The Tea Party In the Hills Blog

Life, Liberty, and Property

Remember Our Constitution? Statesmen Do, Politicians Don’t.

Jan 5

Posted by admin in Constitution, Ideology, Liberty, Socialism | No Comments

 
 
Our forefathers saw fit to write a legal document listing the reasons why King George exceeded

his authority and became tyrannical, our Declaration of Independence. Among other things,

common civil and criminal justice was denied, immigration obstructed, taxes of all kinds levied,

and acts of all kinds passed which crushed the economy of the colonists. The result was our

American revolution and a new nation.

 

Today, our government fails to prosecute criminal union members who beat down peaceful

protesters, confiscates the property of GM and Chrysler dealers and stockholders and gives it to

the unions, and strong-arms our banks into whatever behavior they see fit. Everything is taxed,

and they’re even thinking of another sugar tax…apparently the Sugar Tax of 1733 taught them

nothing. Our immigration/borders are totally out of control. Our Census is counting illegal

aliens and those that cannot vote in direct violation of the Constitution which will drastically

skew representative allocation and radically devalue your vote. Our government is importing

terrorists, giving them citizens rights to trial by jury, and forcing them upon the very people they

have viciously murdered. The government is (behind closed doors of course) executing the

takeover of our healthcare against our consent, because once they have this, they will control us

all. These are just a few of the examples of tyranny our government imposes on us. Nothing

good can come from this, and it is all the result of ignoring our Constitution.

 

We need Statesmen, not politicians. Don’t know the difference?

 

A Statesmen is motivated by the best interests of everyone, a politician by their own self-interest

or by special interests.

A Statesmen makes decisions based on a moral compass, using long term vision. A politician

has no moral compass and does whatever it takes to get elected.

A Statesmen does not negotiate their vote away for anything. That’s called bribery and extortion.

A politician on the other hand, being used to using bribery and extortion to get what they want,

has no problem selling their vote if the price is right.

A Statesmen prefers works in the light of day, where everyone can see what’s going on. An open

door policy is his/her motto. He/she would not do or say anything in private that would cause

harm in public. A politician…well, they have to work behind closed doors. Bribery, extortion,

vote selling, and slight of hand all require darkness to be effective.

 

Have you ever heard of HR1359, the Enumerated Powers Act? Of course not. Introduced in

1995 by AZ Rep John Shadegg it states that for all laws passed, the appropriate authorizing part

of the Constitution must be specified. It has not been passed because Congress refuses to obey

the Constitution, instead choosing the path of Tyranny! Stop Them! Call your legislators and

insist that HR1359 be passed before any other legislation! Force Congress to obey the

Constitution before it’s too late!

 

Mark Smith USMC (Fmr) DAV

Garden Valley

The Right to Health Care

Dec 18

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Mr. Obama has claimed that Americans have a right to medical care. In a certain sense, he is right, but not at all in the sense that he intends. By way of analogy, consider the right of self defense. It entitles one to use physical force to counter an immediate threat of bodily harm from another person. Note that this is a right to take certain actions. It places no obligation on anyone else; it simply entitles one to act in a certain way under certain circumstances. Note also that it is not enumerated in any bill of rights. (The Right to Bear Arms is a corollary of the right of self-defense; it assumes the existence of a right of self-defense, but it is not identical to it.) The right of self defense is so obviously a condition of freedom that its existence goes unquestioned and its formal affirmation is considered unnecessary.

In the same way that a free man has a right to defend himself against assault from another man, so has he a right to look after his own health care as he chooses. A man who is not free to choose his own doctor or his own medical insurer—or to choose to have no medical insurance—is not a free man. This right to manage one’s own medical care is one of that vast array of rights, along with the right of self defense, that is contemplated by the neglected Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Consider, then, the irony of Mr. Obama’s conception of a right to medical care. If one man has a right to receive medical treatment, then another man has an obligation to provide it. Not only does Mr. Obama’s conception deprive individuals of the life-sustaining freedom to manage their own medical affairs, it also enslaves some men with the unchosen burden of providing medical care to other men. Whereas the right to manage one’s own medical care, as I have described it, is a necessary condition of freedom, Mr. Obama’s right to medical care is a major step down the road to tyranny.

Tom McCaffrey
El Dorado Hills
December 18, 2009

Illegal Aliens

Nov 22

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Illegal Aliens

Last week Nancy Pelosi said she is in favor of sending persons to jail who refuse to buy health insurance because when they show up at emergency rooms they become a burden on the insured, who must, indirectly, pay their bills. This episode exemplifies a phenomenon that is all too common today. First, government institutes a wrong-headed policy— requiring emergency rooms to provide care for all comers regardless of ability to pay. Then, when the predictable harmful consequences occur, the government institutes another wrong-headed policy to solve the problem— the nationalizing of health care. (In this case, the consequences of the “solution” will dwarf the problem itself.)

Our recent history is rife with examples of trying to solve the consequences of one bad policy by instituting another one. We allow repeat drunk drivers to continue driving, and then we try to lessen the resulting carnage by subjecting law abiding drivers to drunk driving checkpoints. Or we regularly let violent felons out of jail and then try to reduce the ensuing mayhem by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms. Or we impose on heavy industry one wrong-headed policy after another—government-enforced unionization, a sea of health and safety regulation, environmental hyper-regulation, and then, when our industries begin leaving the United States in droves, we try to pass laws to prohibit their leaving or we advocate protectionist duties on imports, which will only raise the cost of living for all Americans. (Notice that these wrong-headed policies are all liberal ones, and the “solutions” all involve infringing the rights of the law-abiding.)

I was reminded of this phenomenon by last week’s demonstration against amnesty for illegal aliens. When government began paying persons not to work, it helped to create an artificial labor shortage. Partly in consequence of this labor shortage, illegal aliens began pouring into the United States. Then, when it became possible for illegals to get free health care, free education, and all the other goodies of the welfare state, the influx of illegal aliens became a deluge. The liberal welfare state is causing the flood of illegal aliens—as it is intended to do, because liberals see every one of these illegals as a potential liberal voter. The solution to the problem of illegal aliens is to abolish the welfare state. Until we do that, we will be having—and possibly losing— this debate about amnesty for illegals every twenty years or so.

Tom McCaffrey

It Is a Well Known Fact

Nov 3

Posted by admin in Ideology | 3 Comments

It is a well known fact that conservatives want to impose their morality on the rest of us. I was reminded of this the other day when I read that President Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has accused Catholic Belmont Abbey College of discriminating against its female employees by refusing to offer contraceptives in its health insurance policy.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, of course, is a liberal entity, not a conservative one. But this affair at Belmont Abbey is an exception to the rule that it is conservatives who want to impose their morality on everyone else.

But then there is the President’s campaign to nationalize medical care. Mr. Obama has been quite explicit that “we” have a moral obligation to ensure that affordable health care is available to all who need it. So each of us will be forced to give up our freedom to manage our health care as we choose so that the President’s moral vision can be realized.

But this is another exception; it is the conservatives who want to impose their morality on the rest of us.

Of course, there’s also the sub-prime mortgage mess. Acting on the premise that persons with poor credit histories are morally entitled to own a house, the federal government forced banks to lend mortgage money to bad credit risks.

But this is another exception.

Come to think of it, the entire edifice of the welfare state is erected on the premise that the “haves” are morally obligated to help the “have nots,” and that it is the job of government to see that they do so, whether the haves like it or not.

But this is another exception.

Then there is the conservation of resources. If you doubt that the modern imperative to conserve resources is intended as a moral one, then you have misunderstood the righteous fervor behind the anti-sport utility vehicle effort. From automobile fuel efficiency standards to “green” light bulbs, the array of laws forcing us to obey the moral imperative to conserve resources defies enumeration.

But this is another exception.

Soon we will witness the return of the “fairness doctrine,” this time through the back door. The President’s “Diversity Czar” will argue that, because women and members of ethnic minorities are morally entitled to own radio stations, white male owners can be forced to sell their stations to them. And, because “members of the community” are morally entitled to a voice in running the radio stations that serve them, the FCC will force radio stations to submit their programming decisions to “community boards” for approval. Conservatives will be forced to surrender their constitutional right of free speech for the moral imperatives of “diversity and fairness.”

Another exception.

Which only proves the rule that conservatives want to impose their morality on everyone else.

Tom McCaffrey

A Tax Is a Tax Is a Tax

Oct 4

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

A Tax Is A Tax Is A Tax

Whether it’s called a graveyard, cemetery, memorial park or mausoleum, it’s still a place where you bury dead people. And whether it’s called a fine, fee, penalty, investment or contribution, it’s still a tax. Recently Obama, referring to health care “fees” said: “Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax.”

His analogy is faulty. First, only people who choose to own an auto are required to buy auto insurance. Second, if you own your auto, you’re only required to own liability insurance — to protect the other driver’s car and not to protect your own. Third, you only need to carry collision/comprehensive insurance if: 1. you’re making payments on your auto (which protects the lender against loss of their collateral) or 2. you own the auto and elect to carry it to protect your asset.

The health care reform the Federal government is trying to pass would force people to buy health insurance whether they want it or not. This would be analogous to forcing people who don’t own an auto to buy one whether they want one or not or forcing those who own their auto to buy collision/comprehensive insurance whether they want it or not.
If you require people who don’t buy health insurance to pay a penalty (tax) this would be analogous to forcing people who don’t buy an auto to pay a penalty (tax) for not buying an auto.

If there are those who don’t wish to purchase health insurance, they should be allowed not to do so. They should then be responsible for their own health care costs should they require it, just like the owner of an auto who chooses to carry liability only is responsible for repairs to his vehicle if they are involved in an accident in which they are at fault.

We do not want government health care forced on us. But the larger question is: Where in our Constitution does the Federal government derive the authority to do so?

Leon Garot

Who Is the Real Barack Obama?

Oct 4

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Who Is The Real Barack Obama?

You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps. Last year Barack Obama said, “If you want to know who I am, look at who I surround myself with.” So let’s look at some of those with whom he has surrounded himself and the organizations with which he has been connected: Jeremiah Wright, radical, racist, anti-American, hate-speech spewing, long-time minister to Obama; Bill Ayres, domestic terrorist, co-founder of the Weather Underground; Wade Rathke, co-founder of the Weather Underground and founder of the corrupt, Marxist ACORN, in which Obama actively participated; Van Jones, self- avowed Marxist, 9/11 Truther, forced-to-resign Green Czar; Science Czar John Holdren, who advocates, limiting women to two children maximum, forced abortions, forced sterilization through additives to drinking water, imposing Islamic Sharia Law in some instances; Louis Farrakhan, anti-American, racist, Nation of Islam founder; the Marxist professors he sought out while attending Princeton; his father, life-long Marxist; and Tony Rezko, corrupt Chicago real estate broker, convicted felon. Next are the radical left-wing organizations to which he is connected such as Students for a Democratic Society, The Apollo Project, STORM, and SEIU. Does anyone detect a pattern here?

And now the ACORN community organizer wants us to trust him to “reform” our health care system.

Well, the evidence is in; it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt; Obama is not the “Moderate” he was pretending to be during the campaign (when he was rated as the most liberal Senator in the entire Senate). What a charade!! He has now been exposed as a phony and a fraud like The Man Behind the Curtain in the Wizard of Oz. So we must be like the Lion, Straw-Man and Tin-Man by showing courage, using our minds and never losing heart in the effort to expose the deceptions and lies through the revelation of reality and truth.

Obama is committed to fundamentally transforming our country toward the principles of Statism and away from the Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers which have made America the greatest force for good in the history of the world.

Leon Garot

Two Americas

Sep 18

Posted by admin in Ideology | No Comments

The strident opposition to the policies of the Obama Administration has brought into sharp relief the ideological gulf that exists between “the right” and “the left” in the United States.  At no time since the Civil War has the U.S. been so sharply divided into two Americas. 

The one America views Western culture as among the greatest achievements in human history. The other views it as no better or worse than the primitive, stone-age culture of a jungle-dwelling tribe. (This “multiculturalism” would be more accurately described as anti-culturalism.)

The one views America’s history as a record of unparalleled social, political, and economic achievement. The other views it largely as a record of destructive exploitation of Indians, Blacks, working people, women, and the land.

The one sees the United States as a uniquely moral and just nation, a force for good in the world, and it sees American independence and sovereignty as indispensable to preserving the liberty of individual Americans. The other sees the U.S. as morally flawed and unjust, a major source of the world’s ills. It would bypass the U.S. Constitution and subject American institutions and individuals to international law and international courts. 

The one sees the individual as the fundamental unit of American political life and the protecting of his liberty as the primary purpose of government. The other sees “society” as the fundamental unit, and it sees the individual as morally obligated to subordinate his rights to the needs and wants of society.

The one advocates a limited government under which the individual is free to succeed or fail by his own efforts.  The other advocates a largely omnipotent government in which the individual must surrender his freedom to be taken care of by the state – as is so well illustrated by nationalized medical care.

The one would leave every person equally free to enjoy the fruits of his own efforts, however unequal those fruits might be. The other would make everyone unfree to ensure that all enjoy an equal share of the fruits of all. (This is the meaning of “spreading the wealth.”)

The one views private ownership of land as a precondition of liberty, and it views the productive use of land as preeminently virtuous. The other views private ownership of land as a form of theft, and it views the productive use of land to generate wealth as a form of unjust exploitation. The one celebrates economic achievement, the other views it as a sign of moral failure.

Logically, practically, and morally, these two Americas are incompatible. It cannot be true both that the rights of the individual take precedence over the needs and wants of society, and that society may force its will upon the individual as it sees fit. Nor can it be true that the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes, that the rights of the individual should take precedence sometimes and the needs and wants of society at others. To argue for some middle way would be like arguing that a middle ground is possible between a government that permits slavery and one that prohibits it. It is a moral abomination to force an innocent man to act against his will, whether it is a plantation owner doing the forcing or a democratic majority. (And what is it but slavery if one man can be forced to support another?)

The one America traces its roots to the American founding, the other to the progressive movement of the late 19th century. Since the founding, the one America has been the majority, but it has acted and continues to act like a minority. From the New Deal until 1980, the other America grew in numbers and in influence virtually unopposed. In 1980, the one America began to fight back, but the fight has been fitful. Although, in championing the sovereignty of the individual the one America in fact occupies the moral high ground, it continues to concede the “good intentions” of the other America and, worse, to endow it with moral legitimacy. Witness, for example, George Bush’s joining the left on the Medicare Drug Benefit, John McCain’s joining them to infringe free speech in the name of “Campaign Finance Reform,” and, most recently, the outpouring of Republican praise for the personally and politically despicable Ted Kennedy.

The current debate about nationalizing medical care–Ted Kennedy’s signature issue–by virtue of the its highlighting such topics as “death panels” (which are logically implied by the morality of collectivism, whether or not they are written into the current law) has made starkly clear the moral depravity of any system that subordinates the individual to society.

A nation that expropriates wealth from some and redistributes it to others is morally corrupt at its core, regardless of whether the expropriating is done by a Marxist dictator or by a democratic majority. The other America now holds the reins of power, thanks to its control of the mainstream media, Hollywood, and the schools–and thanks to a diffident opposition. It’s time the one America took pride in the moral rightness of its most fundamental principle, the sovereignty of the individual, and stopped playing the role of enabler to the other, morally corrupt America.

 

 Tom McCaffrey

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Socialism and Economic Recovery

Sep 18

Posted by admin in Socialism | No Comments

In my real estate business, I continually hear colleagues and clients refer to the coming economic recovery as though its arrival, whether sooner or later, were a foregone conclusion.  As certainly as night follows day, they believe, recovery must follow recession.But there is no law of nature that says every recession must be followed by a recovery. To be sure, every recession would be followed by a recovery in a free economy. A free economy is one in which private property and contracts are secured by the rule of law. In such an economy, government is not permitted to impede the operation of the free market, and recovery does tend to follow recession. But in a mixed economy like ours, which contains elements of a free economy and elements of a socialist one, government action can impede recovery, just as FDR’s New Deal turned a recession into a Great Depression that lasted ten years.There is nothing wrong with our economy that could not be cured virtually overnight if government would just get out of the way. Imagine what would happen if we eliminated all but a tiny fraction of our taxes, if we eliminated every environmental and OSHA regulation, if we shut down every single regulatory agency at the federal, state, and local levels, if we stopped paying people not to work and we stopped paying for their health care, and if we shut down the socialist schools and left it to the free market to provide our children schooling. We would see the greatest explosion in economic productivity the world has ever known. This would bring recovery.

Now, what is the Obama administration doing but precisely the opposite of this. Every single instinct of this administration is to exercise more government control over the economic lives of the citizenry. They have injected themselves into the insurance, banking, and auto industries. They virtually are the home finance industry. They want to take over health care, and they want to regulate the carbon emissions of every business in America, a measure akin to a doctor’s wanting to regulate the breathing of a perfectly healthy patient. They want to confiscate what wealth remains in the hands of private citizens and spend it in the way they believe it should be spent.

There does come a point at which government intervention can seriously hinder the functioning of an economy.  We have many examples of economies rendered almost comatose by over-regulation, such as the Soviet Union and its eastern European satellites, Red China under Mao and his immediate successors, and, today, North Korea and Cuba. We have many more examples of economies made moribund by government, such as social democratic England before Margaret Thatcher.  

So far, there is no evidence that any of the measures the Obama Administration have taken have helped the American economy. Theory and experience tell us that the more heavy-handed their interventions, the more likely will it be that they will harm rather than help the recovery. The recent Cap and Trade legislation is certain to do unfathomable harm if it passes the Senate. The imposing of carbon emissions regulation on a struggling economy is so egregiously likely to hinder economic recovery that we are forced to conclude either this administration have other priorities and simply do not care whether we recover economically—a distinct possibility given this president’s Marxist ideology, or they intend to actively hinder recovery, perhaps to give themselves more opportunity to “reform” the American economy. Either way, it is looking less and less likely that recovery will follow this recession as night follows day.
- Tom McCaffrey

Tags: , , , , , ,

Self-Evident Truths

Sep 18

Posted by admin in Obamacare | No Comments

We hold these truths to be self-evident that: 1. When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging,  2. When you find yourself buried in an avalanche of debt, the first thing you need to do is stop overspending.
 
Recently someone wanted to correct a “distortion” about the cost of government-run health care.  He said that it would not add $1 trillion to the national debt each year but $1 trillion over ten years, which would only be $100 billion each year.  Gee, does that make anyone feel better?  $100 billion is still a lot of money and we cannot afford to take on any additional debt.
 
Then someone made this astonishing statement:  “This medical care costs patients nothing and is funded through taxation”.  Now, if you don’t pay any federal income tax (let’s call you Paul) maybe it would be free to you.  But if you do pay federal income tax (let’s call you Peter), it is certainly not free to you.  And our politicians know that if you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on the support of Paul.  And we are getting perilously close to having more Paul’s than Peter’s.
 
The fact is, whether or not you believe we need government-run health care, we cannot afford it.  The deficit this year will be more than $1.6 Trillion.  Mr. Obama recently revised the estimated increase in the national debt, over the next ten years, from $7 to $9 Trillion. That is an increase of 28.5% since the last estimate which was made just four (4) months ago!  And that does not even count the current debt of about $8.5 trillion. Nor does it take into account the estimated $100 trillion (that’s $100,000,000,000,000.00) in unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security which are actuarially insolvent.  These numbers are just staggering.
 
Now the politicians, who got it so wrong on the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security cost estimates, are asking us to trust them on their projected costs of government-run health care.  Do you trust them?
 
Leon  Garot

Tags: , , ,

Medical Care II

Sep 18

Posted by admin in Obamacare | No Comments

 One of the main reasons given to justify the government’s current attempt to take over medical care in the United States is that medical care has become too expensive. But before we accept the administration’s contention that a government takeover is the best solution to this problem, we might want to understand just why medical care has become as expensive as it has.In a free market, if demand for a product increases but the supply of that product remains the same, then the price of that product will usually rise.  The greater potential for profit caused by this rise in price tends eventually to cause producers to increase their production of the product, thus increasing the supply of the product, and thus driving the price back downwards. Increased demand causes a rise in price, which causes a rise in production, which causes a drop in price.

But the cost of medical care has been rising since the 1960’s, when Medicare and Medicaid came into being. Why hasn’t this rise in price caused more producers of medical care, such as doctors and nurses and hospitals, to enter the market, thus increasing the supply of medical care and eventually driving the price back downwards? The answer to this question has a great bearing on whether government control of medical care is really what is called for to solve the problem of high prices.

If anything is truly “broken” in the United States, it is a court system in which a person can be awarded $2.86 million by a jury for spilling hot coffee on herself. Doctors and hospitals have been especially hard hit by spurious lawsuits and exorbitant judgments. These lawsuits have raised costs for doctors and hospitals, in turn raising the cost of medical care for the consumer. But because this increase in the price of medical care does not entail higher profits for anyone in the medical business, it has not brought about an increase in the supply of medical services. Prices go up, but the supply of medical care does not. (Note that this price increase is caused not by a failure of the market, but by the failure of the government to maintain a proper system of justice.)

Next consider uncompensated emergency care. Hospitals today are required to provide emergency care to anyone who needs it, regardless of ability to pay. The cost of providing care to non-payers must be passed on to paying patients, thus raising the cost of medical care for the average consumer. Again, these higher costs do not entail higher profits for doctors or hospitals, so they do not cause an increase in the supply of medical services. Prices go up, but the supply does not.

Then there is the matter of government regulation of the medical business. In a hospital today, doctors, nurses, and administrators (of whom my wife is one), spend a substantial part of each day complying with government regulations. This increases the hospitals’ costs, but it does not increase their profits, so it does not bring about an increase in the supply of medical care. The price goes up, but the supply does not.

And then there is mandated insurance coverage. State governments today commonly force health insurers to provide coverage to persons with pre-existing conditions. In a free market, a person with cancer would have to pay a high price to get health insurance. This is reasonable because the likelihood of his needing expensive medical care would be high. But when the state mandates that health insurers provide such coverage at lower-than-market rates, it simply means that healthy persons must pay higher rates than they otherwise would. The healthy are forced to subsidize the sick. This rise in prices for the average person does not entail higher profits for anyone in the medical business, so it does not bring about an increase in the supply of medical services.  The price goes up, but the supply does not.

And then there are Medicare and Medicaid. Under these programs, the elderly and the poor get “free” medical care. Naturally, because the care is free, the elderly and the poor tend to consume far more medical services than they would if they had to pay for them out of their own pockets. This increase in the demand for medical care would normally bring about an increase in the supply. But this increase in demand means an increase in the cost of providing “free” medical care for the government that must pay the bills. One way governments respond to this increase in cost is to impose price controls. Thus, today, the federal government forces hospitals and doctors to accept below market “reimbursements” for Medicare and Medicaid patient care. Thus, the increase in the demand for medical services caused by Medicare and Medicaid does not result in higher profits for anyone in the medical business, so it does not bring about an increase in the supply of medical services. And yet the increase in demand drives up the price of medical care for those who must pay for themselves. The price goes up, but the supply does not.

In all these cases, the cause of higher medical care prices is either government intervention in the medical market or government failure to run a proper court system. So the Obama administration is arguing, in effect, that because government intervention and misfeasance has caused the cost of medical care to increase dramatically, more government intervention in the medical business is needed. This simply does not make sense.

In fact, any increase in the government’s involvement in medical care must be defeated. If the government ends up increasing its hold on the medical business by any amount, it will simply make an ultimate, complete takeover of medical care all the more likely. If we hope to prevent such an ultimate takeover, we must, at some point, begin to reduce government’s involvement in the medical business.
- Tom McCaffrey

Tags: , , , , , , , ,