29 March 2010

QUOTE OF THE DAY

“Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom" --Ayn Rand



I won't be posting anything for a while. Started a new job. Things are hectic and I won't have much time. So I will occasionally post quotes that I feel are relevant to current events.

Today's quote is regarding the 'hellthcare' [sic] bill recently signed into law. It is a fitting quote indeed.

17 March 2010

More 'Hellthcare' Reading

1/3 of Doctors Say 'I Quit' If Obamacare Passes:
From CNS News:
"Nearly one-third of all practicing physicians may leave the medical profession if President Obama signs current versions of health-care reform legislation into law, according to a survey published in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
The survey, which was conducted by the Medicus Firm, a leading physician search and consulting firm based in Atlanta and Dallas, found that a majority of physicians said health-care reform would cause the quality of American medical care to “deteriorate” and it could be the “final straw” that sends a sizeable number of doctors out of medicine.
More than 29 percent (29.2) percent of the nearly 1,200 doctors who responded to the survey said they would quit the profession or retire early if health reform legislation becomes law. If a public option were included in the legislation, as several liberal Senators have indicated they would like, the number would jump to 45.7 percent."

Premiums Will Rise Under Obamacare

New Poll Confirms Once Again that Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose Obamacare

New Study Shows that Obamacare Will KILL 700,000 Jobs

Physcians Against Obamacare!

Wednesday Hero

Cpl. Charles Aldieri(Ret.) & 1st Lt. Jack Jewell(Ret.)
Cpl. Charles Aldieri(Ret.) & 1st Lt. Jack Jewell(Ret.)


U.S. Army



Lt. Col. David Hurley, commander of Schweinfurt, Germany's 15th Engineer Battalion, presents unit coins to two 9th Infantry Division World War II veterans -- Charles Aldieri, a former corporal with the 746th Tank Battalion (shaking hands) and Jack Jewell, a former first lieutenant with Company B, 39th Infantry -- during a March 8 ceremony honoring the division's efforts in capturing the famed Remagen Bridge in the closing days of World War II. The commemoration took place in the Remagen Bridge and Peace Museum now housed in the remains of the span, which collapsed 10 days after its capture on March 7, 1945.



Photo Courtesy United States Army





These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero.

We Should Not Only Mourn These Men And Women Who Died, We Should Also Thank God That Such People Lived



This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. For more information about Wednesday Hero, or if you would like to post it on your site, you can gohere.


< img src="http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1184/whl2xp5.jpg" border="1" alt="Wednesday Hero Logo">

13 March 2010

College Educators, Elected Officials FAIL Basic Civics Exam

From the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI):
Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better? Questions were drawn from past ISI surveys, as well as other nationally recognized exams.

I missed 1. That's a score of about 96%. That means I scored 40 points higher than the average college educator. Elected government officials who took this exam averaged a score of 44%! WTF!

12 March 2010

QUOTE OF THE DAY

Daniel Webster wrote,

 "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

11 March 2010

A Stroll Down Memory Lane...

I recently rediscovered the old blog. I had not posted on it for about 4 years, and I had forgotten about it. I thought it had been deleted long ago. I stumbled on it accidently while doing some research and browsing other blogs. The original Epler-Effect was shut down after an incident in 2005 that I might go into later on. I started another blog called Effective Archive where I salvaged some of my old posts and continued to blog for several months. I quit blogging for several reasons. I was let down by Bush's lackluster second term and I had to weather a personal storm during 2005-2007. A couple of attempts at starting a new blog never really took off. At the Effective Archive, and the orignial Effect before that, I had one or two additional contributors. I am thinking about adding some people to contribute to this blog as well. Let me know if you are interested. I don't post as often as I should, but with the way things are now I really ought to. So anyway, feel free to swing on by the old site. I even published a few posts that were saved as drafts. It was a fun trip to see all the old school blog postings and such. Interesting perspective to see how much things have changed. I have changed, America has changed, and blogging has changed since that time. Stop on in for some nostalgia: http://effectarchive.blogspot.com/

10 March 2010

Wednesday Hero

Cpl. Jason L. Dunham
Cpl. Jason L. Dunham
22 years old from Scio, New York
Rifle Squad Leader, 4th Platoon, Company K, Third Battalion, Seventh Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, FIRST Marine Division (Reinforced)
April 22, 2004
U.S. Marine Corps.

For The President of the United States of America, in the name of Congress, takes pride in presenting the Medal of Honor (Posthumously) to Corporal Jason L. Dunham, United States Marine Corps, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a Rifle Squad Leader, 4th Platoon, Company K, Third Battalion, Seventh Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, FIRST Marine Division (Reinforced), on 14 April 2004. Corporal Dunham's squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in the town of Karabilah, Iraq, when they heard rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire erupt approximately two kilometers to the west. Corporal Dunham led his Combined Anti-Armor Team towards the engagement to provide fire support to their Battalion Commander's convoy, which had been ambushed as it was traveling to Camp Husaybah. As Corporal Dunham and his Marines advanced, they quickly began to receive enemy fire. Corporal Dunham ordered his squad to dismount their vehicles and led one of his fire teams on foot several blocks south of the ambushed convoy. Discovering seven Iraqi vehicles in a column attempting to depart, Corporal Dunham and his team stopped the vehicles to search them for weapons. As they approached the vehicles, an insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade. Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat. Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines. By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.


All Information Was Found On And Copied FromMilitaryCity.com

These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero.
We Should Not Only Mourn These Men And Women Who Died, We Should Also Thank God That Such People Lived

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. For more information about Wednesday Hero, or if you would like to post it on your site, you can gohere.
< img src="http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1184/whl2xp5.jpg" border="1" alt="Wednesday Hero Logo">

06 March 2010

Fact Checking Obama

"If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan" The President Himself Previously Admitted That “Some Of The Provisions” In The Senate Bill "Violated That Pledge"

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan. If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor." (President Obama, Prepared Remarks, 3/3/10)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Some Of The Provisions” In The Democratic Health Bill “Violated That Pledge.” "We said from the start, that it was going to be important for us to be consistent, in saying to people if you can have your – if you want to keep the insurance you’ve got, you can keep it. That you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge." ("Obama's Planned Medicare Cuts Distress Some Democrats," Bloomberg, 12/3/09)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Eight To Nine Million People … Might Have To Change Their Coverage." "Well, let me, since you asked me a question, let me respond. The eight to nine million people that you refer to that might have to change their coverage, keep in mind, out of the 300 million Americans that we're talking about.” (President Obama, Health Care Summit, 2/25/10)

DEFICIT REDUCTION
Contrary To The President's Assertion, CBO Says Long Term Deficit Projections “Would Not Be Meaningful Because The Uncertainties Involved Are Simply Too Great"

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Our Cost-Cutting Measures Mirror Most Of The Proposals In The Current Senate Bill, Which Reduces Most People’s Premiums And Brings Down Our Deficit By Up To $1 Trillion Over The Next Two Decades." (President Obama, Prepared Remarks, 3/3/10)

CBO: "A Detailed Year-By-Year Projection For Years Beyond 2019, Like Those That CBO Prepares For The 10-Year Budget Window, Would Not Be Meaningful Because The Uncertainties Involved Are Simply Too Great." (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Sen. Harry Reid, 12/19/09, P. 15)

"Bring Down Costs"
The President's Own Actuary Says Health Expenditures "Would Increase"

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Finally, My Proposal Would Bring Down The Cost Of Health Care For … The Federal Government." (President Obama, Prepared Remarks, 3/3/10)

CMS On Senate Bill: "This Bill Would Increase [Health Expenditures] By An Estimated Total Of $222 Billion"

CMS: "…We Estimate That Overall National Health Expenditures Under This Bill Would Increase By An Estimated Total Of $222 Billion (0.6 Percent) During Calendar Years 2010-2019…" ("Estimated Financial Effects Of The 'Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act,' As Passed By The Senate On December 24, 2009," Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services, P.4, 1/8/10)

"Current Law Baseline, Total National Health Expenditures (NHE)… Total, CY 2010-2019… $35,253.3 [Billion Dollars].” ("Estimated Financial Effects Of The 'Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act,' As Passed By The Senate On December 24, 2009," Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services, P.36, 1/8/10) "Proposed-PPACA, Total National Health Expenditures (NHE)… Total, CY 2010-2019… $35,475.6 [Billion Dollars]." ("Estimated Financial Effects Of The 'Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act,' As Passed By The Senate On December 24, 2009," Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services, P.36, 1/8/10)

"Impact Of PPACA, Total National Health Expenditures (NHE)… Total, CY 2010-2019… $222.3 [Billion Dollars]." ("Estimated Financial Effects Of The "Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act," As Passed By The Senate On December 24, 2009,” Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services, P.37, 1/8/10)

CBO On Senate Bill: BILL STILL INCREASES COSTS

CBO: "Under The Legislation, Federal Outlays For Health Care Would Increase During The 2010–2019 Period, As Would The Federal Budgetary Commitment To Health Care. The net increase in that commitment would be about $200 billion over that 10-year period, driven primarily by the gross cost of the coverage expansions (including increases in both outlays and tax credits)." (CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, Letter To Sen. Harry Reid, 12/19/09, P. 18)

Hat tip to Marathon Pundit for this post

More 'Hellthcare' Reading

This nightmare really must end. The people do not want this healthcare reform legislation. We know it is a scam. We have spoken on this matter. By an overwhelming margin the American people said "NO!"

Mark Steyn explains why the dems are pushing forward even though they know it will cost them at the polls:

"Why is he doing this? Why let “health” “care” “reform” stagger on like the rotting husk in a low-grade creature feature who refuses to stay dead no matter how many stakes you pound through his chest? Because it’s worth it. Big time. I’ve been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible."

...

"Once the state swells to a certain size, the people available to fill the ever expanding number of government jobs will be statists — sometimes hard-core Marxist statists, sometimes social-engineering multiculti statists, sometimes fluffily “compassionate” statists, but always statists. The short history of the post-war welfare state is that you don’t need a president-for-life if you’ve got a bureaucracy-for-life"

Larry Kudlow explains how Obamacare is a giant step in the wrong direction.

"One of the most galling features of this plan is a taxpayer-subsidized government-insurance entitlement for people earning up to 400 percent above the poverty line, or nearly $100,000 for a family of four. In other words, a middle-class health-care entitlement that will add millions of people to the federal dole. It’s all too reminiscent of the political dictum of the old New Dealer Harry Hopkins: tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect."

Thomas Jefferson Was Right

"Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves."

-Thomas Jefferson

"I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

-Thomas Jefferson
...........................................................................................................................................................
...and so was George Washington:
 
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

~George Washington~

02 March 2010

Conservative Revolution

Something came up in a discussion a few days ago on another blog. Someone called the Constitution a "progressive" document. Now I may be wrong about what that person meant by the word "progressive". When I hear the word I think about the early 20th century movement by the same name. In this context the word does not mean "progress." It does not mean "to make things better." Progressive politicians of the early 20th century decided that the Founding Fathers were wrong. They decided that the Constitution was an archaic document that would not function in the modern world. They wanted to 'progress' away from the Constitution. They wanted an active and powerful federal government. This was the antithesis of the Constitution.

If you mean to say that the Constitution was divinely inspired, then I apologize. If you meant that the Constitution was the work of truly enlightened men, then I agree.

The commonly held perception about the American Revolution and the Constitution was that it demonstrated a radical and fundamental societal change. It did not. The American Revolution was nothing like the French Revolution. It was not like any other revolution in history. It was a Conservative Revolution. I don't mean that the Founders were all conservatives as the word is defined today.* Our nation's First Principles were Libertarian principles. Many of the Founders were Classical Liberals. Of course, liberal does not mean the same thing today in America. Classical Liberalism and modern American liberalism are essentially opposite philosophies. Classical Liberals were more in line with Libertarianism.

Anyway, the American Revolution was about preserving the traditional rights that the American colonists had enjoyed as British citizens. They were not radicals. Glenn Beck keeps calling George Washington and other Founders 'radicals'. He says that we must choose between radicals like Van Jones or radicals like George Washington. The Founders were not radicals. They protested the British Parliament's encroachments on colonial liberties. They were in favor of limited government. They thought that they should be protected by the unwritten English Constitution that solidified the rights of British citizens.

The action of the British parliament to enact the Stamp Act, and other taxation, was against the English Constitution in the colonists’ view. The American colonists thought that they could count on the Magna Carta of 1215, the Petition of Right established in 1628, and the British Bill of Rights written in 1689. These documents, along with some English common law, formed the basis of a British “constitution” that the Founders first appealed to in order to solve the dispute with the British. The colonists even appealed to the King of England to step in on their behalf against the British Parliament. It was decided, however, that parliament was sovereign. Sovereignty rested with the parliament and not the British people, and certainly not the American colonists. This outraged the colonists.

The British Constitution, because so much of it was unwritten, was very flexible (today the left calls this a ‘living’ constitution). Parliament used this to their advantage. When faced with crippling debt after the Seven Years War (also known as the French and Indian Wars) Parliament enacted a series of revenue generating policies aimed primarily at the American colonies. Now the American colonists had long enjoyed a large degree of self-governance. They were ruggedly independent. They did not like the encroachment on their self-rule. In 1765 American colonists issued a joint statement of grievances against the British Parliament and the Stamp Act. The colonists protested that their “ancient chartered rights” were being violated. The colonists held the position that their own colonial legislatures should be the only body with the power to tax them. The colonists were not seeking to completely transform their society. They were used to self-governance and felt that it was their right under the British Constitution. They simply wished to retain self-rule. Captain Preston, a veteran of the Battle of Concord in 1775 said it best. He was asked by Judge Mellen Chamberlain in 1842 why he fought the British. A 91 year old Captain Preston replied “Young man, what we meant in going for those redcoats was this: We always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.”

The American Constitution was written in the spirit of the American colonists’ desire for self-rule. The Constitution was written to prevent the federal government from ever taking too much power and encroaching on the rights of the states or that of the citizens. However, the Constitution distrusts the people almost as much as it distrusts the federal government. The people can be easily misled by a particularly capable orator or skillful politician. The Founders knew that democracy was a dangerous and temporary form of government that usually led to tyranny. Thus, the Founders intended the United States of America to be a Republic. That is why in the original Constitution the highest office that the people could vote for was the House of Representatives. Each state was a sovereign nation. When King George signed the Treaty of Paris ending the American War for Independence, he recognized 13 individual nations, not one big one. The Constitution was meant to set up a federation of nation-states. The states were to retain local control and were only agreeing to delegate certain powers to the federal government. Today our federal government is in direct violation to the principles spelled out in the Constitution. It has been so for about 100 years now to varying extents.

Like the American colonists before us those in the Tea Party movement, the 9-12 Project, and other grassroots movements based in Conservative-Libertarian ideology are not extremists. They are not radicals (though you can find a few nuts in every crowd.) They simply want a return to self-governance. I want to see a politician run on this platform: Low taxes, minimal regulation, and maximum freedom. I should throw local control in that mix as well. These are the principles of liberty the Founders meant for our country. This is what the Constitution was designed to preserve. The Founders were certainly not progressives. Progressives assume that mankind can be perfected. They assume that government can bring about this perfection and we can live in a fantasy utopia. The Founders understood that Man is flawed. People, governments, companies, etc. will always make mistakes. They will always fail to do the right thing at least some of the time. Government fails almost all of the time. The key is to strike a balance. The key is to limit the power of government, or individuals, to do damage to the rest of society. That is why we have are supposed to have a limited government with enumerated powers, rather than an omnipotent government with unlimited powers.

*Many of the Founders were Conservatives. Many were Classical Liberals, some may have been anarchists, most were deeply religious, one was an atheist (Paine), at least two were deists, some wanted a nationalist government, and some were monarchists (Alexander Hamilton gave a passionate speech at the Constitutional Convention in which he called for establishing a monarchy with George Washington as the first king.) That’s the greatness inherent in our Founding Fathers. They came from different backgrounds and believed in different ideologies, but they came together on the notion of liberty. They built the greatest bastion of freedom in human history.