Category: Debate - Conservative Voice
 
Picture
It may strike some as strange to state a partial government shutdown is a good problem to have.  Such a statement would take most aback, especially when today’s American society has been lulled in a stupor on focusing on the here and now.  This stupor has led to complacency, apathy and a lost sense of history.  It is only when looking at the shutdown from much larger and far broader historical perspective, that an unprejudiced and bipartisan clarity be attained.  Today, the Obama Administration has singly drawn our attention to the “Republican shutdown.”  Their strategy is that of the President’s; “blame the Right” and the people, now lacking the ability to self assess and self educate, will blindly follow – and they have. 

While watching the news covering the partial shutdown this weekend, things fell into perspective.  Eric Cantor emerged from the chambers and in his opening sentence declared the Democrats were at fault.  Shortly thereafter, Nancy Pelosi emerged and immediately blamed the Republicans.  More of the same nonsense.  It was not until President Obama spoke that truth rang with the aforementioned clarity.  He stated that the government was in a shutdown because of the House Republicans’ stubbornness.  In the same sentence and in the same breath, the President stated that he would not sit with Republicans and the shutdown would remain in effect until the Republicans gave him the exact budget that he wanted with no attached stipulations.  He insisted that he would not settle for anything less than his specific demands and again blamed the Republicans for the shutdown.  Here is where Americans miss, have never fully understood, or have forgotten the obvious; America is a Constitutional Republic and is thus specifically designed to prevent such lineal and direct acquiescence of imperial polity.

While the public may in fact blame Republicans for the shutdown, they fail to understand that it is House of Representatives’ constitutional responsibility to assure the powers of government remain dispersed and are not solely and exclusively under the authority of any singular individual named as President of the United States.  What President Obama wants is to increase the debt ceiling by 1 trillion dollars with no stipulations while the House wishes to apply stipulations to the debt ceiling increase.  Because the House did not bow down to President Obama’s attempt at imperial polity and upheld the values that founded American political influences, we now have a shutdown.  When reflecting back on the President’s words concerning the Republican’s role in the shutdown, it is the demand of the Obama Administration that the House acquiesces to both the legislative and fiscal intent of the President.  Again, America was created as a Constitutional Republic to permanently escape such tyranny.

We must remember why the Mighty Pine Tree once adorned the revolutionary Don’t Tread on Me flag.  The British government enacted regulation stipulating no citizen could cut down tall and straight trees, even if the tree were on their private property.  The government then cut down the tallest and straightest of trees for their naval fleet whether the tree was located on privately held or public land.  Being that people purchased property largely for the quality of trees contained within the land, revolution was enacted to dispel imperial polity and attain freedom from government overreach and excessive taxation.  More recently, President Obama spoke to this during our Independence holiday.  The President stated that he felt the Revolution of our forefathers was wrong and government should possess the ability to tax as it sees fit and not in accordance with constitutional authority or the people’s desires.  The historical context of the government shutdown is equally compelling.

The people have been fed very simplistic and sophomoric excuses for the shutdown.  Responsible are Republicans, right-wing extremists and even the racist intentions of not wanting the nation’s first Black President to have his way.  These are offered forth to shift the focus away from the 40-year history of government shutdowns.  There have been 17 shutdowns prior to the current, 15 of these shutdowns were at the hands of Democrats, not Republicans.  In fact, George W. Bush is the only president to not have served as President during a shutdown with a divided congressional body in the last 40 years.  On the short term, Americans only see the more recent absence of a shutdown.  Now that one has occurred, it is easy to sway Americans with disillusioned understandings of government and history to blame on the Party upholding the intent of a Constitutional Republic in order to thwart the reemergence of the governmental tyranny that drove the creation of America.  To give the President the budget he wants in the manner in which he wants it with no stipulations, solely because it is his demand, defies the role of the House of Representatives where budgetary assent is required and ultimate fiscal responsibility is bestowed under “trias politica,” or separation of power.  As much as President Obama admires Britain’s parliamentary power that prevents their upper chamber’s dissent from the ruling or winning party’s manifesto – we are not in Britain, and for good reason we have contrived a Constitutional Republic to ensure specific disseminations of power, which block such attempts at absolute rule.  Moreover, President Obama has tried to demand the House relinquish its constitutionally ascribed authority directly to the Office of the President of the United States.  The House, acting under the rule of law refused to relinquish this authority to the President.  The public do not see these basic, underlying separations for their historical significance and how they our vital to America today.

So yes, the shutdown is a good problem to have in that it prevents absolute power.  President Obama’s followers and supporters find fault only in who the President has directed them to find fault in.  The blame is placed upon the shoulders of the Republicans.  The Right, in their eyes, is therefore responsible for what has been closed due to the shutdown.  The failing here is the overlooked fact is the shutdown is partial - not complete.  This means the Obama Administration decides what remains open, what is closed, what is funded and what funding is stopped.

It was not the Republicans who decided death benefits would not be paid to the families of fallen military members serving abroad, it was the Obama Administration.  It was not the Republicans who decided to block people from stopping to view Mount Rushmore because “it is a National Monument and the government is closed” and therefore those driving by cannot pause to witness it, it was the Obama Administration.  It was not the Republicans who have forced people from their own homes because they live in a National Park, it was the Obama Administration.  It was not the Republicans who have blocked access to the Florida Bay to prevent fishermen from accessing 1,100 square miles of open ocean due to the shutdown while maintaining staff to police the ban, again it was the Obama Administration.  These choices are best described by a Biscayne Bay Park Service Ranger who stated, “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.” 

These actions are by selective choice, not by Republican force or any other entity besides that of the Obama Administration, which is largely “acting out” an Obama led temper tantrum at the people’s expense.  The Left refuses to acknowledge their choices in what aspects of government have been shutdown, but are quick to blame the other while fully and willfully denying the Obama Administration’s motives against a Constitutional Republic as it demands ever increasing control and power over the nation in ways that are beyond the historic understanding of the average American. 

Therefore, President Obama’s greatest power lies in the bias nature and intellectual weakness demonstrated by his support base.  Today, they would support the House of Representatives losing its fiscal power so that he, as President can have unmitigated and unconstitutional fiscal control.  However, should this exact control they want for Obama fall in the hands of Republicans – it is only then that they would see error in what is happening today and why separation of powers are important to the American way of life.


 
Picture
OK, the government shutdown. So what!  If Congress were to shut down; at least then we could rest assured the federal government was finally acting with some semblance of competence.  But of course, in true Obama fashion, the shutdown is the Republican’s fault – and he and his fellow Democrats are completely innocent and not in the least bit culpable.  The shutdown, driven by Republican anti-ObamaCare sentiment has left federal employees temporarily out of work and has been made out to be the ultimate American partisan Armageddon. Ignorance abounds.

The “defund ObamaCare” line in the sand is not what it is being made out to be.  The Republicans want “changes” to ObamaCare – not to cast it into the depths of the sea as Obama has been saying… yes, your beloved presidential messiah, is a liar.  The bigger question people should be asking is what “changes” are being sought.  Before that, the Right needs to grasp the concept that the Republican political elite SUPPORT health care mandates and “taxed” socialized medicine models.  Hell, Gingrich, who many Republicans supported on his presidential run supported health care mandates as Speaker of the House. Never mind the Republican Nixon era push, or how “Conservative” organizations like The Heritage Foundation spearheaded Republican based support.  At least this supported existed when health care mandates were a Republican ideology.  As Democrat ideology, the Republican Party has developed a public oriented façade that the Party despises the concept.  If this were the case, why then would the Republicans have started the resistance with “repeal and REPLACE?”  If the Republican Party cherished constitutional authority over political agendas of tax revenue, there would have been no need to replace ObamaCare for another insurance mandate model.  Because Republican support is what is, socialized health care in its current ObamaCare form is never going away.  Get over yourselves already.  ObamaCare was largely based on RomneyCare and despite years of fussing about ObamaCare, the Right lined up in mass and voted for Romney.  If the Right truly stood against ObamaCare and its founding unconstitutional conceptualisms, Romney’s name would have never found its way to a single ballot.  It is continually that the Republican political elite say one thing while doing the opposite, yet the Right’s constituent response is only reflective to what their leading Republicans are saying – not to what they are actually doing.  This leaves the Right arguing against their own Party’s agenda because they insist upon themselves with a perverse sense of denial about the larger Party’s actions. 

Since we can reasonably establish underlying Republican support for ObamaCare, we can then focus on what the Republicans actually find wrong with ObamaCare and in the least would like its start-up delayed.  Here is what you don’t know.

Perhaps the single largest problem with ObamaCare, beyond its blatant betrayal of constitutional authority, is the enrollment process.  Forced upon the states and grossly underfunded by the federal government is the enrollment process itself which is managed by “Navigators” and “Assisters.”  These individuals are hired to assist citizens in enrolling in ObamaCare in order to stay out of jail and or avoid being additionally taxed by the federal government for not enrolling.  Due to ObamaCare’s excessive complexity, it was determined that Navigators and Assisters will need a minimum of 20 to 30 hours of training to effectively enroll potential candidates.  Despite the training concern that was generated by the Obama Administration, they have allowed Navigators and Assisters to enroll citizens into ObamaCare with as little as five hours of training despite having no prior health insurance training or experience. 

To complicate matters with enrollment, Navigators and Assisters will not be held accountable for providing misinformation about ObamaCare plans that cause the enrollee to undergo financial hardship as are other professionals such as accountants and financial planners that disenfranchise their clients through either malicious intent or professional incompetence.  Long story short; the Obama Administration recognized the high probability of enrollment errors and rather than seek to correct the issues before these problems occurred, the Obama Administration has granted Navigators and Assisters “immunity” AFTER SETTING THEM UP TO FAIL the public.  This will assuredly result in enrollment errors, cause enrollees to pay for services in which they have no need and have enrollees be refused access to care because they will not be enrolled in the correct plans.  Sadly, those doing the enrolling will be provided federal protections for the harm they will undoubtedly cause.

This immunity however, stretches a bit further than one might imagine.  Navigators and Assisters will have direct access to the enrollee’s Personal Identifying Information such as SSN, date of birth, household income and even this same information of other adult individuals living within the same residence.  During the rulemaking session HSS conducted for ObamaCare, this concern led to a discussion to determine the feasibility of conducting background checks before hiring Navigators and Assisters to mitigate the high risk of identity theft.  One government official serving as a board member who was said to be “well versed” in Human Resources questioned whether the federal government held the authority to conduct background investigations as a condition of employment.  The discussion was then curbed citing background checks would hinder enrollment in that many areas where ObamaCare is in need. Potential Navigators or Assisters in these areas were described as being unwilling to submit to a background check and thus would not qualify for employment by default. This, according the HHS rulemaking board, would then leave gaps in where ObamaCare could be accessed and background checks were not included as a condition of employment.  Again, the Obama Administration identified a risk with the enrollment process and ignored it because it was deemed more important to launch the program by a specified date than it was to protect the American consumer enrolled in the program.  Sadly, this not where the enrollment issues end, it is where they begin.

The HSS was also advised against paying Navigators and Assisters on a per enrollment basis. They ignored the warning and have now set in place Navigators and Assisters who are grossly under trained, many of which have criminal backgrounds to include crimes of identity theft and have incentivized them to enroll the highest number people possible for the most expensive plan available while further granting them federal protections for misrepresentations of the program that cause financial harm to those seeking ObamaCare.  This system of dysfunction immediately led to ObamaCare scams where individuals and organizations sought to exploit the easily compromised program.  The HSS, once informed of the fraudulent activities refused to certify legitimately sponsored programs in order to protect the consumers.  This simply means there is little to differentiate the real program from a fraudulent program until such a time as the IRS seeks action against an individual who is actually not enrolled in ObamaCare.  In such a situation, it is the consumer who lacks protections and it is stretch to think the IRS will suddenly be forgiving when owed money when it has already abused its power enforcing its own interpretation of the new health care law.  Least we not forget, despite the misinformation and misrepresentations, ObamaCare IS NOT FREE.  The majority of enrollees will have to pay for their mandated insurance plans.  Because of this, the IRS now has unprecedented access to an individual’s financials that they will forcefully police.  Failure to comply will bear results that are hardly unpredictable considering the IRS’ enforcement tactics.

The problem here is that issues such as immunity for those enrolling individuals into ObamaCare, the gross lack of training, failure of the government vetting these employees for consumer safety reasons and the IRS’ power grab have not seen the light of day in the media and WILL bring direct harm to those who have been forced into ObamaCare.  The ideology behind the program was that it was for the good of the people, yet those implementing the program have not done a single thing to protect the people from the problems that ObamaCare is guaranteed to cause.  The “Republicans who have shut down government” as Obama likes to refer to them, want things like this fixed BEFORE implementation of the program.  While there are a few who would completely defund and do away with ObamaCare in the name of constitutionalism, they are not the driving force behind the current budgetary debates.

To delay ObamaCare gives government the opportunity to correct the highly faulted program and protect the interests of the consumer who under ObamaCare are forced by law to figure out how to pay for their share of the law’s mandates.  The majority of those who do not have health insurance do not have it because they cannot afford health insurance and pay for things like groceries and rent (see RomneyCare complications for an example of how this will affect most Americans enrolled in ObamaCare).  The law forces that decision on their behalf at rates that have now been determined to be more expensive than pre-ObamaCare health insurance rates.  More specifically, Obama promised to decrease the average family’s health insurance by $2,500 per year, while it will actually surge some $7,450.

The truth, as painful as it may be, is not what the highly partisan banter has been about.  What Obama supporters need to understand is that the program’s implementation is far more important to Obama than the protection of consumer interests that are clearly compromised by the program.  The Right needs to accept the fact that the Republican political elite are now completely out of step with their constituent base.  On both sides, Americans simply want to believe it is the other side that is wrong.  Unfortunately, neither understands what is actually happening.  Democrats have been duped, by their own over-abundance of ignorance, into believing Republicans are harming them by blocking ObamaCare while they (the Republican political elite) are in fact the only entity within the federal government attempting to protect them from the certain ill effects of ObamaCare.  Republicans, in an attempt to protect the secrecy of their support of ObamaCare have used the denial of the Right to poise a defense of defunding the program.  In doing so, they have lost the only position of integrity to be found within the entire debate.   Republicans birthed the ideology of mandated health care models in America.  They have wanted “ObamaCare” (or the like) for no less than 40 years and have pushed for it on several fronts since 1974.  Supporters of the Republican Party must come to terms with this in order to understand what is really happening in America today and within their own Party.   

Amazing is the deafening impact of denial when coupled with ignorance.  Of course, the Left will never acknowledge that their great one is perhaps the single most deceptive president in US history and Right will never realize their political elite have long since abandoned them and their conservative values.  In the end, we are left with exactly what we have here today.  We now live in a land where rhetoric has replaced reality.


 
Picture
Already people are speaking of the debate from a “who won” perspective.  I hate to be the one to say this, but it not as much about “winning” as it about a process of discovery.  The smart voter is not looking for a winner; the smart voter is looking for commonality in values they most cherish and what candidate best demonstrates these values.  The danger in assessing a debate as win lose is that people simply do not like to lose and if they have a candidate they support, they will specifically seek out the responses of that candidate for purposes of validation.  In doing so, they most often overlook the candidate that actually meets their needs if elected.  So, who one?  No one!  Who best embodied your values?  Only you can answer that; if you objectively assessed the lot of candidates that is!

My take

They all did extremely well in their own right.  Michelle Bachmann did far better than I thought she would or even could!  This is because she articulated fiscal conservatism, embodied the three legged Right perspective (which few on the Right even know about) and a few other things.  Early on, I dismissed her, but listening objectively, she showed me that she has serious potential.  Romney spent too much time doing exactly what I thought he would do and pile on the “Obamney Care” disclaimers.  However, Romney is representative mainline Republican.  Because of that, he will never appeal to my values.  If Romney is indeed the front-runner, it is due the three legged Right where Conservative/Libertarians like me prefer the values the mainline Republican platform have long since lost.  Cain faltered where he should have pounded his fist.  In doing so, he gave the floor to Newt who stole his thunder.

Here is the problem:   Islam IS the enemy!  I am just waiting for someone to pull up their skirt, grab their balls and become man enough to say it!  Is it politically correct to say it?  No, but since when does being honest need a political correctness seal of approval?  Even though Cain (nor any other candidate) understand the nuances involved with Taqiyya and the Sixth Pillar, he should have pounded his fist and said, “You’re damn right I said it!  And you best believe I meant it!  Freedom has a common enemy and that enemy stems from the religion of Islam.  As President, it is my responsibility to ensure this threat does not infiltrate my administration.”  [Interestingly enough, the way Taqiyya works, he would never know who is Muslim with interests vested against American freedom].

Pawlenty did surprisingly well.  He had an opportunity to sink the Romney ship with Obamney Care, but opted to play nice.  In doing so, he allowed Romney to place disclaimers all over his health care program and effectively yielded both the helm of the discussion topic and the coined Obamney Care term.  Very poorly played!

Ron Paul based his positions on constitutionalism, freedom, and personal liberty, while emphasizing how our involvement in current conflicts is its own risk to national security.  Few will have noticed how other candidates began changing their positions (less Bachmann) once he took charge.  Cain fell quiet being a businessperson and not a studied and versed politician.  Not really is fault per se, but it is what it is.

Those not mentioned were more or less non-factors based upon my value set.

When it comes to my assessment on the debate, it is a matter of which I would trust as president to uphold the U.S. Constitution, practice fiscal conservatism, support individual liberty, understands freedom and can accurately define the threats against such.  In this group – President; Ron Paul and very surprisingly, Vice President; Michelle Bachmann.

Obama was fully exposed.  Collectively, the candidates ripped his politics apart, but only Paul articulated the Keynesian economic failings of the past 70 years that have delivered us to this precipice of economic destruction.  Bachmann stated how this election would be about economics and fiscal responsibility while Romney completely flubbed when it came to the consequence of failing to increase the debt ceiling.  Cain went into business mode.  Again, you cannot fault him; it is just that there may be more depth needed.

My requirements for a U.S. President are very simple and based in founding principles.  Unfortunately, only two candidates are oriented in this direction.  A sign of the times that should be alarming to all!

I get it.  People are going to dispute Paul because he is not that savvy orator and point out the minutia of the most judgmental aspects.  That’s cool.  People are shallow like that and I know what I appreciate and what is best for me and my children.  I want my children to enjoy the freedom and liberty accompanied with personal responsibility and the risk of failure.  Life in America is not about equal outcomes and entitlements.  It is about the individual pursuit, not the ideologue’s guarantee of deception.  I want liberty and for my children, I want their liberty until such a point that they are old enough to determine for their selves that wish to relinquish it.  Cain in his way wants best for the next generation.  His vision simply is not rooted deeply enough in their constitutional rights, freedom and liberty for me.  Romney wants what big government wants for my children and I must not enable that.  Newt just wants to president; nothing more, nothing less.

Again, it is not a matter of winner.  It is a matter of who will implement the values you embrace for the next generation.

Don’t forget to follow me on Twitter @PJ43033, add me on my personal Facebook , or like my Facebook Fan Page.