Posts Tagged ‘Healthcare


2010 General Election for Arizona (and Chandler)

I am going to make a little mini-guide for anyone that would like to see the Conservative candidates. These are not nessisarily my exact votes. Most information pulled off other sites.

US Senator: Anyone but John McCain (One of the best “politicians” out there. One day he says this and then the next that.)
US Representative (D6): Anyone but Jeff Flake (Yes, “Conservative.” Although, I have dealth with him personally and he is simply not interested in listening to his constituents. He and his office actually completely ignore me now.)

Governor: Jan Brewer (Agree or disagree with SB1070, she is trying to protect us. That is more than the Federal Government is doing and she has balls to stand up and point that out.)
Central AZ Water Conservation: Mark Lewis, Cynthia Moulton, John Rosado, TC Bundy, Raymond Johnson (link)
Arizona Proposition 106: Yes. (This will amend the Arizona Constitution to block mandatory Federal Health Care coverage. This will protect your individual right to chose whatever health care you feel is proper and keep politicians out of that decision.)
Arizona Proposition 107: Yes. (Repeals any existing affirmative action that still exists in Arizona. Everyone is treated equally.)
Arizona Proposition 109: Yes. (This allows you to maintain your right to enjoy the outdoors in regards to hunting, fishing, and harvesting wildlife.)
Arizona Proposition 110: Yes. (This allows the Arizona government to exchange public land. This would probably bring more military contracts to Arizona.)
Arizona Proposition 111: No.  (Voting YES would make it so that the Secretary of State (Lieutenant Governor) would run together with the Governor. I say, keep them seperate so we aren’t stuck with dirt in both fields.)
Arizona Proposition 112: Yes. (Allows for more time to file propositions.)
Arizona Proposition 113: Yes. (This allows you to vote in secret. If you vote NO then your employers or union bosses could check on who you are voting for. Nothing like having your vote influenced by whoever controls your paycheck!)
Arizona Proposition 203: No. (This is the medical marijuana proposition. While I am for the legalization of marijuana the law that would follw a YES on this proposition would be a mess. Enforcement would be a problem as well as regulation. In short, for me, total legalization is better than medical legalization.)
Arizona Proposition 301: Yes. (This retains the requirement from the Arizona citizens to transfer funds from the Land Conservation Fund to the General Fund. I don’t want the politicans dipping their hand in the cookie jar just because it is there.)
Arizona Proposition 302: Yes. (Removes funding from the Early Childhood Development program and puts it back in the General Fund. This program is repetitive and has no oversight.) (link for all above propsitions)
Justice of the Supreme Court, Rebecca Berch: No
Appeals, Daniel Barker: Yes
Appeals, Patrick Irvine: No
Appeals, Lawrence Winthrop: No
Superior, Mark Aceto:  
Superior, Aimee Anderson:
Superior, Arthur Thomas: 
Superior, Janet Barton: 
Superior, Edward Bassett:
Superior, Dawn Bergin:
Superior, Roger Brodman: Yes
Superior, Bill Brotherton:
Superior, Robert Budoff :
Superior, Edward Burke: No
Superior, Harriet Chavez: No
Superior, Norman Davis: No
Superior, Gary Donahue:
Superior, Alfred Fenzel: 
Superior, Dean Fink:
Superior, George Foster: 
Superior, Pendelton Gaines: 
Superior, Richard Gama:
Superior, Larry Grant:
Superior, Warren Granville:
Superior, Brian Hauser: 
Superior, Hugh Hegyi:
Superior, Joseph Heilman:
Superior, Bethany Hicks:
Superior, Marion Jean: 
Superior, Carey Hyatt: 
Superior, Brian, Ishikawa: 
Superior, Michael Jones: 
Superior, Joseph Kreamer:
Superior, Raymond Lee:
Superior, Kenneth Mangum: 
Superior, Daniel Martin: 
Superior, Rose Mroz:
Superior, Sam Myers:
Superior, Nejamin Norris: 
Superior, Karen O’Connor: 
Superior, Susanna Pineda:
Superior, Douglas Rayes:
Superior, John Rea:
Superior, Peter Reinstein: 
Superior, Emmet Ronan:
Superior, Sally Schneider:  Yes
Superior, David Talamante:
Superior, Samuel Thumma:
Superior, Maria Verdin: 
Superior, Randall Warner:
Superior, Joseph Welty:
Superior, Eileen Willett:
 Yes (link for judges)

Chandler Propsition 410:
No. (A “Yes” vote will allow Chandler to operate outside of a balanced budget)


Health care bill goes back on vow, twists IRS purpose

Original at Bachmann Bulletin

Health Care Reform and the IRS

One of the key parts of the Democrats’ recently passed health care overhaul overlooked by many in the media is the new and expanded role of the IRS in enforcing the new legislation. Below is my column published yesterday in the St. Cloud Times speaking to this very troubling relationship:

St. Cloud Times – Your turn: Bill goes back on vow, twists IRS purpose

President Obama claims that his heath care reform package recently signed into law will expand accessibility to health care.
What he hasn’t been so keen on mentioning is the expanded role of the Internal Revenue Service in the oversight and compliance of his new legislation.
The IRS will gain access to the details of your health care plan and will have the authority to fine Americans who have not purchased “acceptable” health care coverage in the eyes of the government.
The bill results in a monumental change between the relationship of the taxpayer and the IRS, and adds responsibilities even the IRS admits it’s not prepared to deal with.
Through the Individual Mandate Tax, the IRS would assess a fine of 2 percent of household income or a maximum of $2,250 per household — whichever is greater — for not carrying proper coverage.
However, the 2009 IRS Taxpayer Advocate’s report to Congress articulated the concern that running a new program (such as health care) through the IRS brings about a “conflict with the IRS’ traditional mission (of revenue collection).”
The bill states the IRS is the regulator of “economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased,” and thus, acts as both prosecutor and judge to every American citizen regarding their health care plan.
Unless, of course, you’re in one of two groups of people: either in jail or in the United States illegally. The IMT does not apply to prisoners, who are already receiving taxpayer-funded health care.
Illegal immigrants who evade income taxes can still receive treatment for a head cold at the ER without paying any part of the fine for not carrying proper coverage.
Further, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 46 percent of the IMT collected by IRS agents would come from the pockets of families making less than 300 percent of the federal poverty line, about $66,150 for a family of four.
That’s a direct contradiction of the President’s promise that those making $250,000 or less would not see any tax increases.
It is simply unacceptable for this President to destroy one promise to the American people while promising free health care to those here illegally.
The CBO suggests the IRS’ budget could grow by $10 billion to cover new IRS employees and the costs that come with them. That’s wages, overhead and health coverage all paid for on the taxpayers’ dime.

The only thing this bill expands is government power. It’s a boondoggle for the American people and sponsors government growth through increased taxation. If the President and Congress wanted to enact real reforms, they should have listened to the two-thirds of Americans who, based on polls, believe this overhaul expands government’s role in health care and costs way too much money.
Instead, the federal government has decided to tell the American people that we know better than you do. Ironically, it’s the American people who will have the final say come November.


The Story of the Buck Act

If you have ever wondered why the federal government can do whatever it wants (whether it be taxes or forcing you to have health care, or filling out paperwork to have a baby), here is why. Original here.

In order  for you  to understand  the full import of what is happening, I must explain certain laws to you.

When passing  new statutes,  the Federal  government  always does everything according to the principles of law.  In order for the Federal  Government to  tax a  Citizen of  one of the several states, they  had to create some sort of contractual nexus.  This contractual nexus is the “Social Security Number”.

In 1935,  the federal government instituted Social Security. The  Social  Security  Board  then  created  10  Social  Security “Districts”.   The combination of these “Districts” resulted in a “Federal area”  which covered all the several states like a clear plastic overlay.

In 1939,  the  federal  government  instituted  the  “Public Salary Tax Act of  1939”.   This Act  is a  municipal law of the District of  Columbia for taxing all federal and state government employees and those who live and work in any “Federal area”.

Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section  8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the U.S. Constitution.  So, in 1940, Congress passed the “Buck  Act”, 4 U.S.C.S. Sections 105-113.  In Section 110(e), this Act  authorized any  department of the federal government to create a  “Federal area” for imposition of the “Public Salary Tax Act of  1939”.   This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 111.  The rest of  the taxing  law is  found in  the Internal Revenue Code. The Social  Security Board  had already  created a “Federal area” overlay:

4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(e). The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

There is  no reasonable  doubt that  the federal  “State” is imposing an excise tax under the provisions of 4 U.S.C.S. Section 105, which states in pertinent part:

Sec. 105.  State, and  so forth,  taxation affecting Federal areas;  sales or use tax(a) No  person shall  be relieved from liability for payment of, collection  of, or  accounting for  any sales or use tax levied by  any State,  or by  any  duly  constituted  taxing authority therein,  having jurisdiction to levy such tax, on the ground  that the sale or use, with respect to which such tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal area;   and such  State or  taxing authority shall have full jurisdiction and  power to  levy and collect any such tax in any Federal  area within  such State  to the same extent and with the  same effect  as though such area was not a Federal area.

Irrespective of what the tax is called, if its purpose is to produce revenue, it is an income tax or a receipts tax under the Buck Act [4 U.S.C.A. Secs. 105-110].

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, 464 SW 2d. 170 (1971), affd (Tex) 478 SW 2d. 926, cert. den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed. 2d. 234, 93 S.Ct. 293.

Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a “Federal area”? A  “Federal   area”  is   any  area  designated  by  any  agency, department, or  establishment of  the  federal  government.  This includes the  Social Security  areas  designated  by  the  Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a  home that  has a  federal bank  loan, a road that has federal  funding,   and  almost   everything  that   the  federal government touches  through any  type of  aid.    Springfield  v. Kenny, 104  N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.).  This “Federal area” attaches to anyone  who has  a Social  Security  Number  or  any  personal contact with  the federal  or state  governments.   Through  this mechanism, the  federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as  well as  the Sovereignty  of the  several states,  by creating “Federal  areas” within  the boundaries  of  the  states under the  authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:

2.   The Congress  shall have  Power to  dispose of and make all needful  Rules and  Regulations respecting the Territory or other  Property  belonging  to  the  United  States,  and nothing in  this Constitution  shall be  so construed  as to prejudice any  claims  of  the  United  States,  or  of  any particular State.

Therefore, all  U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia]  residing in  one of  the states  of the  Union, are classified as property, as franchisees of the federal government, and as  an “individual entity”.  See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.  Under the “Buck Act”, 4 U.S.C.S.  Secs. 105-113,  the federal  government has created a “Federal area”  within the  boundaries of all the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through  purchase, conquest  or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial  law upon  all people in this “Federal area”. Federal territorial  law is  evidenced by  the Executive Branch’s yellow-fringed U.S.  flag flying  in  schools,  offices  and  all courtrooms.

You must  live on  land in one of the states in the Union of several states, not in any “Federal State” or “Federal area”, nor can you  be involved  in any activity that would make you subject to “federal  laws”. You  cannot  have  a  valid  Social  Security Number, a “resident” driver’s license, a motor vehicle registered in your  name, a  “federal”  bank  account,  a  Federal  Register Account  Number   relating  to  Individual  persons  [SSN],  (see Executive Order  Number 9397,  November 1943), or any other known “contract implied  in fact”  that  would  place  you  within  any “Federal area”  and thus  within the  territorial jurisdiction of the municipal  laws of  Congress.  Remember, all acts of Congress are territorial  in nature  and only apply within the territorial jurisdiction of  Congress.   (See American  Banana Co.  v. United Fruit Co.,  213 U.S.  347, 356-357  (1909);   U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217,  222, 94 L.Ed. 3, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949);  New York Central R.R. Co.  v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31-32, 69 L.Ed. 828, 45 S.Ct. 402 (1925).)

There has  been created  a fictional Federal “State within a state”.   See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct.  465, 476,  97 L.Ed. 617 (1953);  Schwartz v. O’Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A. 2d. 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440.  (Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional State within a state.)  This fictional “State” is identified by the use of  two-letter   abbreviations  like  “CA”,  “AZ”  and  “TX”,  as distinguished from  the authorized  abbreviations like  “Calif.”, “Ariz.” and  “Tex.”, etc.   This  fictional State  also uses  ZIP codes which  are  within  the  municipal,  exclusive  legislative jurisdiction of Congress.

This entire  scheme was accomplished by passage of the “Buck Act”, 4  U.S.C.S. Secs.  105-113, to implement the application of the “Public Salary Tax Act of 1939” to workers within the private sector.   This subjects  all private  sector workers  who have  a Social Security number to all state and federal laws “within this State”,  a  “fictional  Federal  area”  overlaying  the  land  in California and  in all other states in the Union.  In California, this is established by California Form 590, Revenue and Taxation. All you have to do is to state that you live in California.  This establishes that you do not live in a “Federal area” and that you are exempt  from the  Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 and also from the California Income Tax for residents who live “in this State”.

The following  definition is  used  throughout  the  several states in  the application  of their municipal laws which require some sort of contract for proper application.  This definition is also included  in all  the codes  of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and New York:

“In this  State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of  the State … and includes all territories within such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America.

This definition concurs with the “Buck Act” supra which states:

110(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

110(e) The  term “Federal  area” means any lands or premises held or  acquired by  or for the use of the United States or any department,  establishment,  or  agency  of  the  United States;  and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within  the exterior  boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

So, do  some research.   I  have given  you all  the  proper directions in  which to  look for  the jurisdictional  nexus that places you within the purview of the federal government.


Healthcare: It’s Not Cool So I Won’t Pay

We have a problem with Jonesing here in America. We see what we have and then compare it to our neighbors, friends and family. It is a popularity contest to see who can obtain the most gadgets and the most gadgets the quickest. We spend hundreds and thousands of dollars a year on… junk.

Think about it… how much is your cell phone plan? Mine is about $75/month, which comes out to $900/year. If it was an iPhone it would be  $99 for the phone (8GB, bottom of the barrel) and for the minimum plan (450 minutes + iPhone service + no text messages) $63 a month. Almost everyone has a flat screen TV which is probably $800 or more. Many people have laptops. Smoke and spend $900/year (1 pack a day). Drink every weekend ($1000/year). And if you ever go to the mall or the electronics store people are clearly buying crap they really don’t need. And the list goes on and on.

So why is it so hard to pay for something as sacred as your health? Why is it that we want free health care but we don’t mind buying big screen TVs, new cars, iPods, laptops, netflix, cable, tivo, satellite, and new clothes? Was America not taught that there are “needs” and “wants” in the world and that needs come first?

Also, what about preventative maintinence of the body? We change the oil on our car to keep the engine happy. We vacuum the carpet to maintain the quality of the carpet. We clean the inside of our computers (well some of us) so that the dust buildup allows parts to cool down. We change the batteries in the smoke detector so we can be alerted that something is on fire. We wash our hands to prevent germ buildup. We trim the grass in the front yard to maintain our property values.

But when it comes to our HEALTH… hell no, we can’t do personal maintinence on that.

Now, I am not advocating that the government should come in and tell us how to do preventative maintinence on our bodies to keep us healthy. What I am saying is that it is our personal responsibility to maintain our bodies… just as it is our personal responsibility to maintain our cars, homes, electronics, and safety equipment. It is not my neighbors responsibility to maintain my body nor is it their responsibility to pay for it.

So what I am hearing is this.

  1. My body and my health is not important enough for me to invest my money into.
  2. My body and my health is not important enough for me to invest my time into.
  3. My body and my health need to to be supervised and cared for by someone else.
  4. I do not want to hear how much health care costs so hide it from me – make my employer see the bill, or my neighbor (see #1).
  5. My government knows more about what is good for my body than I do.

Maybe I am wrong. It isn’t cool to show off how healthy you are… or that you are covered by your plan… or that you made some lifestyle changes to live healthier. No, it is cooler to show things that are materialistic that you can show to the neighbors, friends, or family. It simply is not cool to say “I look out for myself” but it is cool when you whip out your iPad at the bar to check the score of the game.

In other words, if it does not score me cool points then I don’t want to pay for it. I want it, but I don’t want to pay for it. I am too busy buying other things to score me cool points.


I Guess I Just Don’t Understand

We are told that me must pass healthcare reform. Everyone also always says how they hate healthcare.

But yet when it comes down to it, generally, Americans have said, NO.

Why? If it was so necessary then it would have been passed long ago. Right? Why is it that Obama has to do an American tour to convince people it is as great as it was when he was campaigning? Ha!

Maybe, just maybe, Americans are starting to realize that they can’t just get stuff for free. Questions of how is this going to be paid for and what am I going to have to give up are being asked. Bravo fellow Americans.


The Day ObamaCare Died

Month old video, but a good watch nevertheless. I just felt it was a good time to post it as Obama starts his tour to “change the minds of the people and not the Congress.”

Also, if you want a good laugh, please watch one of the response videos from the user named “toddunt


Republicans Are Not the Party of No

The truth is SO SEXY!


When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: ‘Are You Serious?’

By Matt Cover (original here)

( – When asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from by emailing a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?” “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a “serious question.”

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Audio HERE.

Currently, each of the five health care overhaul proposals being considered in Congress would command every American adult to buy health insurance. Any person defying this mandate would be required to pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.

In 1994, when the health care reform plan then being advanced by President Clinton called for mandating that all Americans buy health insurance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studed the issue and concluded:

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

Later on Thursday, followed up on the question, e-mailing  written queries for the speaker to her Spokesman Elshami.

“Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” asked the speaker’s office.

“If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?” asked. “If so, what is that limit?”

Elshami responded by sending a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’”   The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”

The release further states: “On the shared responsibility requirement in the House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)—or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans—but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation.  There is no constitutional problem with these provisions.”

So much for that damn pesky Constitution…

But there you have it, the Commerce Clause. Ha!


45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul


Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors’ own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration’s claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost. Continue reading ‘45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul’


Healthcare Plan Based on Economic Fantasy

As the healthcare debate rages on, there is one reality that even the proponents of this hostile takeover of healthcare by government cannot ignore — and that is money. The government simply does not have the money for a new, expansive, public healthcare plan. The country is in a deep recession that will deepen even further with the coming collapse of the commercial real estate market. The last thing we need is for government to increase and expand taxes to pay for another damaging, wasteful program. Foreigners are becoming less enthusiastic about buying our debt, and creating another open-ended welfare program when we cannot pay for what is already in place, will not help. Champions of socialized medicine want to tax the rich, tax businesses that already cannot afford to provide health plans to employees, and tax people who don’t want to participate in the government’s scheme by buying an approved healthcare plan. Presumably, all these taxes are to induce compliance. This is not freedom, nor will it improve healthcare.

There are limits to how much government can tax before it kills the host. Even worse, when government attempts to subsidize prices, it has the net effect of inflating them instead. The economic reality is that you cannot distort natural market pressures without unintended consequences. Market forces would drive prices down. Government meddling negates these pressures, adds regulatory compliance costs and layers of bureaucracy, and in the end, drives prices up.

The non-partisan CBO estimates that the healthcare plan will cost almost a trillion dollars over the next ten years. But government crystal balls always massively underestimate costs. It is not hard to imagine the final cost being two or three times the estimates, even though the estimates are bad enough.

It is still surreal that in a free country we are talking only about HOW government should fix healthcare, rather than WHY government should fix healthcare. This should be between doctors and patients. But this has been the discussion since the 60’s and the inception of Medicare and Medicaid, when government first began intervening to keep costs down and make sure everyone had access. The result of Medicaid/Medicare price controls and regulatory burden has been to drive more doctors out of the system — making it more difficult for the poor and the elderly to receive quality care! Seemingly, there are no failed government programs, only underfunded ones. If we refuse to acknowledge common sense economics, the prescription will always be the same: more government.

Make no mistake, government control and micromanagement of healthcare will hurt, not help healthcare in this country. However, if for a moment, we allowed the assumption that it really would accomplish all they claim, paying for it would still plunge the country into poverty. This solves nothing. The government, like any household struggling with bills to pay, should prioritize its budget. If the administration is serious about supporting healthcare without contributing to our skyrocketing deficits, they should fulfill promises to reduce our overseas commitments and use some of those savings to take care of Americans at home instead of killing foreigners abroad.

The leadership in Washington persists in a fantasy world of unlimited money to spend on unlimited programs and wars to garner unlimited control. But there is a fast-approaching limit to our ability to borrow, steal, and print. Acknowledging this reality is not mean-spirited or cruel. On the contrary, it could be the only thing that saves us from complete and total economic meltdown.



"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain