E!!

Nearly every argument in favor of universal (socialized) health care includes the premis that it is a “right.”  But according to the U.S. Constiution, this is not so.  Geoff Lawrence over at NPRI explains why by giving us a brief lesson (via the writings of John Locke) about how the Constitution does not in fact support “positive rights.”  If you wish to effectively debate someone on health care reform (or any other entitlement program), you must understand this fundamental concept.  I recommend that you read Geoff’s whole post, but here’s the opener to give you a taste:

In the ongoing debate over health care reform, I continue to hear pundits on the left claim that health care is a right. Yet, this notion that government exists to guarantee “positive rights” such as free health care completely misunderstands the development of constitutional government.

The entire notion of constitutional government can be traced to John Locke’s Second Treatise. Here it is explained that all men are endowed with a set of natural rights which include: life, liberty and property. In order to protect those rights, civilized individuals agree to a “social contract” in order to form a government whose primary purpose is to protect the rights of individuals. This is done by empowering government to restrain the actions of others (such as theft, physical violence, etc.) that might directly infringe on your own natural rights. Hence the expression “Your rights end where someone else’s begin.”

The primary problem with the concept of “positive rights” is that the purpose of government changes from protecting the natural rights of individuals to actively infringing upon those rights. Any requirement for government to provide individuals with a certain amount of goods means that those goods must first be confiscated from society – which is a limit on the natural right to control property.

Just so.

For a wonderful treatise on why the government should not be in the business of deciding whether or how much to take from us in order to give to select others, read this story that was told on the House floor by Davy Crockett when he was serving as a U.S. Representative from Tennessee.  It concerned two votes on spending bills and the temptation of Congress to distribute money that was not their own for “charitable” purposes.

Our federal and state legislatures, as well as the Oval Office, have too long been staffed by too many people who do not understand nor support our rights and protections as they ought to exist according to our Constitution.   Through the increasing willingness of we, the citizenry, to allow government to do what we, as individuals, ought to be doing – helping and giving to the poor and needy as we are able and as we feel called to do – we have permitted our great Republic to become a tax-laden “social democracy” that reduces rather than protects our prosperity and freedom.

On May 23, 1857, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote: “A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Are we there yet?  Not quite, but I fear we are getting dangerously close.  Educate yourselves, good people, and let us find ways to speak out and persuade others before this great Republic devolves into a pitiful excuse for the nation it once was.

I am shocked and outraged.

It is well-established historical and political fact that America does not negotiate with terrorists regarding the release of hostages.  We do this so terrorists will not be emboldened to take even more hostages  in order to have even more of their demands met.

But apparently, about two weeks ago, Obama authorized the release of an Iran-backed terrorist who is responsible for the 2007 abduction/murder of American troops (five murdered, four of them after being kidnapped) in Karbala.  And did so as barter for five British hostages.  Or rather, for two dead bodies of former British hostages – because that is what we actually got back.  Two corpses.  In exchange for the freedom of a terrorist who murdered American soldiers.   

Andy McCarthy has all the details – including a very plausible theory about how Obama’s decision might be tied into some Guantanamo prisoners being sent to Bermuda.  Here’s the money quote from his piece:

Back in May 2008, in a speech before the Israeli Knesset, President Bush derided the “foolish delusion” of unidentified, naïve politicians who “seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” Exhibiting a thin-skinned consciousness of guilt, Sen. Barack Obama assumed Bush had been referring to him, and lashed out: “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists.”

President Obama is now way beyond mere support of such engagement. Under his leadership, and even as the mullahs who have been at war with the United States for 30 years are engaged in a Tiananmen-style crackdown, Obama is neck-deep in terrorist-for-hostages negotiations with Iran-backed killers who have American blood on their hands.

A WaTi write-up is here.  Senators Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Jon Kyl of Arizona have written a letter demanding answers.  I would think so.  And where is the LameStream Media?  Still under the ether…

Nevada is ranked 42nd and has an “F” in the Center for Public Integrity’s (CPI) legislative financial disclosure rankings.  You can read a summary here and see the state’s report card on legislative financial disclosure here.

(H/T:  Geoff Lawrence at the Nevada Policy Research Institute blog)

But transparency is about far more than elections bureau stats.  If you want to learn more about all the different ways government can be transparent from organizations who are already doing good work, go here for a list or go to the Sam Adams’ Alliance Sunshine site here.

A little Hill bird just emailed me to hurry up and flip on CSPAN.  Which I can’t do from my present location.  But if I could, I am told I would see/hear House Republican Leader John Boehner reading aloud.  The text?

A 300-page amendment to the Waxman-Markey energy bill that was dropped in at 3 a.m. this morning.  So…here we have Democrats trying to rush through what amounts to the largest tax in American history (Cap and Trade!) AND then slip in giant last minute amendments in the middle of the night.

Really, I’m surprised they didn’t think to slip a mickey in all the GOP drinks to make sure everyone slept through the financial rape of the American taxpayer.

Keep it classy, guys!

Update: If you want to call your congressman and urge him/her to vote against the “Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Legislation, H.R. 2454,” you can go here to get his/her phone number.  If you live in my district, which many of E!!’s Nevada readers do, your rep is Rep. Shelley Berkley.  Her office number in D.C. is (202)225-5965.

Update 2: If you don’t know why you should be against Cap and Trade, read this fact sheet by the Heritage Foundation.

Update 3: Read what newspapers around the country have said about it (page has  pithy quotes from major publications).

Update 4: Um, it passed.  By 8 votes.  As my friend Doug Busselman said on his blog:  “The forces of greater government control and those who favor destroying what’s left of our economy have won — 219-212. Thank goodness we have Senator Harry Reid to protect us — oh, nevermind!”

Update 5: The eight House Republicans who voted for the bill are:

Mary Bono Mack R (CA)
Mike Castle R (DW)
Mark Steven Eirk R (IL)
Leonard Lance R (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo R (NJ)
John McHugh R (NY)
Dave Reichert R (WA)
Chris Smith R (NJ)

Additionally, the following two Republicans ABSTAINED from the vote.

Jeff Flake R (AZ)
John Sullivan R (OK)

Update 6:  Campaign for Liberty has a list of all the Democrats who voted against.

If you can stomach it, Americans for Tax Reform has a recap of all the major fiscal and tax-related events since Inauguration Day.

Title:  Obama’s First 100 Days:  Higher Spending. More Debt. New Taxes. Broken Promises.

Yep, that about sums it up.

Just a snippet:

Day 1 — January 20: In his Inaugural address, President Obama makes a noteworthy commitment to the American taxpayer:
 
“And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

Or two:

Day 41 — March 1: The Obama administration foreshadows another broken promise when Peter Orszag, appearing on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, claims the 8,000 earmarks in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 are “last year’s business. We just need to move on.” The statement by Orszag in not consistent with Obama’s campaign promise made in the first presidential debate:
 
“And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” (Sept. 26, 2008. First Presidential Debate, Oxford, Miss.)

RTWT.

Las Vegas Sun political analyst Jon Ralston nails one, but good.

I challenge you to read every single word.  Then, if you live in Nevada, take a moment to feel some deep-seated disgust at the passing of a neutered campaign finance disclosure bill that won’t even kick in until 2011.  Then contact your Assembly representative to demand that they give the bill’s balls back (and perhaps lend a pair to GOP Assemblyman James Settelmeyer, whose objections against the measure seem pretty wimpy).

And while you’re at it, contact Sec. of State Ross Miller’s office to suggest that they make online filing easier.  Chuck Muth said the following about the process as it exists now:

I have a PAC (political action committee) and once tried filing my [financial report] online.  And I gotta tell you, it was a royal pain in the you-know-what.  The process set up by the Secretary of State’s office is decidedly not user-friendly and is unduly complicated to navigate and complete.  No wonder so many candidates, PACs, and ballot advocacy groups opt to simply fill out the forms by hand.

Miller is on the right track pushing for online reporting, but he also needs to get his own house in order. It shouldn’t be too difficult to allow campaigns using, say, Quickbooks, to import the required information directly into the campaign reporting system at the SoS’s office instead of having to type it out separately a second time.

Timely online transparency should be a requirement not only for campaign finance reporting, but for all publicly funded agencies and organizations.  It’s something we can all agree on – or should.

Subject link:  Check out the Nevada Project at Sunshine Review.

Sunshine Review, a wiki project that empowers citizens to share information with one another about their local government(s), has given every state a “transparency rating.”  The rating  is based on whether or not they have websites that provide transparency and how much information the website provides. 

Categories are:  budgets, public meeting minutes, permits and zoning, elected officials, audits, contracts, lobbying, public records, and taxes.

Arizona was #1.  Vermont was #50.  Nevada is #31.  Here are all the rankings:

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/County_websites%2C_state-by-state_rankings#Comparison_of_county_websites_by_state

This and other similar projects are part of a grassroots push for full online transparency in every county across the nation.  I fully support the cause.