled perseverance of the Armies of the U States, through almost every possible suffering and discouragement.”

We are not in a literal war right now, but we are in a civil war of ideas.

It was almost inevitable that we would end up here. Over time, Americans have been slowly and thoughtlessly drifting away from many of our core constitutional principles. Many have forgotten the federalist nature of our great country: States have the right to develop their own solutions on a whole host of policy matters. The federal government can’t deny this prerogative of state governments. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is simple: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In America, power defaults on the states and on individuals, not on the federal government. Our current congressional leadership has been acting on the opposite assumption. But the founders drafted the Tenth Amendment as they did because they knew that the best way to protect freedom is to leave political power close to home.

Indeed, the founders assumed that states would each develop different solutions on a wide range of matters. It is puzzling that modern American politicians work so hard to find one-size-fits-all federal solutions for virtually every issue confronting us. This insistence on forcing agreement on such a diverse citizenry has led to unnecessary ill will and division. In some cases, these federal mandates tread too far on state and individual rights and are even unconstitutional.

The problem is pervasive, impacting more than just health care. A few small examples: We don’t have to agree on prayer in schools. A strict reading of the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires the tradition. Federalism would allow public school systems in San Francisco and Plano to implement different policies on the matter, according to the will of their communities. Nor must we all agree on environmental issues. If California wants to bankrupt itself in attempts to stay green, the Constitution does not stop it from doing so. I suspect that we in Texas will retain our freedom to keep drilling for oil.

Similarly, Congress does not have the power to force one federal health care solution on this great, diverse country. Nor should it. Our country, our health, and—most importantly—our freedoms will suffer.

Americans are an entrepreneurial, innovative, hard-working people. We always have been. Obamacare is thus incompatible with our national character.  We must resist it and restore governance that is in line with our federalist Constitution.

Ronald Reagan once spoke about socialized medicine, noting that we must be on alert for any intrusion on our freedoms. Otherwise, he concluded, we will one day “awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”

 

Share This Story on Facebook
Comments (17)add comment
...
written by Paul Barnes , March 23, 2010

From a USA Today conducted Monday night, March 21:

Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it.

By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.




...
written by Jonathan Green , March 23, 2010

Rebuttal to your Article Taken From Al Sharpton:



Change Has Come
Tuesday, 23 March 2010

It was the second annual convention of the Medical Committee for Human Rights in 1965. And during this conference in Chicago, our great civil rights leader, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., delivered a speech that till this day resonates with those who see disparity in our health care system. It was on March 25 – precisely 44 years ago - that MLK said: “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and the most inhuman.” To the 220 members of Congress who voted yes for health care reform on Sunday, the citizens of the United States at long last say thank you for representing our desires, thank you for representing our needs and thank you for representing the will of the people.

For decades, Presidents have tried and failed to push through health care legislation that would begin to rectify the unfair practices of health care providers and the egregious monopoly of the insurance industry. There were efforts by Harry Truman after the Second World War, a push by Lyndon B. Johnson and who can forget the unyielding work of Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 1990s. But it wasn’t until Sunday, into the late hours of the night, that the U.S. Congress effectively passed this historic health care legislation. Following a year of fierce debate and town hall meetings that ended in shouting matches, the Democrats and President Obama solidified their pledge that change would indeed come to Washington.

No one can deny that the road to health care reform was embedded with hurdles and difficulties beyond comprehension. Nor is anyone avowing that all problems within our health care system will be immediately resolved. But for the first time in our nation’s history, American children cannot be denied coverage because they have pre-existing conditions, small businesses will receive a tax credit for providing health care, young adults can stay on their parent’s insurance until the age of 27 and insurance companies cannot cut someone when he or she gets sick. And by 2014, annual caps will be eliminated, health care exchanges will be available, adults with pre-existing conditions will no longer be discriminated against and much much more. Let us not forget, all progressive legislation – including the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – did not grant everything all at once. Instead, it was amendments and other additions to the initial law that created the equality we know and enjoy today. This health care reform bill therefore is the first step in finally achieving a semblance of justice in an area that has shocked and outraged everyone concerned with the betterment of humanity.



President Obama clearly outlined his plan for health care overhaul early on during his campaign for the Presidency. And after winning the election, he spent the first year in office not only fighting for this legislation, but also reaching across the aisle. Incorporating both Democratic and Republican concepts into this bill, and making changes along the way, the President allowed an open exchange of ideas that ultimately delayed a vote on health care reform for an entire year. Let’s be blatantly clear about one thing: Republicans influenced many alterations to this bill – including the loss of a public option – and yet not a single one of them voted in favor of it this past weekend. As we approach the mid-term elections and other battles in key states, let us never ever forget this fact.

Not since the 1960s has such historic legislation passed the Congress and appeared before the President’s desk. But also not since that era have we witnessed such open vitriol, bigotry and reprehensible behavior. The idea that members of Congress had racial epithets like the ‘N word’ hurled at them, and others were spat at only proves the fact that we are unfortunately a long long way from even being close to a post-racial society. And to those pundits and voices on the right that stoke this sort of behavior, you will only lose in the end. You doubted President Obama and the Democrats – they delivered. You created hysteria surrounding health care reform all across the country – it passed on Sunday. And you continue to incite division and racial disparity – and the people will continue voting in the way of progress. Yes we can, and yes we will



...
written by A Brain , March 24, 2010

Wow whoever this Dallas hick is she is a complete moron. ALl l these pseudo constitutional scholars are embarrassing themselves. Please do some history on the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause and oh of course can't forget the Tax and SPend Clause which reads:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Sounds like a hell of an argument for single payer.

Quit being such crybaby sore losers. You lost, you failed and these petty lawsuits will fail too.

Oh and about that horribly veiled Civil War threat? Round 2 will go like the first one. Keep standing in the way of progress if you want to continue to get rolled.



...
written by Joe G , March 24, 2010

Sorry, I cannot read that void of legitimacy and credit-less Al Sharpton.

To the first response from Paul, just wait until they lose their jobs, pay fines, higher taxes and brush up against the mandatory maximum wait period for service of 90 days...



...
written by Bob Reagan , March 24, 2010

I suspect that the passage of the bill will prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. For one thing, physicians will begin leaving the profession. And exactly how can the government provide medical care without them? Ayn Rand picked the wrong Greek for a symbol. It will be Hippocrates who shrugs first, not Atlas. Tara and I should take comfort, though. Obamacare will mean full employment for lawyers.


...
written by Scott Thompson , March 24, 2010

I truly believe that the wrath of the so-called "silent majority" in this nation has finally manifested itself. The Biblical scripture prediction found in Hosea 8:7 will play itself out in the 2010 midterm elections and beyond!


...
written by Jonathan Green , March 24, 2010

@Bob and Scott Thompson. White Folks cried the same thing when the civil rights legislation was passed, white folks cried they were losing their country. White folks cry on anything that does not give them the power to control. Why in the hell would children not want to become educated Physcians? This is the most far fetched notion ever Bob, get real! Change your thought process and accept America is not only for White folks.


...
written by Scott Thompson , March 24, 2010

Ah...the tried and true fall back position of a true LIB...when all else fails, always place the RACE card!


...
written by Bob Reagan , March 24, 2010

Jonathan: You have had some valid comments on this Blog in the past, but here you sound like a racist idiot. First of all, how do you know Scott and I are “white folks”? Second, why should it matter? As egregious as this scheme is, I am unaware that it is designed to apply specially for the benefit of “non-white folks” or any other such group? Are “non-white folks” disadvantaged by the current system? How so? Obamacare will disadvantage us all. See the following link: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/in...mpaign=DPD

Also, how many physicians do you know? I know several very well, some of who are family members. Look at Britain, and other European countries, who have had to import physicians from third world countries where medical training is far inferior the present quality we enjoy in the United States. There are also many physicians nationwide who have said they are about to chuck it. Maybe they’ll become lawyers. As I said, Obamacare will bring about full employment in the second oldest profession.



...
written by henry4440 , March 24, 2010

Those hurling epithets and spitting on folks were, what, one or two out of 30 thousand or so. Naturally, it was those one or two the liberal press glommed onto in order to marginalize the impact of the rightfully angry crowd.

I am fully puzzled why people consider health care or medical insurance somehow to be a "right". Rights are something that infer no obligation on others except to honor or respect them, they do not cost anyone anything out of their pockets.

Insurance companies are businesses and are in it to provide income and/or value to their shareholders. They are NOT eleemosynary institutions. Over the years government interventions have increased premiums. Mandating pregnancy coverage, mandating coverage for experimental procedures, mandating coverage for AIDS, and on and on and on. The result? Medical insurance costs have escalated for all purchasers of the coverage because the government has meddled in it for years. The problem can only get worse. Once underwriting capability is removed from the process the result can only be bad for everyone.

Remember, everyone has a "right" to want health care coverage but no one has a "right" to have it. Just as simple as that.



...
written by Jonathan Green , March 24, 2010

@Bob and Scott, Rufus Shaw whom I loved dearly always used the word white folks in his article and he was never considered a racist or using racist comments. I am not racist, and using "white folks" in no different that using African Americans. If you were quoted as saying "African Americans and Hispanics love this bill I would not call you racist. If you used the N Word you intent is different. Come on now, we are just dialoguing.


...
written by Scott Thompson , March 24, 2010

Whatever.....


...
written by Jonathan Green , March 24, 2010

Bob, I do not have any Physicians in my family, however, I am a believer that Doctors and [Teachers] are called by God. With that, if my son was blessed with the mindset to desire to go in the medical field cool, My foreign physician we are seeing here in America are here because of exchange programs, and if you recall, "Land of Opportunity". So if your friends are making comments; those that are in the field, they are prehaps as you a conservative republican.


...
written by henry4440 , March 24, 2010

Hey, A Brain, you forgot to proceed into the enumerated powers delegated to Congress in Article 1 Section 8. According to the Federalist Papers taxes and spending were to be only on those items listed and the Federal government's role was limited while those of the states were broad. The regulation of commerce among the several states was never intended by the Framers to allow Congress to mandate the purchase of a product or to regulate the manufacture of products. That was a creation of the FDR Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the principle that for the national government to have jurisdiction, an issue must involve the trafficking of goods (not manufacture) between two or more states. He recognized that the enumeration of the interstate commerce power implied powers unenumerated (concerning intrastate commerce) and thus undelegated.

It was during Roosevelt’s New Deal when all inhibitions on federal regulation of the economy were thrown under the bus. The anchoring of the commerce clause in the belief that state governments could not erect trade barriers was forgotten.

It was the Ohio dairy farmer Roscoe Filburn who raised a small quantity of winter wheat – some to sell, some to feed his own livestock, and some to consume – that filed suit in 1940 challenging the Agricultural Adjustment Act that finally led to the camel being fully in the tent on government regulating the economy.

Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. Government’s claim that Mr. Filburn’s wheat meant he would not be buying it and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market hence thwarting the government’s objective. The justices bought it.



...
written by Bob Reagan , March 25, 2010

henry 4440: More recently, and even more to the point, is Gonzales v. Raich, in which conservative hero Justice Scalia reaffirmed the Wickard principle in upholding the federal law banning the growing and possession of marijuana for medical purposes ain the face of state laws permitting it. I suppose that the idea that people might smoke pot, even to relieve pain that nothing else would, was so abhorrent to Scalia that he had to find a way around the Constitution to achieve his desired result. This prompted Justice Thomas to throw up his hands in dissent and say:

“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. . . the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite.”

The Commerce Clause, properly understood, was put in the Constitution so the United States would have a national economy, not to give Congress a general police power. The 10th Amendment has been a practical dead-letter for some time now. The state lawsuits challenging the Obamacare act have some basis, but unfortunately I cannot see the Supremes invalidating it under the present state of Constitutional jurisprudence and the composition of the court, which, by the way, can only get worse. In fact, I am afraid that Obamacare is with us, at least in some form, from now on, unless there is some economic cataclysm or an attack of the magnitude of 9/11 or worse.



...
written by ElHombre , March 26, 2010

"For one thing, physicians will begin leaving the profession."

Simple economics will take care of that. *duh* Unless, of course, conservatives keep undermining science and we're all left with 'prayer-healing'.



...
written by Jim B , April 05, 2010

Government fails through inaction and excess. Both are misrule or abuse of power and ground for removal from office. "Good behavior" applies to all those act in the service of others. It is the basis of professional ethics. The legal community undermines government if they willfully disregard this. Those in power need to culture discipline.



Write comment
smaller | bigger
password
 

busy
 
< Prev   Next >
 

© 2012 Dallasblog.com, the Dallas, Texas news blog and Dallas, Texas information source for the DFW Metroplex. - DALLAS BLOG
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.