Gerrymandering Conressional Districts

Why is it that the Democrats / Liberals / Progressives always express a fear that the Republicans will behave the way they do?

With the Gubernatorial seats gained by the Republicans, the Democrats were expressing a fear and concern that the new redistricting that will occur will be "gerrymandered".  How about we take a look at how the districts are set up in a state whose governorship is traditionally Republican vs one that is traditionally Democrat and see if and where gerrymandering occurs.

Texas Congressional districts are all pretty much in block format.  The state divided into districts by population without reference to the prevailing political affiliation of the populace.

Massachusetts Congressional districts on the other hand, are a bit more artistically drawn.  This one looks a lot like somebody through paint balloons at a wall. The 4th Congressional district is particularly interesting.

Less there remain any doubt as to where gerrymandering of congressional districts occurs, just look at CA 38th Congressional district.  If you believe there was no gerrymandering in the setup of that district I have some carbon credits to sell you.

Whenever the Democrats have an outcry about what the Republicans might do, you can usually be sure that the Democrats have already done it.

The Commerce Clause and the 9th Amendment

When the Constitution was originally drafted the anti-federalists opposed the document because it didn't list protections for the individuals.  The federalists who supported ratification didn't think a bill of rights was necessary because the powers of the government were specified.  They saw no reason to specify what would be protected when there was nothing in the Constitution that stated the government could regulate it.  The federalists feared that a Bill of Rights would specify only some rights and leave others with the interpretation that it was not a right and open to government influence.  In this debate, both sides have been proven to have valid points.

Alexander Hamilton stated that there was no need to specify a freedom of the press because there was no power given to regulate the press, but is there any doubt in anybody's mind that Congress wouldn't hesitate to invoke the commerce clause to regulate the press?  There's no doubt in mine.  Congress uses the commerce clause to justify absolutely everything they do.  Considering that newspapers are purchased in states other than where they are printed, Congress would view this as interstate commerce and available for regulation.  In this case the anti-federalists demands for a list of protected rights was absolutely justified.

However, we are also seeing where the government and the judges are interpreting the Bill of Rights to only grant those rights specified, so the federalists were right as well.  The 9th amendment was supposed to protect all rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights by stating "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  The intent of this amendment was to ensure that Congress or the president did not take one of their powers and interpret it to cover absolutely everything, but the courts pay little to no attention to the amendment because it doesn't specify certain rights. 

The courts, unable to determine what human rights are or should be, disregard the Constitutional amendment which is supposed to further restrain our government from infringing on our rights through expansions of their own power.  This is sad considering that the information on the intent of the amendment is easily found and interpreted, but then again, what influence does the intent of our Constitution actually have on our judicial system?  Not much.

So what are some of the unenumerated rights that the 9th amendment is supposed to protect?  The right to privacy is one that has been determined via this amendment, but how about the right to spend your own money how you want and on what you would like?  A government mandate on the purchase of insurance is a clear violation of the 9th amendment in that situation.

Isn't it funny how we have an amendment specifically designed to protect us from Congress' belief that they can regulate absolutely everything about our lives, and nobody pays attention to it?

It's The Constitution Stupid!

There's the famous sign that Bill Clinton had in his office that said, "it's the economy, stupid!"  Well, it's still the economy, but that's being nudged into second place by The Constitution and all I have to say is that it's about time.

What the government doesn't seem to understand is that though they may disregard the constitution and relegate it to a meaningless piece of memorabelia, the American people still believe that it is the cornerstone of who we are and what our government is supposed to be. 

The trampling of the constitution will no longer be allowed by the majority of the American citizenry so while the economy is still a driving force in people's opinions of their leaders, it is now also the Constitution, stupid.

Congress is Surprised by Threats?

Let me begin by saying that I do not condone threats of violence against our Congressmen, even as much as my palms itch to smack each and every one of them into next week.  However, I find it questionable that Congress is shocked by these threats.

Nancy Pelosi even went so far as to say that "words matter" and threats have no place in our political process.  This is particularly interesting because it's the frustration with Congress not listening to the words of the people which is probably responsible for the current threats.  People are angry and frustrated and the avenue of dissent that is acceptable was ignored.  The people tried their very best to follow the accepted process and express their displeasure with the Health Care Insurance Reform bill.  They called their congressmen, they wrote letters, they sent e-mails, they showed up at protests and attended town halls.  All to no avail.  They were crying out their concerns to a Congress who had gone deaf.  Is it really any wonder that the rhetoric would ratchet up to a point that they hope will make congress listen?

Again, I do not condone this behavior, but I am also not in the least bit surprised by it.  Our voices and our votes are the only weapons we have against a government drifting towards tyranny.  When one of those weapons fail, it is only logical for people to find another.  The natural progression from rhetoric to violence when our elected officials refuse to represent the will of the people who elected them is the subject of my book, Capitol Punishment.  A people driven to extreme and violent measures by a Congress apathetic to the will of the citizenry.  Yes, I saw this coming.

Did Congress honestly believe that the people calling, writing and protesting would just shrug their shoulders and give up?  Do they really believe that we will allow our representatives to defy our will with impunity?  The vast majority of the people are satisfied with continuing to speak out and to use their vote in November to make a bigger statement, but there are always those on the edges who will take things farther. 

Is Congress shocked, or is this a poor, poor, pitiful me play by the Democrats?  I think the latter, but you decide.

Health Insurance Explained With Food

I like food - a lot - so it becomes a frame of reference for me with a lot of things, but there is a food reference which really helps to explain health insurance and why some of these new provisions have the potential to be disastrous.

An individual health insurance plan is like ordering off the menu.  You pay for what you as an individual are going to eat.  Your cost for the bill reflects what you are costing the restaurant to feed you.  The more you're going to cost them, the more you're going to pay.  A group insurance plan is like a buffet with the same price for every individual.  The buffet works because it's a balance between those who eat enough for 4 people against those who barely eat anything.  That's the insurance premium balance as well.  Those who are sick and will cost the insurance company thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars against the healthy people who cost the company nothing or next to nothing.  It balances and, as with a buffet, those who use less pay for those who use more.

However, with a buffet, everybody who uses it is paying for it.  Now imagine that the restaurant has to offer the buffet to people who can't pay for it because it's unfair that some people get the benefit of all you can eat while others do not.  Now the restaraunt has their balance thrown off and are feeding more people with no additional money coming in and no more food.  Some of these new people will also be eating in excess of the average and costing the company even more.  When this occurs, one of two things will happen at that buffet.  Either the cost will go up for those who pay for their meal, or the restaurant will be unable to cover the cost of the new eaters and go out of business.

This of course does nothing to really increase the availability of an all you can eat privilege for all.  It is still limited to how much food there is, how many seats the restaraunt has and the locations of them.  There are still those that will not be able to get all you can eat because there are simply not enough buffets to serve all of the people in the area.  Will the government then mandate that all restaraunts offer an all you can eat option thereby forcing them into bankruptcy?  Probably.

The insurance companies are all risk mitigation.  They exist to cover the cost of your health care.  If the costs you accrue rise, then the premium whose sole purpose is to cover those costs will have to rise as well.  The group policy is nothing but a buffet with the high cost of a few members being offset by the low cost of the majority of the members.  As you increase the number of high cost users without increasing the low cost members as well, the price for everybody goes up.  If you do all of this without increasing the number of doctors - and this new plan has the potential to actually decrease that number - you do nothing to improve access to health care.

What this bill does is give people access to health insurance but does nothing to give them access to health care.  It potentially has the opposite effect.  A health insurance card does nothing but take up space in your wallet if you can't find a doctor.

Self-Preservation Legislation

Is there really any debate that Congress writes and passes legislation simply to prove that they have a job to do and therefore can keep the job they have?  We have been overladen with so much legislation which was written just for the purpose of showing that Congress has something to do.  The reality is that we as a nation would be much better off if Congress focused less on justifying their own position and more on what their job actually is.

The legislation of Congress has two main goals.  To preserve the safety and security of the union, and to ensure the rights and liberties of the citizens.  That's it.

The founding fathers and drafters of the Constitution recognized this and knew that there should be little for Congress to do.  Article I, Section 4, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution states that Congress has to meet once a year.  Once.  That's it.  Only one time each year.  That it was specified that they had to meet at all shows just how little the drafters believed that Congress would really be needed.  We would all be better of if Congress really did only meet once a year.

Instead of passing only the legislation needed to preserve the union and the liberties of her people, Congress has passed so much legislation that they passed legislation to delegate some of the legislating responsibilities.  And hasn't that served us all well.  They passed legislation to fix the problems caused by other legislation which was a result of even more legislation. 

Consider all the legislation that has been passed in the last 75 years and think about how much of that was actually critical to the preservation of the union and the liberties of the people.  There's not much of it.  There is some, but probably less than 1% of the total legislation written.  Now imagine if all of that legislation which did NOT have it's basis in those two categories were wiped from the books by a wave of Harry Potter's wand.  How much better off would we all be?  Especially considering that the vast majority of the legislation written not only does not serve the true purpose of Congress but actually defies it by intruding further and further into the personal liberties of the people.

We could disband Congress all together and it wouldn't make much difference in anybody's daily life.  That is if it weren't for the imbending bankruptcy the government is facing as the result of Congressional self-preservation legislation.  If only I had Harry Potter's wand.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a politician run on a platform of removing any legislation on the books which does not directly and primarily preserve the union and the liberties of the people.  Now there's a fantasy.

Deem and Pass the Buck

Congress will use any chicanery available to shove this bill down the throats of the American public.  The worst part of this whole thing is that we could have had healthcare reform if that's what they truly wanted.  Certain parts of the bill would have passed had they been voted on individually, but that's not what the Dems in Congress wanted.  They didn't - and don't - want reform.  They want a takeover.

They could still get reform if they would only do what the American public is asking them to do and step back, break the huge bill into smaller parts, and start over.  But no, they are going to revert to a policy that flies in the face of the specific instructions in the Constitution.

Representatives say that it is Constitutional, though it doesn't follow the very specific set of instructions in the Constitution, and that they've been using it since the 1930's and that it's ridiculous to believe that Congress would use an unconstitutional policy for that long.  Ridiculous? More like highly probable.  The Congress has shown so little respect for and adherence to the Constitution for so many years that the idea that they would institute policies defiant of the Constitution is the furthest thing from ridiculous.  The only reason they've gotten away with it for so long is that nobody knew about it because they've never used it on anything of this magnitude.  The idea of creating a new entitlement program which will bankrupt a country they have already relegated to the poor house and do it all without an actual vote is appalling, offensive and despicable.

And people wonder why I wrote a novel about Congress getting wiped out.

I Didn't Think It Was Possible

I thought I had reached my limit and couldn't get any more disgusted with our Government than I already was.  I was wrong.  With the Dee and Pass announcement the government has reached a new low in their shady deals and obvious belief in the stupidity of their constituents.

Generating a way to vote to pass the bill without actually voting on the bill will insulate at risk Congressmen and give them the cofidence to vote against their constiuency - or so Pelosi believes.  Do they honestly think that we will be any less irate at the passage of this pile of untreated sewage that they call healthcare reform?  Do they really believe that embattered Democrats running for re-election will be safe by saying, "well, technically I didn't vote for it."  Do they really believe that we'll sit back and shrug our shoulders as they shred the very Constitution they swore to uphold?  Unfortunately for us, perhaps too many people will. 

Our syste of governent works only as long as those in the governent adhere to the system.  It is time to kick anybody who does uphold their oath to support and defend the Constitution to the curb. 

It's time to clean House, and the Senate too!

Obama Explaining One More Time

Poor President Obama must be horribly frustrated with his perceived stupidity of the American people.  In spite of polls, protests and outspoken citizens at town halls, the president believes that if we only understood the bill then we'd support it.  He can't even fathom that we actually do understand it and this is why we DON'T support it.  I wonder what it feels like to be the leader of a nation of people you consider to be absolute dolts.

He has thrown everything he has at a horrible healthcare reform bill that will increase spending, bankrupt the country, not cover everybody, do nothing on this urgent problem for four years after it is signed into law and will do nothing to bring the cost curve of health care down.  Gee, what's not to support?

One of my biggest problems with the bill is that analysis has already shown that 60% of every dollar for healthcare services is for administrative costs.  The fastest and most efficient way to bring down the cost of healthcare is to eliminate or at least mitigate administrative costs.  Does anybody with more than a single brain cell believe that the big government organizations which will be created as part of this bill actually decrease administrative costs for your healthcare?  I sure don't.

By failing to do adequate research around what is causing the rise in costs, they cannot effectively fix the problem.  This is proven by them increasing, via their big fix, the largest current cost in healthcare.

Aretha Franklin's Think

In one of her great, girl power songs, Aretha Franklin gave us a call to freedom.  It was a parody I couldn't resist as it needed so few changes to make it a political statement.  I would love to hear a tea party crowd singing this song.

Think

You better think (think)

think about what you’re doing in DC

Yeah think (think, think)

what you’re doing to this great country

Let’s go back – let’s go back,

Let’s go way on back to the founding men

They passed the Bill of Rights

Including that amendment number ten

I’m not an academic

I don’t have twelve degrees

But it don’t take a high IQ

To see what you’re doing to me

You better think (think)

Think about what you’re doing in DC

Yeah think (think, think)

What you’re doing to this great country

Oh freedom, (freedom)

Let’s have some freedom (freedom)

Oh freedom, yeah freedom

You got to have freedom (freedom)

Oh freedom (freedom)

We need us some freedom

Oh freedom

We got to have

Hey, think about it

You, think about it

There aint nothing we could ask

You could answer us but you won’t

All we want is to live free

but it’s clear letting us you won’t

You better think (think)

think about what you’re doing in DC

Yeah think (think, think)

what you’re doing to this great country

Stripping away our freedoms

You’re Just special interest whores

Doing nothing while we lose our jobs

Well be careful or you’ll lose yours

Oh think (think)

Think about what you’re doing in DC

Whoo Hooo, think (think)

What you’re doing to this great country

You need us

We don’t need you

If you won’t listen

We'll find us someone new

Obama - The Leader America Needed

I can already hear the screams of horror at this title, but the Scott Brown / Martha Coakley race shows us exactly why Obama was the president the country needed.

Unlike Clinton who discovered very quickly that pushing hard left was not the way to secure his legacy, Obama ran as a moderate and then went hard left in his administration.  This was a good thing for the country.  A very good thing.

Instead of the gentle nudges to the left that only those of us paying attention noticed, he took a big lurch to the left side that woke many Americans from their complacent slumber.  More people are now paying attention to what's going on, and not liking what they see.  More people are speaking out against the irresponsible spending of both political parties.  More people are seeking out people who support the Constitution to run as their representatives and not just accepting the lesser of the evils on the ticket.  More people are demanding the protection of their God given liberties and are willing to fight hard to protect them.  More people are not only accepting but embracing their civic responsibilities.

With Obama's epic ego convincing him that he can force socialism down the protesting throats of the American people, he has done what no conservative candidate had been able to accomplish.  He shook the American populace out of their slumber and showed them the real path of the progressives.  A path the masses do not want to tread.

Don't get me wrong here; I believe that Obama's policies are disastrous for the nation, but I have faith that the people will stop anything irrevocable from happening and that a new era of responsibility will emerge from the ashes of this obamanation, but it is up to us to do it.  Fortunately, there are far more people who recognize what needs to be done and are willing to volunteer their time and energy to do it.

Obama is not the leader we deserved, but he may just be the leader we needed.

Massachusetts Miracle

I saw this video on youtube and just had to share.  It sums it all up quite nicely as we pray for another miracle to save us all from an oppressive and tyrannical regime.



I pray every day for the Massachusetts miracle.

Another Absence of Logic

In all of the discussions about the tax on the cadillac health plans, the pervasive lack of logic in the reform plan shines through yet again.

The administration wants to levy the 40% tax on these plans in order to raise funds but that can't (not won't, can't) work.  The companies that offer these will simply stop offering them and the money will go away.  The only companies that are locked in to these types of benefits are the unions, and they've been exempted.  So the desired -- and the government says critical -- fund raising will be completely gone after the first year, if the companies don't proactively stop offering them so that the money doesn't even exist to begin with.

Obama says that these plans don't make people healthier and bend the cost curve up.  How exactly, I'm not sure.  Is it because the people who have these plans have less financial responsibility for their own care and go to the doctor more often?  If so, then what about all of the other contributors to this same situation? 

• What about people who have more than one insurance plan and coordinate benefits so that the member has no liability?  And that zero liability resulting from the coordination is a state mandate.  Are they going to tax families with more than one insurance coverage? 
• What about coordination with auto insurance which in some states is prohibited.  This means that you can have your bills paid, in full, by both your auto carrier and your medical carrier and not only have no financial responsibility for your bills but actually make money from them.  Are they going to tell the states they can't do this or levy taxes upon the auto insurance plans. 
• How about AARP and other organizations that offer Medicare supplement plans so that pick up the patient responsibility remaining after Medicare paid?  What are they going to do about those?

This is all just another example of the government attempting to legislate an area they know nothing about and a perfect example of the total absence of logic in their decision making processes. 

When All Else Fails, Cheat

Isn't this the philosphy of the Democratic party in Massachusetts?  The fact that Scott Brown is actually leading Martha Coakley in the run for a seat that Democrats, or at least a Democrat, has held for decades is a testament to how upset people are with the current Congress.  Not that the current Congress gives a fig what the people think.

Instead of accepting the will of the people, something so foreign to the current leadership that even the suggestion of it sends them into gales of confused laughter, they are attempting to change the laws to keep him out of office until they can pass their stinking pile of crap health care bill.  Even if he is the clear winner, the Democratic machine plans to delay his confirmation until after the health care vote.  Thereby changing the rules.  Of course this is something they've done in the past but in the other direction.  Interesting how the rules can be changed to suit their purposes.  No wonder they're playing fast and loose with The Constitution.

I can't help but wonder what will happen if Scott Brown wins (God please let that happen) and the leadership refuses to allow him a vote as the duly elected representative of the people.  Whatever protests follow, I'm sure the people will just be dupes of the Repbulican party and nothing but astroturf instead of grass roots.  I'm sure their outrage will just be manufactured and not real.  I'm sure their concerns will be dismissed and their names will be added to the list of potential domestic terrorists.

This is despicable.  It really shows the slavering need for power in our current leadership that they have adopted the philosophy of "when all else fails, cheat."

Reid's Record Supercedes His Mouth

A member of the Congressional Black Caucus said that Reid's comments are excusable because of his voting record and a Republican who said the same thing would not get the same forgiveness based on their voting record.

What this means to me is that a Democrat can say any racially offensive or explosive thing they want as long as they vote to keep the black people poor.  After all, isn't that what Reid's voting record is all about?  His voting record is based on convincing poor people that only the government can help them, that people need the government to pay their bills.  In essense, to keep them poor.  That's a good thing and all will be forgiven.

If you work to get people off of the government dole, to improve their own lives, and convince them that the surest way to remain in poverty is to wait for the government to lift you out of it, that's bad and you're automatically believed to be a racist.  Any stupid comment that can in any way be construed as racists is just seen as proof of what everybody always knew anyway.

I have never understood how the belief that race should not be a deciding factor, that the same rights apply to all regardless of color, and that we all have a chance to succeed we just have to work for it is considered racist while the belief that race should always be a deciding factor and that different standards should be set for different ethnic groups is not racist.

If I understand this logic correctly, ignoring racial differences makes you racist while focusing on racial differences makes you not racist.  That is no logic at all.

Stop Remaking The USA

Stop Remaking
(To the tune of Rock Me Gently)

Just what the hell is
Happening here
Where are the values
We hold dear
Federal spending Is way out of control
(control, control, control)

On the floors
Of the House and Senate
They vote to raise their spending limit
Sinking the nation into a deficit hole

Stop remaking
Restore today
The Constitution
Of the USA
For we have never been screwed like this before

The people cry
Stop what you’re doing
Congress won’t listen, just keeps moving
Unemployment they refuse to see

Buyers remorse
Is setting in
44% now
Want Bush back in
Return the power, back to you and me

Stop remaking
Restore today
The Constitution
Of the USA
For we have never been screwed like this before

Fredd, if you want to appy you imagination to this one as well it might help to get "The Night Chicago Died" out of your head.

Perfect Example Of Socialism

We keep hearing that health care is a crisis.  It's a crisis, everybody agrees it's a crisis.  Never mind that 60% of Americans are against the plan, everybody agrees.  We won't actually start covering new people for 5 years but it's a crisis.  And why is it a crisis?  It's because people have to file bankruptcy due to medical bills.  Some studies say that 60% of bankruptcies filed are due to medical expenses.  It is horrible that anybody ends up in that situation and my heart goes out to them, but if 1.5 million people file bankruptcy and 60% of those are due to medical bills, that means that 900 thousand people a year go bankrupt from medical expenses out of an adult population of 217.8 million.  This means that the percent of people who file bankruptcy due to medical expenses is less than one half of 1%.

In order to fix the problem for 0.4% of our population, Congress is willing to pass a health care bill that has the possibility of bankrupting the nation.  Therefore, instead of 0.4% of the population being bankrupt, we'll ALL be bankrupt.

This is the real problem with socialism.  It seeks "economic equality" or "economic justice".  The government and socialist policies cannot make us all equally wealthy, all they can do is make us equally poor.  The health care bill is the perfect example of what socialism really does.  It does not raise us all to the same high level, but reduces us all to the lowest common denominator.  Is that what we really want to be? 

Plethora of Paradoxical Policies

My head has been spinning with all of the potential legislation coming out of Washington so I'm trying to get everything straight.  Here's my understanding of what's going on.

Health care - medical costs and premium costs are so high that people can't afford insurance and Medicare will be bankrupt.  The legislation does nothing to address the medical costs impacting Medicare while simultaneously cutting funding and expanding membership.  This will actually increase the cost of premiums and accelerate the date at which Medicare will bankrupt the country. 
Paradox

Climate Change - We must cut carbon emissions so heavy fines will be levied on those companies that emit CO2.  The legislation will raise the cost of energy so we use less.  People will be unable to afford their energy bill so will not be able to heat or cool their homes.  They'll end up receiving medical care for hypothermia or heat stroke which will drive up the cost of health care.  They could use a fireplace to heat their home but logging permits have been cut back so there will be no wood to use as heat.  The same legislation in Europe has been ineffectual at best and increased CO2 emmissions at worst.
Paradox

The private sector companies are losing money and can't pay their bills.  As a result they are laying people off, closing their doors and freezing wages.  The federal government is losing money and diving deeper into debt but has created new positions within the white house, voted to create additional departments and given raises to all of their employees.  While the private sector shrinks while the government expands.  Paradox.

The House passes legislation which will enable the Federal Government to break up companies they view as harmful to the economy while Congress pursues legislation that is harmful to the ecnomy.  Will they break themselves up?  Paradox.

The people are very concerned about the unemployment situation and request actions which will stimulate job creation.  The government spent $787 billion on pet projects which created no jobs.  Then they held a summitt with unions and community organizers whose suggestion was to pass another bill just like the first one that didn't work.  Employers beg for assistance which will open access to credit or allow them to keep more of their money.  Meanwhile congress is still pushing the health care and climate change legislations which will add costs to employers without generating any cash flow for them.  Paradox.

I know I've missed a lot of things and please let me know if I have any of this wrong.  Even listing it this way I'm not sure what the justification for any of this is.

The Party of Hell No!

Maybe it's just me, but I would love to see some passionate opposition to what the Demoratic leadership is attempting to do to our country.  The people are passionate so why aren't the Republican leaders?

Instead of trying to overcome the label of "party of no" slapped on the Republicans, why don't they embrace it and add some passion to it?  Wouldn't it be fun to have some leaders coming out and saying with passion and conviction, "We're not the party of no, we're the party of Hell no, not on my watch!"

Hell no to a deficit so crippling we're in danger of losing our credit rating.
Hell no to wasteful spending that serves nobody but the politicians
Hell no to crippling legislation for a problem that may not even exist
Hell no to unprecedented growth of the federal government
Hell no to a transfer of power from the Legislative to Executive branch in direct violation of our Constitutional principles.
Hell no to civil rights for terrorists
Hell no to a new entitlement program which will cripple the American economy
Hell no to putting climate change and health care above job creation

If asked about why Republicans don't have new ideas, they should simply respond, "Are you kidding, we've got our hands full just trying to keep the Constitution from going through the shredder."

Wouldn't it be lovely?

He's Remaking America All Right

Obama has used the phrase "remaking America" in several of his speeches and it always gave me pause.  We as a nation do not need to be remade.  Restored perhaps, but not remade.  I couldn't help but wonder what he meant by this.  Now I know.

Our government was set up so that the majority of the power over domestic policy lies with the legislative branch.  What our founding fathers absolutely did not want was a single person in charge of everything.  A voted monarche as the case may be.  They created the balance of power to ensure that the bulk of that power was in the hands of many, and with a check and balance system.  So what is Obama remaking us into? 

With the appointment of Czar upon Czar Obama created positions of power not answerable to Congress and not voted on by the people.  This was an unprecedented growth in power of the executive branch but not anything to get our knickers in a twist over, right?  Well my knickers are officially twisted.  With the EPA now giving themselves the authority to regulate green house gases if Congress does not, imposing onerous requirements on businesses all to fix....nothing and in spite of the will of the people, we saw another huge power grab by the executive branch of the government.  Hot on the heels of that announcement we have Obama working behind the scenes to institute his plans for universal healthcare without a vote on the actual plan by Congress.  He and his cronies plan to go in through the back door by moving the responsibility for the Social Security Act from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch.

This administrations answer to get what he wants in spite of the will of the people is to move control over the issue from the legislative to the executive branch thereby defiling our founding principle to have the power in the hands of many and NOT the hands of one.

Consider that the Executive Branch was such up with so little power in the first drafting of a Constitution - The Articles of Confederation - that the branch didn't even exist.  Now that branch is snatching power from other branches with a disgusting disregard and disrespect for our entire form of government.

The ""Yes We Can" Slogan has now been revealed to translate into "Yes I can and if you don't like it I'll find a way around you."

Months ago, as a joke, I wrote a blog about Obama appointing himself King.  It doesn't seem like such a joke now.