It begins today…
Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, made the following statement just after the Senate Democrats had successfully passed their version of Health Care reform:
[..] What this bill does is, we finally take that step. As our leader said, earlier, we take that step from health care as a privilege to health care as an inalienable right of every single American citizen.
As I’ve said before, this bill is not complete. I’ve used the analogy of a starter home on which we can add additions and enhancements as we go into the future. But like every right that we’ve ever passed for the American people, we revisit it later on to enhance and build on those rights. And we will do that here surely, we will enhance and build on this. But we have made that first and most important step to make it a right rather than a privilege.
There you have it. In the minds of those in Washington, rights now come from the government. Not self-evidently endowed to us and merely recognized and protected by the government. “We”, (congress) pass rights for the American people.
Harkin and his colleagues, although sworn to uphold the Constitution, do not understand, or do not care, that Congress does not grant the American people our unalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence clearly states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The Constitution and its amendments spell out our rights. The amendment process provides for adding rights the American people wish to have established. That’s why the first 10 amendments are referred to as The Bill of Rights. Nowhere in our system of government is there authorization for creating rights by congressional action.
No matter how persuasive the claims to the contrary, government control of citizens’ rights (whether granting or denying) is oppression. Under our Constitution, there are only two ways to establish a right:
— Find it enumerated in the Constitution or existing amendments.
— Pass a constitutional amendment.
The only role for Congress is protecting our constitutionally established rights. If a majority of Congress believes there is a right to health care, they should explain where it is found in the Constitution as amended, or propose and have ratified a new constitutional amendment. If either method were successful, I’d be the first in line for my government medical card. Otherwise, there is no right to health care.
Where does this “inalienable right” stuff end? Do I have an inalienable right to free groceries? An inalienable right to free beer? To a shiny government-paid-for (and controlled) large screen, plasma tv?
Furthermore, as Sen Harkin confirms here, it doesn’t matter what’s in the bill that’s being passed. It’s a foot in the door. And they know it.
If the government is allowed to take this stance, there will be no stopping its march to dominance over every aspect of our lives. They would be able to use this stance to justify any agenda they are pursuing. The other, yet just as unnerving, issue is that any government that can create “rights” can just as easily take them away. That is precisely the reason for our Declaration of Independence from England and our Revolutionary War.
This takeover of health care by the government must be stopped. If it can’t be stopped, we need to begin work NOW on repealing it!
Beginning the end of January, Congressional hearings will be held to investigate the recent failings of airline security. To what ends, it is too early to tell.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will not be fired over the apparent mishandling of the Christmas day attempted bombing of a Detriot-bound, Northwest Airlines flight. According to the Office of the Press Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, “the primary mission of this department is to prevent terrorist attacks on our nation.”
As head of the department, Secretary Napolitano was tapped by the Obama administration to go on the Sunday talk shows along with White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs on December 27th.
What caught the ears of the American public was Secretary Napolitano’s statement:
One thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action. Within literally an hour to 90 minutes of the incident occurring, all 128 flights in the air had been notified to take some special measures in light of what had occurred on the Northwest Airlines flight. We instituted new measures on the ground and at screening areas, both here in the United States and in Europe, where this flight originated.
So the whole process of making sure that we respond properly, correctly and effectively went very smoothly.
Asked by CNN’s Candy Crowley on “State of the Union” how that could be possible when the young Nigerian who has been charged with trying to set off the bomb was able to smuggle explosive liquid onto the jet, Napolitano responded: “We’re asking the same questions.”
Ms. Napolitano also said that the suspect’s claimed ties to Al Qaeda were “part of the criminal justice investigation that is ongoing.”
Although Ms. Napolitano said it would be “inappropriate to speculate” on such ties, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation over the weekend said that the claims of the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, were plausible, and that he saw no reason to discount Mr. Abdulmutallab’s account that he had obtained explosive chemicals and a syringe sewn into his underwear from a bomb expert in Yemen associated with Al Qaeda.
Asked if Mr. Abdulmutallab was part of a bigger plot or whether he was a “lone wolf,” Ms. Napolitano replied, “Well, right now, we have no indication that it’s part of anything larger, but obviously the investigation continues.” Napolitano added that there was “no suggestion that [the suspect] was improperly screened.”
No suggestion that he was improperly screened? Sure, it ended with only a fire that was quickly put out, no lives lost and the man in custody, but it should have raised an alarm about the government’s performance.
– How did airport security, improved at much cost after the 2001 terrorist attacks, miss the explosives concealed on the bomber’s body?
– How did the terrorist watchlist system allow Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to both keep his American tourist visa and avoid extra flight screening despite his father telling authorities his concerns about the younger man’s radicalization?
– Why didn’t Abdulmutallab’s lack of luggage, and cash purchase for an international flight, raise suspicions?
– Why was the plot thwarted only by an apparent explosive malfunction and fellow passengers’ aggressive action?
Officials insisted the assertion, made by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on television talk shows, referred only to procedures scrambled into place after the incident to protect flights and heighten security.
They noted Obama ordered two reviews, of the nation’s multilayered terrorist watchlist system and of airport security procedures, something he clearly wouldn’t have done if he believed there were no flaws. Gibbs and Napolitano also were hoping, with the busy holiday travel season still in full force, to instill public confidence in the nation’s air safety system.
Interviewed on Fox & Friends on December 28, Napolitano would not even confirm if she ever had personally reviewed guidelines for screening out people like Abdulmutallab – or rather failing to do so.
It would not be the only failing of Secretary Napolitano’s tenure in the job. As head of Homeland Security, she has had anything but a glowing year in office:
You might remember, early in her tenure, word leaked that the Department of Homeland Security’s Intelligence Office had prepared a report warning of rising homegrown extremism from groups not distant from the militias of the 1990s.
Then there was the U.S. Coast Guard, which is an organ of the DHS, carried out a preparedness exercise on September 11th, prompting CNN to create panic around the world with erroneous reports that shots had been fired outside the Pentagon around the time President Obama was memorializing those killed on that date in 2001.
And, of course, there was the incident at the White House when the Salahi’s slipped past the Secret Service, another DHS organization, and were able to rub elbows with invitees to a state dinner with the Prime Minister of India.
There have now been three successful attacks against Americans since Napolitano has held her position of head of the department whose primary mission is to prevent terrorist attacks on our nation:
First, there was the June 1st murder of U.S. Army Pvt William Long, who was standing in front of an Army/Navy Recruiting Center in West Little Rock, Arkansas, when an American-born Islamic convert, Abdulhakim Jujahid Muhammad, gunned him down from a passing vehicle. The killer, born Carl Bledsoe, was known to American anti-terror officials.
Then there was the November 5th attack at Fort Hood, Texas by Nidal Malik Hasan, the Islamic Army Major, who was well known to his fellow military personnel for bizarre, pro-Islamist and anti-American rants.
And then there was Christmas day…
Why has Janet Napolitano not already been thrown under the bus by the administration as the person responsible for the breakdown of security? If Barack Obama had perceived that the statements made by her were becoming a threat to him, she would have been gone in a minute. He very much wants to keep her in place as Secretary of Homeland Security for reasons other than terrorism. You might recall, she has “front-line experience on some of the challenges facing her department, like illegal immigration and border security.” Those were the words of Senator Joe Lieberman following her confirmation hearings.
It is her “front line experience” in the area of illegal immigration and border security that is what has kept her on the bus instead of under it.
Napolitano’s past as Governor of Arizona is worth noting:
While making feints to stem the illegal alien tide, she has not really done so at all. In July 2007, she signed a sanctions law on employers that hire illegal aliens. While some applauded, skeptics saw this as just another way for liberals to punish business while the same liberals do nothing to stop the flow at the border.
Meanwhile, Napolitano also vetoed a bill that would have put restrictions on day laborers, many of whom are illegals. So, in being “tough” on illegals, she offered sanctions for business but not on illegals themselves.
When Arizona House bill 2345 was passed requiring a driver’s license or two forms of ID in order to vote on election days, Napolitano vetoed the bill while supporting legislation to grant driver’s licenses to illegals. It is important to note that all of the 9/11 hijackers had one or more state driver’s licenses, which enabled them, not only to board the planes, but also to live and travel easily around the U.S.
Napolitano also supported the U.S. Senate legislation that would have, over time, offered amnesty to illegals.
No, Janet Napolitano will not be fired, unless she becomes a threat to the President’s agenda. Obama selected her because she is important to his goal of comprehensive immigration reform, which will likely be brought forward this year. He doesn’t want to have to rely on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi again to push the legislation like he did when he lost the appointment of his selected point-man, Tom Daschle, as his original selection for Secretary of Health and Human Services. He lost control of the agenda with health care reform when the legislative infighting resulted in delays and special favors which frustrated the White House.
It exactly Secretary Napolitano’s position on the illegal alien issue that President Obama wants and needs. Her position on that issue
is the reason Janet Napolitano will not be fired, unless she is perceived as a someone who might threaten the success of the agenda.
If you are unhappy with the out of control spending; if you are part of the majority of Americans who oppose the health care legislation being forced upon us; if you believe passage of the Cap and Trade Bill would be a mistake; if you are a patriot who would like to get involved in taking your country back, but don’t know how, there is something that you can do NOW to help.
The state of Massachusetts is holding a special election on January 19th to fill the seat in the United States Senate left open by the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy. As recently as a month ago, the Democrat candidate, Attorney General Martha Coakley, led in the polls by 30 points and was considered a lock to hold the seat for the Democrats. As of this week, it appears the lead has been cut to single digits in the polls and one poll actually calls it an even race.
Scott Brown the Republican candidate, can use your help to take that 60th vote away from Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate. If you want to help, visit Scott’s web site where you can donate to the campaign or actually get involved yourself and volunteer. Donations, large or small, will be a big help and even from outside Massachusetts, you can still do some work for the campaign! You don’t need to be a resident to volunteer. Call your friends and urge them to do the same!
I urge you to support Scott Brown’s campaign and help elect him to the United States Senate!