TexasCHLforum.com

As a quick follow up on the "fundamentally transforming this country" comment, did you hear/read what House Speaker Pelosi said the new health care bill is about: "It is about diet, not diabetes." Blurb here:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/09/nancy ... th-care-we" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Full text of her comments here:
http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which include this gem TAM posted yesterday:
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 15#p380262" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Declaration of Independence states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

What part of "Liberty" involves Mr. Government Health Person telling me what I can or cannot do for dinner? If I want to have a 24 oz. rare Ribeye with a wedge salad drenched in ranch with real bacon bits and sharp cheddar cheese on it and a football sized baked potato every Friday, it is not the business of the government. I will suffer the consequences for that, and I will pay higher premiums because of my behavior. Unless I do what is necessary to keep from ballooning up to a size that is grotesque in the eyes of others. But then again, if that is MY definition of Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, what's it to ya?

The same goes for the gun issue (to get back on topic). I don't think any of us want to be told how many guns of what type you can buy or own and when you can buy or own them. Transforming from a 'bottom up' government model (which a representative republic is, in theory) to a top down autocratic progressive model is completely antithetical to what both the Declaration and the Constitution proclaim. Now, if the majority of the governed decide that's what they want, let's amend the Constitution to reflect that. Otherwise, keep yer filthy hands outta my pocket and off my guns.

At least, that's what I'm thinking this morning.

Thanks, Dragonfighter. I've been a bit under the weather this evening and just checked back in.

The problem with "fundamentally changing" the country is that Obama has implied (through the examples above and with suggested legislation) that the representative republic is no longer a viable way of governing. I know Bush 43 had tons of appointed czars, just like Obama, but I didn't agree with him either, after his 2nd year in office. The czars are just one cog in the machine that slowly (evolution, not revolution) changes the thrust of the power vectors (for lack of a better term) of the governed and those who govern.

Right now, in theory, we are in charge. We tell our representatives what to do, and if they don't, we vote them out. Obama is moving to a governing-by-appointees paradigm. OSHA wanting to redefine health and safety to include firearm regulation. It doesn't matter who you elect once these governmental departments start regulating - then it becomes institutional. Here are 2 links on the OSHA nominee. They are from last year, but they illustrate the point of what Obama is trying to do:
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/08/17/os ... e-peddler/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-sh ... be-stopped" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's a link that says why he's against reparations: because once they are paid, then some will say "we've paid our debt" and not do any more: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... ?id=483402" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It then explains why nationalized health care is an expansion on the idea of reparations. It doesn't matter if he is descended from a slave family or not, what matters is the constituency that wants to hear about reparations. I think it also begins to cover your questions on wealth redistribution.

Back to transforming the country. I have gotten over my Glenn Beck fever, but he did make some very good points not too long ago about progressives, and Obama has self-identified himself as one (about 7 paragraphs down in this article, which may also answer some of your other questions): http://www.progressive.org/mag/nichols0109.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One doesn't need to amend the constitution to get one's way - one can regulate things out of existence. Did you see the article concerning public fishing and how it may go away because of a federal Task Force? http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/salt ... id=4975762" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(It may be a bit alarmist, but you know what they say about the camel's nose in the tent.)

This is what I mean by being wary of Obama's pledge of "fundamentally transforming the country". Once power is out of the hands of the elected (and the electorate, by extension) decisions are made by the faceless bureaucrats, and there is nothing you can do about it. Ever fought with the people on the phone at a credit card company? National bank? Student loan company? "I'm sorry, that's just the way it is." Get ready for that response to all your questions about why you can no longer buy a firearm, since the National Health Care Agency in Charge of Your Health has deemed them to be a health hazard. Sure, Amendment #2 is still there, but it is rendered meaningless by governmental fiat.

And yes, end-of-life decisions are made now by the faceless bureaucrats in our insurance companies, but if we were given the option to buy insurance across state lines, we may get away from that by increased competition. There is no option once the government becomes the single-payer in the health care system. If I don't like my provider, I can change to another one. Sure, it may cost more, but so does a home in a nicer neighborhood, or a Noveske over a DPMS. It is all about tradeoffs, and I don't want the government telling me what my (one) option is, I want to decide from a menu of options.

If you want, I'll dig for some more stuff tomorrow, but I think this gives you a few answers to the questions you posed above.

texas1234 wrote:Mark there is no question he is not a moron. Obama is brilliant!

No, Obama is NOT stupid. Frustrated and angry that not everyone is still on the bandwagon, but by no means stupid. Remember what he said just before the election? "We are five days away from FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING this country!"

Most of the hangers-on thought that meant nebulous 'hope' and 'change' that wasn't from the R's. Those who looked more closely then (and now) realize that he meant to fundamentally change the structure of the nation to fit his vision:

Reparations for slavery are a no-go, because they don't go far enough.
This leads to: Wealth redistribution, because it is the only way to be 'fair.' (Joe the Plumber discussion)
Single-payer (gov't run) health care is the eventual goal, but can't be the first step because it will be "ten or fifteen years before we can eliminate private insurance." (Said while he was still a senator [or was he still a state senator then?])
All guns must be taken away from individuals. (No quotes handy, but there are plenty of them out there).

There are a lot more things he's said/pledged/promised. Remember that he's like a magician. Sleight of hand is the rule. If you watch the right hand too much, the left one will have free reign to wreak all sorts of havoc (Czars, regulations, etc.).

marksiwel wrote:

Salty1 wrote:Tomorrow is the big day in Washington DC, the McDonald vs Chicago will be heard by SCOTUS. I need to look at the TV guide later on and see if it will be carried live. I want to be able to listen to the arguments if at all possible. If anybody knows or has any web links to it, please post for the rest of us....

I thought they didnt televise SCOTUS hearings? The Supreme Court is very secretive, its like they're big foots or something

Never fear. A few months after the hearing, the audio will be released. I heard the Heller arguments as a supplement to "Gun Talk" with Tom Gresham and also "The Shot Show" (now "The Gun Nation") with Doc Wesson. Of course, by then, all the info will be out anyway, but it is still interesting to listen to the Supremes in all their inquisitive and argumentative glory.