Immorality Rebuked

"But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from
among yourselves" - 1Corinthians 5:13

I start the New Year with another installment of my look into 1 Corinthians. In chapter 5, Paul admonishes the church at Corinth to cleanse themselves of sexual immorality. He simultaneously rebukes the sin and warns the church not to focus on rebuking sin in the entire world, but rather only their congregation.

This reminds me of some bit of wisdom from my mother when I was young; she said that you are who you surround yourself with. Your friends are like mirrors for who you are. If you find yourself surrounded by mean, wicked people, you are, at best, condoning and enabling that behavior. At worst, you are yourself, mean and wicked.

The correllary is also true. If you surround yourself with righteous, good, and godly people, you yourself cannot help but move in that direction yourself. I think that is why the small group model for discipleship is so effective. You end up becoming close friends with the people in your group and you are automatically self-selecting good, decent people to be in your life, befriend you, and encourage you when you need it.

Like most, if not all of my experience since becoming a Christian is that the Bible never ceases to amaze me and prove that it is, in fact, the font of all wisdom...and true.

Sympathy for the Devil

I bought "Rules for Radicals", by Saul Alinsky today.

I was interested in all of the buzz this man has been getting amongst conservative circles and am interested in how the left has been so successful in transforming, and today, dictating the terms of the political debate. We have been transformed from a nation of self-reliant people from the 1890's to one of a social-democracy, where large portions of our population actually believe that other people should pay for their homes, their healthcare, their education, their comfort and, in the process, compliment them and help build up their self-esteem, and let them perform whatever behavior they wish to, regardless of what debauchery it represents or effect it may have on the culture or people around them.

The progressive movement began in this country, I believe because it filled a gap in the recovery after the Civil War. I don't think people appreciate how horrible that war was for this country and it is hard to imagine such a war today. More Americans died in that war than in EVERY other war or conflict this country has been in since...COMBINED. And it happened at a time when this nation was much smaller.

I think the healing process left a hole of hopelessness and I believe that there was suddenly a large number of people that had a very hard time taking care of themselves. The reconstruction was a huge blow to the country's character of self-reliance.

During reconstruction, the Federal government tried to step in and help, and it was the first real taste of the Feds being empowered in that way, or at least the first taste that left a wanting for more.

The Progressive movement started in 1900, or there abouts and started truly trying to change the perception of the social contract and pushing against the founding principles of self-reliance. They imagined that they could have liberty and have the government "help" at the same time.

What they called "progressive" in this country was called "communist" in Europe and elsewhere. When Red October occurred there was an exciting buzz of the progressives here in this country and there is a well-documented enthusiasm on the part of many central figures of our government that were enamoured by the Soviets.

Amity Shlaes, does a great job discussing the development and growth, really the golden era, of the progressive movement in the mid to late 1920's through the Great Depression and its end at the entrance of the US into WWII, in her book, "The Forgotten Man".

The wide-reaching, cost-controls and heavy handed, central-planning style policies of the FDR administration were abandoned for the most part during the war, and after the war, the progressives had to hide their intellectual affiliation and private affection for the Soviet experiment due to the aftermath of the war and the stand-off with Stalin.

Then, Joe McCarthy, the golden decade of the 1950's, and general prosperity erased the lure of the nanny state and made being a commie, a bit of a risky venture.

In comes the 1960's and the baby-boomers have now become teens and are, by far the most affluent, and spoiled generation in the history of the U.S. up to that point. This generation is tasked with dealing with a surging world-wide communist movement, while having the kind of self-doubt and circumspection that only the affluent can afford to have. To push this over the edge, the nasty, and very real remnant of the Civil War still remained; segragation and suffrage rights for blacks.

The baby boomers lost faith in their country, their parents, and everything else. They were susceptable to a new idea, that was not a very new idea and not a very good idea; socialism, statism, communism. The progressive movement had new life.

The entire concept of communism is "social justice". Karl Marx was angry that people with money employed the poor and treated them harshly, so he thought the poor should just rise up, and kill the rich and take their stuff. Then, divide it up equally, and everyone could be happy. The entire culture would be like a giant pirate ship. Thieves' honor and all. There is no fundamental difference between this philosophy and the modern progressives in American politics, the Democratic Party. They are the modern Robin Hoods, taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

There are three major problems with this philosophy;

1. It is immoral to take something that doesn't belong to you. This should be obvious and can be countered with the claim that unrighteous acquisition of wealth is also immoral and should be resisted. This works with Robin Hood, which I would agree with and discuss with point number three. But it breaks down when the situation arises where a person comes by their wealth on their own accord, having taken advantage of no one. Then, the moral high ground goes back to the side of the "rich". I would argue that in modern society this latter condition is the norm and not the exception.

2. In order to believe in it, you have to believe that once you succeed in dividing all of the wealth equally, that it will stay that way and that everyone will be happy and satisfied with that. To believe in Marxism and all other forms of collectivism, you must believe that man, in his natural state, is good, kind, decent, loving, generous, and unselfish. Anyone that is honest with themselves know this to be patently false. Any Christian or Jew that has read their Bible knows this to be false and that Man is a fallen creature; sinful, greedy, selfish, prideful, wicked, nasty and all kinds of other things, if left to their own devices and without other influences. Secondly, you must also assume that everyone in the world is equally good at everything. Anyone that has ever played sports or even watched sports knows this cannot be true. likewise in academics and every other vocation or skill or ability. People are different. that means that some people will be better at certain things than other people. This is so obvious that I won't belabor the point any further. The summation of this? If you divide up all the wealth in the world equally amongst all of the people, it would very quickly find its way back into the hands of the people that started with it.

3. It's underlying premise and context don't apply to the United States of America. The underlying premise requires that people with wealth came by it by chance, or took it from someone else and the people that don't have wealth have been somehow robbed. Now this notion works, to a certain extent in a land where feudal governments are in effect. Where a landed nobility has all of the wealth and there is nothing a peasant can do to break out of the social caste that they were born into. That is the scenario where communism has some leghold and argument. The problem is that a feudal condition has NEVER existed in the U.S. The people that have money, almost ALL of them, made that money themselves by hardwork. Look up the statistics. Look at the list of the richest men in America. I'll name two; Bill Gates, Warren Buffet. Both from humble beginnings, not landed gentry. Their hard work, ingenuity and luck afforded them their massive wealth. Those guys got a little lucky and were in the right place and the right time, but there are countless executives and business owners across this country that are less wealthy but not so obviously so, that made their companies from nothing. They do not belong in a class of landed gentry.

You see, there is no foundation for an argument for communism in this country, which is why they have to go around to the back door, rename it a thousand times for better marketing appeal and try and trick people into voting for it.

During the sixties a radical movement was born of the progressives and they became toxic and cancerous. I believe they are currently holding the reigns of power in Washington D.C. and will destroy my country in the process of creating their utopia.

One of the names that has popped up frequently as of late, and given credit for the tactics and strategy accredited for their current sustained success since the 1960's is Saul Alinsky. "Rules for Radicals" was written in 1971.

The blurbs on the back of my copy:

"This country's leading hell-raiser...has set down some of the rules of
the game. No one has had more experience or has been more successful at it
than Alinsky." - The Nation

"Alinsky's techniques and teachings influenced generations of community
and labor organizers, including the church-based group hiring a young [Barak]
Obama to work on Chicago's South Side in the 1980's...Alinsky impressed a young
[Hillary] Clinton, who was growing up in Park Ridge at the time Alinsky was the
director of the Industrial Areas Foundation in Chicago." - Chicago
Sun-Times

Having read that, I think it is relevant and important to take these people at their word and read what those strategies are. As I begin, I notice another blurb in the beginning of the book by Alinsky himself;

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the
very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to
know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the
first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so
effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer" - Saul
Alinsky

I had to look twice at that one. I haven't read a single word past that point. The man is seriously giving a shout-out to Satan in the opening pages to his book. Now before you secularists run me off to the funny farm for being a radical religious kook, let's just keep it in the secular world for a moment;

I think it is fair to say from the blurb that Alinsky has no faith in God, and certainly no fear of Him. But let us just take his statement in the spirit of the "myth" that he means it. The "myth goes something like this: Lucifer rebelled by lying, causing the world countless turmoil, mortality, death, destruction, disease, all because of his pride and defiance. He gained for himself a kingdom, for a short time, and will suffer a guarranteed defeat in the uncertain future, where his punishment will be to perish in the lake of fire. While he gratifies himself and his desires, the world burns, countless souls are condemned and there are mountains of corpses and oceans of blood in his wake.

I think that is a pretty good analogy for what socialism has done to our world. What a curious "myth" to pay homage to, even if you don't believe in God. What an ominous and dangerous warning sign to those of us who do. I don't think Mr. Alinsky quite meant it in this way, or perhaps he did. Hmm.

Saul Alinsky, this song was written for you;

"Please allow me to introduce myself

I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith
And I was 'round when Jesus
Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around St. Petersberg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank Held a general's
rank
When the Blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
What's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the Gods they made
I shouted out"Who killed the
Kennedys?"
When after all
It was you and me
Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadors
Who get killed before they reached Bombay
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby
Pleased to meet
you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
Just as every cop is a
criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer'
Cause I'm in need of some restraint
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, um yeah
Pleased to meet
you
Hope you guessed my name, um yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, um baby, get down
Woo, who
Oh yeah, get on down
Oh yeah
Oh yeah!
Tell me baby, what's my name
Tell me honey, baby guess my name
Tell me baby, what's my name
I tell you one time, you're to blame
Ooo, who
Ooo, who
Ooo, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Oh, yeah
What's my nameTell me, baby, what's my name
Tell me, sweetie, what's my name
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Oh, yeah" - Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil, 1968

Barney, the eco-socialist?

No. I am not talking about Barney Frank (D), of Massachusetts.

My 20 month old beautiful baby girl LOVES Barney. You know the purple dinosaur with the TV show?

So, anyway, I had just finished posting about Green being the new Red in our society and was obligated for the interests of domestic peace and tranquility in the home to sit and watch Barney - the effeminate, creepy dinosaur - with my little girl on my lap. The way I see it, it is her first lesson on how to force men to watch things they'd truly rather not, in order to please her. Being my progeny, I guess I rationalized the activity that I was helping her learn how to tame future man-cubs, eager for her favors.

Anyway, I am watching this the other day and it was an episode about Earth Day and environmentalism. It reminded me so much of Sunday school that our kids attend, except for some very striking and important features; In Sunday school they learn about an awesome and mighty God that created the universe and sent His only begotten Son to save us from our sins. This mighty God loves them. They also learn that they are special and knit in their mother's womb at the beginning of time by God, for a purpose on this earth of ours.

In the environmentalist movement, they are taught that they are destroying the very world in which they live and so are their ignorant parents, simply by living, breathing, eating, working, and existing.

Most times, Barney is fairly harmless. The show teaches kids about sharing, appreciating everyone for their unique qualities, etc. But they teach this stuff all without the greater context and everything revolves around Barney. Barney loves them. Barney wants them to be better. Barney says...(fill in the blank). This is ok on the surface, but when coupled with a political movement, it is creepy - all the more so with the climate change email scandal and the now, near certainty, that a large portion (if not all), of the environmentalist movement is just a facade for the world socialist and communist movements, now in hiding since 1989.

I say this without link or example or proof, due to laziness at the moment, but my rationale is this: If the environmentalists have been promoting something that they know is a lie for all of these years, there must be another motivation behind their movement. Also, ALL of their solutions and tactics are indistinguishable from the socialists and communists of yesterday. Although, without a stellar proof of my claim, I am feeling rather bullish about it, in face of the circumstantial evidence. If I am somehow proven wrong, I will be very quick with the mea culpa's and the acknowledgement of such sin. But I don't think I am wrong. And neither do you most likely.

Barney needs to be about entertaining kids and basic moral lessons; you know, like don't hit people, share your stuff with others, being kind, considerate, polite, being a friend, how your actions affect other people. Barney, and all kids programs need to stay very far away from the environmentalist movement, and many other political hot button issues.

Now if we could just work on our public schools...

Green is the new Red

Charles Krauthammer's new article articulates what I have been saying privately for years; green is the new red. Although CK says that socialism is dead and environmentalism has taken its place, I say that socialism has just got a disguise. There is no difference between the two other than the justification. I thought I would never have anything nice to say about socialism, but here it is: At least the rationalization for socialism is improving people's lives and taking care of the less fortunate. This environmental thing is based upon saving a planet...a planet that would still be here if we all dropped dead tomorrow. A planet so vast as to defy all comprehension that anyone could be so foolish as to think that we could destroy it, let a lone "save" it.

Our ecosystem is so complicated and dynamic that I am astounded at the faith people have in these eggheads in the environmental movement. But then, when I remind myself that green is the new red, everything makes sense again. These people are just responding to the urge for centralized power in the hands of some intellectual elites, instead of having power in the hands of a free people. The urge for tyranny is strong in the human heart. We will all worship something or someone. Be careful of what you choose.

Evil Oil Companies and Corrupt Politics

If one needs to feed one's conspiracy theory-addled brain, read this article from Powerline.

Apparently, Brazil, is going gangbusters to develop an oil field in the oceans off of its coast. I have no problem with that. However, it came out in the news a while back that either the stimulus, or the new budget or one of the $trillion wonders that have come out of Congress and this White House, included a subsidy for Brazil to drill for oil off of its shores.

That's right, U.S. taxpayers are helping fund Brazil's drilling for oil off of the coast of Brazil. Meanwhile, these same politicians make it impossible for the U.S. to drill for oil on our own coasts, within our own borders, or develop the abundance of natural gas we have under our soil.

All of this is bad enough, but when you find out that George Soros is a major investor in the company that stands to profit from Brazil's oil prosperity and he is the main agitator in Democrat politics, then things just turn ugly.

I won't go into a long tirade on this one just yet. I want to verify the Brazil oil drilling subsidy first. Tick tick tick tick tick.....

UPDATE: Here it is. From August 25th in the WSJ. Petrobas, is being subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. No. Let me rephrase that. George Soros, is being subsidized by the U.S. Taxpayer.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin and Gateway Pundit were on to this back in August and connected all of the dots already. I can't go a day without blowing my lid on this administration and this congress.

UPDATE: I guess the only "news" here is that the Washington Post finally reported on this on Monday. Of course they "forgot" to mention that we are subsidizing this effort to the tune of $2 billion or more in taxpayer money...oh, yeah, and they are four months late on the story. You know, conveniently out of the hustle and bustle when everyone was agitated at congress for spending too much money. We certainly wouldn't want to incite anger at our government for being corrupt during the reign of Democrats. WaPo is disgusting.

Educating Gabby

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson

Another quote from Thomas Jefferson to help understand why I am so insensed that Gabrielle Giffords used his words to help justify her support for the giant health care bill that passed the House with the help of her vote.

Should we go further? How about John Locke, Thomas Jefferson's intellectual father in many ways.

"Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common (as the gift
from God) to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person".
This, nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and
the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then,
he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath
mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and
thereby makes it his property...
He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an
oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly
appropriated them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is
his. I ask, then, when did they begin to be his? When he
digested? or when he ate? or when he boiled? or when he
brought them home? or when he picked them up? And it is plain, if
the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could" John Locke,
The Second Essay Concerning Civil Government

If this is true, then at what point is a physician's labor his own? At what point does a physician get to determine when and where he spends his time and labors? How can one possibly argue that a government, an insurance company, or anyone else has a right to tell a physician how and when and for what compensation to practice his art, for the furtherance of his own sustenance and profit?

We hear of people talking about the notion that our citizens have a "right" to health care. This is impossible. Because in order to have that right, you also must have the right to tell another person what their wages are, what their hours are, who they can and must do business with, and who they can hire.

Physicians become the slaves of those who have a "right" to their labor.

But it gets worse. You see, I cannot possibly come up with a scheme for all of this, so it falls on the clumsy, brutal, and destructive hands of some sort of government to administer all of this. Physicians now become wards and servants the "the people". Except "the people", to the socialist is really the large and tyrannical centralized government.

Let's move on to Adam Smith, of whom Thomas Jefferson wrote, "In political economy, I think Smith's Wealth of Nations is the best book extant." Just in case Ms. Giffords is confused about where Thomas Jefferson stood on Free Market economics.

Adam Smith broke things down to four laws of economic freedom:

1. Freedom to try.
2. Freedom to buy.
3. Freedom to sell.
4. Freedom to fail.

This health care bill disrupts every one of these laws. Even now, doctors and others are not free to start their own clinics in any way they see fit to provide a competitive product in health care that people may or may not want.

Consumers of health care services (that's you and me), are not free to purchase the services we want at the prices we feel are fair. We cannot use our freedom to make the cost to benefit decisions regarding our very own lives. Our very personal and private health. We are not free to make those decisions even today. This bill makes this situation worse.

Health care providers are not free to sell their wares at prices that enable them to make the kind of living they desire and serve the people they wish.

No one is free to have their ideas fail so that the entire marketplace can learn from their failures.

The free market is the way to solve our problems, not more government.

In Cleon Skousen's "The 5000 Year Leap", he writes;

"The Founding Fathers agreed with Adam Smith that the greatest threat to
economic prosperity is the arbitrary intervention of the government into the
economic affairs of private business and the buying public. Historically,
this has usually involved fixing prices, fixing wages, controlling production,
controlling distribution, granting monopolies, or subsidizing certain
products."

This new health care proposal does all of these things.

In case you don't think that health care should be an "economic prosperity" question, let me readjust your attitude. Everything is economic, because the very act of a single person performing work on what God's Nature has left before us creates an economic event. By applying one's labor to anything, one has created value and has a right to be fairly compensated for that value if one wishes to part with it. A doctor has the most personal and direct economic interest in health care. It very simply is the means by which he feeds his family. He has a right and an obligation to charge as much as he is able to provide for his family. Neither you, nor the Federal Government has any right to dictate his labor or private business in our Constitution, nor by the natural rights of mankind. Only in a socialist state is this right manufactured and forced, unnaturally upon us. And only by destroying the liberties set forth in our Constitution can this bill succeed and survive.

I now return to Thomas Jefferson again, just in case Ms. Giffords is still confused about what he might think about her vote on our current health care proposals in Congress;

"The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to
divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is
competant to (perform best). Let the national government be entrusted with
the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State
governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what
concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the
counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by
dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great nation on down through
all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm
by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that
all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights
of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The
generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter
whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or the aristocrats of a Venetian
senate." Bergh, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 14:421

Do you hear that Gabrielle? Do you hear that Congress? Mr. President? Probably not.

One has to be ignorant of our Founding Fathers, and the reasons why we have a country at all, or must be a rather cynical and perhaps sinister practitioner of the misdirection and propaganda used by the likes of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini, to quote Thomas Jefferson for the purposes of justifying a vote for a centralized control and intervention into 1/6th of our nation's economy and to intervene in the most sacred and private business of all things; the relationship between a doctor and his/her patient.

And our people are sitting here, ignorant of our own heritage, letting it happen.

As a nation, we are replacing our faith in the sovereignty of God for a faith in the power of the State, a man-made creation, an idol.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory
of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of
birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave
them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be
dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a
lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator,
who is blessed forever. Amen" Romans 1:22-25

Gabby, you may believe that you are doing the right thing. And I would like to believe that you believe that. But you are dreadfully wrong about economics and you are a socialist. And the natural conclusions of your belief system is a lie and is against God's nature and will destroy my country. I bid you confusion, disarray and failure in your political life and career, and wish you to be sent back home, to the private sector....preferably tomorrow.

My Congresswoman and the health care debate

From Gabrielle Giffords webpage:

“I am fully aware that the vote I cast for the Affordable Health Care for America Act will be one of the most important votes of my tenure in the House of Representatives,” Giffords said. “I am confident it is the right thing to do. I also am confident that by confronting the health insurance crisis facing our country, we are honoring the ideals that have been the foundation of our country for more than two centuries. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, ‘Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.’”

Let me say that I agree with Ms. Giffords assessment of the importance of this legislation, but for the opposite reason that she cites. I think it will be her undoing.

I am also completely appalled that she quoted Thomas Jefferson, as if he would approve of this legislation. Let us not forget that Thomas Jefferson also wrote that "When a people fear its government, it is tyranny. When a government fears its people, liberty".

It takes a willful act of supreme ignorance to selectively quote TJ in support of a Federal Government run portion of our national economy. I think that Thomas Jefferson would have rather been shot, than to have been quoted for such a purpose. This is the "water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants" guy. What tyranny was he talking about? The tyranny of not having good health insurance? My goodness woman! He was talking about YOU! He was talking about a centralized government from across the sea making daily life decisions for the people of this country. That is why we started this country! To get away from centralized government!

While it is true that no happiness can be enjoyed without health, it is equally true that no liberty can be enjoyed when the government makes decisions for you and runs your life. Her use of the quote also misses the mark in that, to Jefferson, liberty IS health to a free society. There will be no happiness without liberty. None.

She completely misconstrued his statement. I know what she was doing. She was trying to quote one of our founding fathers to appear patriotic and pro-American. It is what Marxists, Alinsky-ites do. They take the words and deeds of people that have a positive image and they twist it to mean something completely different to suit their purposes of socialism.

This is another case where, the Democratic Party doesn't just get it 10% wrong, or 20% or even 90%. Their position is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of true. It is 100% wrong, 180 degrees out of phase with the truth.

NO ONE in their right mind, who has EVER read anything written by Thomas Jefferson, could have quoted him in support or somehow justifying a centralized government approach to ANYTHING. By today's standards, TJ would be a radical, gun-toting, religious zealot, and followed by the FBI and DHS. And TJ wasn't even a good Christian. He was a deist. But even a Deist recognized the Creator and His providential hand on human affairs, and would be considered a dangerous zealot by our current government's standards.

I encourage anyone to read some of TJ's letters. Read a biography about him...one that isn't completely absorbed by the Sally Hemmings controversy. Discover who and what this great American was. You too, will be disgusted when socialists claim some sort of common ground with this man. Nothing further could be the truth. TJ would see them as an enemy, not a friend. TJ believed in a "meritocracy". In fact, he coined the term. He would be appalled by our country today and deeply saddened by where we are right now. I can only imagine him getting one of his famous migraine headaches when he discovered that his words were being used as a justification for a tyrannical takeover of doctors, dentists, and nurses and all that goes with them.

In the spirit of TJ, we need to send this woman back to private life and out of the halls of power. We need another revolution, fought with a pen, and a keyboard. Read what your representative writes. Listen to what they say. Send them letters, emails. Join a political party and get these people out of Washington, before it becomes Rome.

UPDATE: For a pretty good idea, just read the list of grievances against King George written into the Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson. Get past the Preamble that everyone reads, and look at the remainder of the document. Tell me where there was a desire for the centralized and distant power of the King to address health care issues or any possible analogous equivalent for that society at that time that you care to come up with.