Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

 

Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years

 

aybe it's time to remind the politicians on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, that they still work for us and not the bankers, industrialists and merchant princes they are endowing with taxpayer money that belongs to us, our children, our grandchildren and their children. Politicians think the taxpayer-voter-citizens are so dumb that we forget the money they throw around like it was worthless paper actually belongs to us, "the People." Clearly, the far left that now controls both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue is apparently arrogant enough to think that once they arm wrestle it from the middle class it belongs to them. Their philosophy is, "to the victors go the spoils." That is, after all, the philosophy very seriously bantered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] who told the House GOP (when she shut them out of negotiations on the latest support the rich and the loyal socialists Stimulus Bill) that the leadership has a right to exclude the Republicans from participating in the legislating process during the 111th Congress because "they won the election." Since the far left does not need the votes of Republicans to enact any piece of legislation, why give them a voice in what that legislation looks like?

America has not had a "Caterpillar Congress" since the 89th Congress' super majority in both Houses in 1965. The House and Senate leadership could bulldoze any piece of legislation they wanted through Congress without worrying about placating either the Republicans or Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson. With 68 Senators in the super majority in the Senate, the GOP lacked the ability to filibuster bad legislation or social activist judicial appointments. It was the same in the House. The Democrats controlled 295 seats. The GOP had 140. The 89th Congress could override any threatened veto by Johnson. (The 111th Congress is close to a super majority, but it is not veto-proof. New Hampshire governor John Lynch [D-NH] honored his word to Sen. Judd Gregg [R-NH] and appointed J. Bonnie Newman to Gregg's Senate seat. Newman, 63, a liberal Republican that the liberal media prefers to call "moderate," is a former Assistant Secretary of Commerce under Ronald Reagan. She also served as Gregg's chief-of-staff when he was the Congressman from New Hampshire in from 1981-1988.) Newman, it turns out, has been a Lynch supporter for quite some time.

In the end, on Feb. 12, Gregg recanted his acceptance of the job as Commerce Secretary, noting "irresolvable conflicts" with the Obama Administration's decision to move control of the 2010 census from the Commerce Department to the office of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. This move on the part of Obama shows the clear intent of the President to play with the census numbers in order to reconfigure both the State legislatures and the US House of Representatives to benefit Democrats.

If Democrats win the back-and-forth seesaw battle to unseat Sen. Norm Coleman in Minnesota, they will be only one seat from a filibuster-proof Congress. That means Obama will be one vote away from being able to do what Franklin D. Roosevelt was unable to do in 1937—expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 15 Justices, giving the far left an 11-to-4 majority over the conservative right. With the current configuration of the governorships across the nation, and the membership roster of the US Senate, the Democrats have five possibilities of replacing a GOP seat with a liberal—before the next election.

There are five GOP septuagenarian senators—at least one of whom is in poor health—in States led by Democrat governors. Each of those chief executives—four men and one woman—have the power to appoint interim senators should one of the sitting senators in his or her State die or become so incapacitated that he is unable to serve. Arlen Specter [R-PA] is the eldest. At 79, Specter is battling cancer. The governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, is a liberal Democrat. Seventy-eight year old former Detroit Tiger pitcher, Sen. Jim Bunning [R-KY] would be replaced by someone chosen by Democratic Gov. Steven Beshear. Should 75-year old GOP Sen. Charles Grassley decide to call it quits, or succumb, his replacement would be named by Democratic Iowa Gov. Chet Culver. Republican Sen. George Voinovich, 72, of Ohio has already announced his intention of stepping down at the end of this term in 2010. Should he leave even more prematurely, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, would name his replacement. And, finally, should 72-year old GOP Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas decide to prematurely leave the seat he just won for the third time, it would be incumbent on Gov. Kathleen Scbelius, a Democrat, to pick his replacement. None of them are likely to appoint Republicans who would caucus with the Senate GOP. If Coleman loses his Minnesota Supreme Court challenge that 4,800 of the 11,000 absentee ballots were wrongly rejected by Democrat-controlled voting precincts, and far left liberal comic Al Franken is seated, Democrats will need only one additional seat to radically alter the the philosophical makeup of the United States of America by simply erasing the concept of the rule of law, replacing it with the far left's communist concepts of social justice for all time.

The first supermajority occurred in 1933 when the election of the 73rd Congress. That allowed what became known as the New Deal Congress, led by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to pass any piece of legislation they wanted—without debate or change. (Of course, to debate the bill, or change it, Congress would have first had to read it. No member of Congress was allowed to read the measure. The same is currently true of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. A synopsis of the legislation exists for Congressmen and Senators to review, but the entire bill is not available for them to read.)

On Monday, March 9, 1933, three days after FDR was sworn in as the 32nd President of the United States, Congress found the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 on the docket for passage that day. The only problem was, no member of Congress had previously seen the bill (which was written by the Federal Reserve bankers, their lawyers and FDR's "brain trust" headed by Raymond Moley).

Without ever reading a single word of a bill that expanded the power of the Fed, classified the people of the United States as enemies of its government, and seized 100% of the real wealth of the American people, Congress enacted the Emergency Banking Relief Act before the end-of-business that day. Before he retired for the night on March 9, 1933, Roosevelt signed the worst piece of legislation ever written into law and converted Herbert Hoover's Recession into FDR's Great Depression. Liberal historians blamed the Depression on Hoover, who carried the stigma into the history books. By 1939, scores of New Deal laws would be enacted. Most of the content in those bills was communist. All of them were rammed through the Democratically-controlled Congress with lightning speed to prevent the public from understanding what the legislation would do. All of them diluted the Bill of Rights and stole liberty from the American people. The New Deal socialists on Capitol Hill knew that as long as the legislation promised the people some grand gratuity, the people would not look beyond the feeding trough on Pennsylvania Avenue at the impact the legislation would ultimately have on the Bill of Rights.

With a Democratic supermajority in 1965 that could not be checked by the Republican Party, Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society was able to loot the Social Security Trust Fund and steal the retirement savings of the American taxpayers to fund the startup of the Welfare Society. By the time Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" returned the GOP to power, the Social Security Trust Fund was bankrupt.

Today, President Barack Obama begins the redistribution of wealth in America through the regulation-writing authority of the bureaucracy. He will begin by mandating how the funds of massive stimulus bills like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 are distributed. By specifying that such funds are used to transform the social infrastructure of the nation's black communities, the far left will literally force generations of white middle class taxpayers to fund the redistribution of wealth in America. Obama senior economic advisor, Robert Reich, referred to this as "investing in the social infrastructure." Plain and simple, by directing the bulk of the funds from societal bailout programs like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to one group or segment of the population while forcing another segment of the population to foot the bill, it can't be called anything else—it's the forced redistribution of wealth regardless who gets the goodies in their stockings and who gets the lump of coal.

The Senate version of the bill just passed is nothing more than a socialist, enlarge government, $885 billion "stimulus waste" boondoggle (reduced to $789.5 billion in Joint Confrence) that promises something for just about everyone. One provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (which should have been named the Democratic Socialist Campaign Contributor Special Interest Reinvestment Act of 2009) seems to have been specifically inserted into the legislation to benefit the American Civil Liberties Union. The provision, Section 803(d)(2)(c), prohibits any form of religious activity—Christian religious activity, that is—from taking place in any college or university that accepts stimulus dollars. Clearly the provision is unconstitutional since it mandates religious discrimination and violates the 1st Amendment's prohibition from creating laws that restrict the free exercise of religion.

When Sen. Jim DeMint [R-SC] found the prohibition in Section 803(d)(2)(c) that was added by Senators Daniel Inouye [D-HI] and Max Baucus [D-MT], DeMint and Congressman Jim Bunning [R-KY] proffered an amendment (Sec. 807) to strip that language from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. What is interesting is that the discriminatory language against Christian activity on college campuses or even in student dorms that is found in Sec. 803(d)(2)(c) has already been adjudicated in federal court. The courts decided in favor of the students of faith and against the anti-Christian advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties. Section 803(d)(2)(c)'s anti-religious provision is an attempt by Democrats to legislate discrimination they could not achieve in the federal courts.

When he argued in favor of his amendment, DeMint began by mentioning that he had, just that morning, attended the National Prayer Breakfast. President Barack Obama, he said, addressed the 3,000-or-so people in attendance and, DeMint noted: "...said many great things, and one of them was this: 'The particular faith that motivates each of us can promote a greater good for all of us. I don't expect the vision for this to appear overnight, but I do believe that if we can talk to one another openly and honestly, then perhaps all risks will start to mend and new partnerships will begin to emerge.'"

DeMint continued: "We heard...Obama and former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, say that faith gave us tools to solve problems that could not be solved without faith. This is a beautiful message and I think we all know it's true. But then we come here and we find a provision in this massive spending bill that would make sure that students could never talk openly and honestly about their faith. The fact is that any university or college that takes any of the money in this bill to renovate an auditorium, dorm or student center could not hold the National Prayer Breakfast affair any longer because of what's written in this bill.

"This bill," he continued, "provides funds to modernize, renovate, repair facilities on college and university campuses—both private and public. But, there's a phrase in there, a couple of lines, that says the facilities that accept these funds cannot use them for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or school or department of divinity or in which a substantial portion of the facility are subsumed in a religious mission. Keep in mind that a prayer has been called by our courts to be religious worship. What this means is that students cannot meet together in their dorms if that dorm has been repaired with this federal money, and have a prayer group or a Bible study. They can't get together in their student centers, they can't have a commencement service where their speakers talk about their personal faith. What this means to universities is legal risk. The threat of lawsuits from the ACLU if they allow any religious activity on a campus and take any of this money. It's not just the particular facility, this money can be used be electrical wiring, plumbing, sewer systems and other things that affect every building on campus.

"This language has been written by very smart lawyers to do what they try to do—which is to intimidate the free speech of traditional, freedom-loving Americans. My amendment would just simply strike this language and affect no other part of the bill. The National Prayer Breakfast could not be held in a building renovated with funds from this bill. The Campus Crusade, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, Catholic or Jewish student groups, that are meeting on campuses all over the country today could no longer meet in buildings that used funds from the bill we're talking about today. There are classes on world religion and religious history, academic studies on religious text that could be banned from facilities renovated by this bill.

"What about a group of students and professors who just wanted to start a meeting with prayer? What about chaplains on campus? What about a private Bible study in a student's dorm room? What about a campus that wants to bring on Billy Graham or Rick Warren to speak? Would they be barred from campus? Would the college be sued by the ACLU? What if one us—a member of Congress—went to speak at a college graduation and shared a little bit about the faith in our lives? Would that college be sued?

"The people who wrote this bill want to create risk and liability and put a chilling affect on religious freedom in our country. But the most important thing for us to consider here is what is this nonsense doing in this bill in the first place? The courts have decided this issue. Religious groups have the same freedom as non-religious groups. This has nothing to do with the economy, and even less to do with stimulus.

"Keep in mind this bill did not write itself. Someone around here thinks it was a good idea to discriminate against people of faith." Once again the authors of Sec. 803(d)(2)(c) were Senators Inouye and Baucus. Christians, whether Democrat or Republican, need to remember both of them when they come up for reelection. Akaka comes up for reelection. in 2012. Baucus, who doesn't think much of the 1st Amendment (except to protect LiberalSpeak), comes up for reelection. in 2016. Any member of Congress who tries to abridge your rights under the Constitution needs to be removed from office. "To deny them the education and opportunities and access to public facilities , someone is so hostile to religion that they are willing to stand in the schoolhouse door like the infamous George Wallace to deny people of faith from entering any campus building renovated by this bill. This cannot stand.

"It is in hard times that our society most needs faith. It provides the light that no darkness can overcome. This provision is an attempt to extinguish that light from college campuses, and from the lives of our youth. In the words of the President today, '...if faith can promote a greater good for all of us, our very beliefs can bring us together and build what is broken, and lift those who have fallen on hard times. Our culture cannot survive without faith, and our nation cannot survive without freedom.' This provision is an assault against both. It's un-American and it's unconstitutional, intolerant and it's intolerable. It must be struck from the underlying bill, so I urge my colleagues to support a very simple amendment, a few lines that just strikes this provision that has already been decided by the courts has no place in this bill."

The vote on the DeMint Amendment was pretty much a party line vote with Sen. Evan Bayh joining the Republicans. Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA] , the turncoat who took the Democrat's 30-pieces of silver along with Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME] and Olympia Snow [R-ME] who gave the far left the votes they needed to enact the Hogfest Reinvestment Act of 2009 into law, first voted against the DeMint Amendment. When he realized he was the lone Republican voting against religious freedom, he hurriedly changed his vote before the roll call vote was announced. The DeMint Amendment was defeated, 54 to 43. The American Bar Association and the ACLU scored another legislative victory in a bill that appears to have been designed to pay back every special interest group in America for helping Obama win the White House and the Democrats win an FDR-majority in Congress.

Only one provision in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has been denounced by Obama. He has demanded that offensive provision be stricken before the bill is sent to him for his signature. Buried in both the House and Senate versions of the stimulus bill is the "Buy American" Amendment. The measure, which was sponsored by Congressman Peter Vischlosky [D-IN] and Sen. Byron Dorgan [D-ND] was left in the bill by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid [D-NV] and Speaker Pelosi because both felt the rider would pull Republican votes at the last minute. The measure mandates that all construction projects funded by the legislation must use materials—particularly steel—that were mined and/or produced in America.

Yet, Obama and the congressional leadership saw nothing wrong with another provision in the bill to provide a handout to Philippine soldiers who fought the Japanese in World War II. The handout was originally introduced as S.1315, the Veterans' Benefit Enhancement Act of 2007 by Sen. Daniel Akaka [D-HI]. The bill was designed to give US military pensions to aging Filipino veterans who fought not to protect the United States, but to protect the Philippines from the Japanese between 1942-1945. I wonder why the bill didn't include pensions for French patriots who fought the Nazis, or Dutch soldiers or, for that matter, Soviet soldiers? How many US soldiers who were drafted in WWII and left the service at the end of the wars in Europe and Asia, received military pensions after four years of duty? Let me tell you how many. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Like I said, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is a hogfest for everyone except the middle class American taxpayers and their descendants who are expected to pay for it.

It's very important that the American people—regardless of their political pedigree—understand what's happening to their country at this moment in history. They must pay close attention, because history is being made—and not for the better. We are witnessing Act Three of a live performance that should be billed as "The Demise and Fall of America." Act One of this saga played out between 1906 and 1913 with the curtain call taking place when banker-bought President Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Democratically-controlled House Speaker Champ Clark and Democratically-controlled Senate Majority Leader J. Hamilton Lewis engineered the passage of the Federal Reserve Act which was signed into law on Dec. 23, 1913 on top of the fraudulent ratifications of the 16th and 17th Amendments on February 3m 1913 and April 8, 1913 respectively. The 17th Amendment, demanded by the money barons, removed the States from the equation of power and placed all power in the hands of an elected oligarchy. The Republic of the United States of America died on April 8, 1913 when the United States became a parliamentary democracy—rule by the majority.

The advocacy of the American, anti-tax citizenry dwells solely on the fraudulent ratification of the 16th Amendment while ignoring the proposition that the States, which viewed themselves as the superior form of governance in the United States, would willingly vote to eliminate their own voice in the federal government. Why was it important to the money barons to eliminate the voice of the States? Because every time the money barons attempted to legislate a permanent central bank in the United States, it was the US Senate that killed it. Eight months and ten days after silencing the States, a permanent central banks in the United States was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson. The 16th Amendment deals only with taxes. Taxes, like death, will always be with us. If we didn't have a national income tax, the money barons would have concocted some other way of stealing the wealth of the working class to fund their socialist programs. The 17th Amendment struck at the heart of the coalition between the States and the People to control the growing bureaucracy in Washington. Today the separation of powers between the States and the federal government and between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government have become blurred, with the central government assuming the mantle of power over both the States and the People, with the authority of the three branches of government coalescing into a single cauldron of government, with each branch assuming powers for themselves that they do not constitutionally possess. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

Act Two of the political drama, "The Demise and Fall of America," opens with a cliff hanger. The Stock Market, manipulated by the money barons, crashes. And the media, aided by the incoming president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, decried the national crisis, warning that if something very dramatic did not happen, the entire economy would collapse. The liberal media predicted massive bank failures as the fabricated national emergency worsened. Hundreds of thousands of working class investors whose retirement nest eggs were tied up in the stocks that failed on October 29, 1929 ran to their local banks and demanded what was left of their life savings in gold coin or gold certificates. As the newspaper headlines predicted more gloom and doom, consumers stopped spending, causing a cascading, domino affect that rippled across the country, beginning with layoffs at factories owned by the money barons and spiraling down to impact the mom and pop shops just off Main Street America. As layoffs and firings became more prevalent, all discretionary spending came to a screeching halt. The Roaring Twenties devolved into the Bankrupt Thirties. Roosevelt succeeded in actually creating the national catastrophe his planned society was going to fix.

And through his "national catastrophe," Roosevelt created the unelected 4th branch of government—the bureaucracy that is run by faceless bureaucrats who are answerable to no one. This faceless bureaucracy writes the regulations that are codified into law. In the dark of night between 1933 to 1939, our parliamentarian democracy surreptitiously morphed into a socialist democracy—rule by the minority.

Like Roosevelt, Obama is doing the same thing. On Saturday, Feb. 7, Obama got on his political soap box and warned that we are facing a "national catastrophe" that will swamp the nation if Congress does not move quickly to enact the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, using FDR's "scare the public" tactics in order to strip Americans of their rights. When hawking his doom and gloom rhetoric, Obama chose to ignore the fact that his national catastrophe is so devastating that none of the job creation provisions in the job stimulus bill will happen until 2010 when the Democrats need to generate midterm election votes. In fact, when the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was passed, Republicans voted for it only because the bill promised to buy up the defaulted, foreclosed subprime mortgages and remove them from the books of America's banks. If that had happened in October, 2008 after former President George W. Bush signed the $700 billion bank and credit card company bailout bill into law, the asset-to-debt ratios of America's banks would have stabilized and there would be no national catastrophe for Barack Obama to moan about today.

But Obama, like Roosevelt, knows you can't radically change the country without a national crisis of such magnitude that the people risk losing everything—their homes, their jobs, their savings, and all semblance of personal security if they don't accede to the whims of the State. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief-of-staff and the designated funeral director of the soon-coming demise of America, smiled as he told the reporters who questioned him about the financial crisis facing the nation: "You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste." In an interview with ABC's John Stossel, Obama admitted that "...painful crisis provides us with an opportunity to remake the US economy." This is precisely what Roosevelt tried to do. In the end the Constitution got in his way.

Today, in a collaboration between industry and government—dubbed as public-private partnerships to imply its a good thing—Obama, or rather, the transnational banking-industrial complex, will succeed in promulgating the final phase of government before the final curtain call at the end of Act Three of "The Demise and Fall of America,". You know it as the New World Order. But, there's nothing new about totalitarianism. We saw it birthed in the Soviet Union in 1917 with Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin. We watched it grow with Benito Mussolini in Italy in 1925 and in Germany in 1933 with Adolf Hitler. We watched Mao Zedong use World War II to seize power in China in 1945 and Kim Il-sung do the same in North Korea. Fidel Castro fabricated a national calamity in Cuba to become dictator in 1959. All of these countries claim to be democracies. All of them are totalitarian dictatorships.

When the Constitution got into Roosevelt's way of becoming America's first dictator in the summer of 1936, FDR invited Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes to visit him at the White House. Over coffee, Roosevelt suggested an accommodation from the high court that he believed, he said, would make each of their jobs easier. Roosevelt suggested that the two of them "meet" periodically to "exchange ideas." Hughes would share with the president some of the more problematic constitutional issues found with the challenges to the New Deal laws before any court decisions were made, ostensibly so the Roosevelt bureaucracy could find an accommodation that would keep the court from overturning the law. In return, Roosevelt would discuss pending legislation that might be problematic, and seek Hughes' advise how to make them acceptable to the court before they were signed into law. Hughes was shocked that a president would suggest such a legal impropriety.

President-elect Barack Obama, who is a student of history, proposed the same scenario to Chief Justice John Roberts even as the Court was considering three legal challenges questioning Obama's Article II right to be sworn in as President of the United States without first providing documentation to prove that Kenyan-born Obama was a natural born citizen of the United States. Roberts, who apparently has less integrity than former Chief Justice Hughes, saw nothing inherently wrong with Obama's proposition and agreed to discuss pending decisions with the President whose super majority—like Roosevelt before him—was deliberately crafting legislation they knew would flaunt the Constitution in order to "repair" the "social infrastructure" of the nation through the redistribution of wealth from the white middle class to achieve "societal equality" for poor minorities who lack the gumption to find employment in jobs at their skill levels. Liberals just don't seem to get it.

The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee people economic parity. The "welfare clause" in the preamble of the Constitution is not a "delegated right." Nor is it a "rite of passage" for government to seize the assets of hard working people in order to redistribute those assets to those lacking the ambition or the know-how to sufficiently provide for themselves. No where in the Constitution of the United States are its people guaranteed that they will be successful. Under the Constitution, the people are only guaranteed the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. What they achieve on their own from their own sweat equity investment in America is all they are constitutionally entitled to. You don't owe me a living, nor do I owe you one.

Let me vent a minute: The home grown wholly USA corporations which ultimately grew into behemoth transnational entities owe their growth and their success entirely to the sweat and muscle of working class Americans who not only built their cars, trucks, boats, clothes, household products, widgets and whatnots, but bought them as well. Corporate America owes the American worker a fair shot in the free enterprise system. That fair shot means keeping the jobs they've had most of their adult lives. Plus healthcare and two, three or four weeks of vacation a year, and maybe even a 401K retirement plan fed by company profits which the sweat equity of the workers helped create.

America's Fortune 1000 companies seem to have forgotten that they didn't become the most powerful companies in the world hiring Chinese slave labor, or cheap day labor from the third world who couldn't care less if the products they manufacture last ten years, ten months or ten weeks. Those workers are not, and never will, be vested in the companies that employ them. You won't see generations of working class families proudly working for the same employer in the emerging nations. Sadly, today, US employers are no longer interested in that type of generational loyalty. It's not cost effective in the global economy. To earn that extra dime, corporate employers replace long term employees with cheap imports from the third world. In December, 2008, 108,123 US workers were laid off or fired. In January, the total rose to 598,000. It's now estimated that over 2.7 million US workers may lose their jobs during calendar year 2009. Yet, employers imported 1.5 million foreign employees last year, and have told the the Obama Administration they will need even more this year. Employers defend their positions by claiming that there is a massive labor shortage in the United States. Unknown to most job applicants, many of the employers they interview with have taken classes on how to avoid hiring US job applicants. In the computer technology industry, employers like Hewlett Packard and IBM estimate that close to 300 thousand jobs go unfilled every year, costing US high tech employers over $4.5 billion per year in lost productivity. Yet, thousands of US IT college graduates are flipping burgers in fast food restaurants because they can't find a job in the IT industry.

Now, back to the cornucopia of socialist wishes in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (i.e. The Hogfest of 2009). One detrimental provision in that bill was so adroitly concealed in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that it did not pop up on anyone's radar screen until Rush Limbaugh revealed the content of the measure on his national talk radio show on Mon., Feb. 9. Sadly, it was not revealed quick enough for the nation's seniors to assure both Democrats and the three rogue Republicans: Olympia Snow [R-ME]. Susan Collins [R-ME] and Arlen Specter [R-PA] that the old duffers would live long enough to vote all them out of office if they voted "aye" on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act . American seniors, particularly in the Sunbelt States from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean believed the Obama rhetoric about "change" and cast their votes for Democrats. The "change" Obama has planned for them will not be the change they expected.

Buried in the Senate's $885 billion giveaway for socialist causes is a healthcare provision they won't like. The healthcare provision in the Stimulus Bill—which purportedly will guarantee that everyone receives adequate healthcare—is just so much donkey kong. The mandate will ration healthcare to the elderly. Each hospital or healthcare facility in the nation will utilize an appointed board of bureaucrats who will decide whether or not an elderly patient who requires costly medical procedures which have been recommended by that patient's doctor, will be allowed to have it. We're not talking about elective surgery here, we are talking about absolutely necessary lifesaving procedures like angioplasty or heart bypass surgery.

As I warned the readers of jonchrisitanryter.com in 2002. 2005 and 2007, the State is increasingly assuming for itself the role of final arbitrator of life and death of the elderly. Every hospital now encourages the elderly to sign living wills. In some cases, the living will becomes just one more piece of paper shoved at them to sign when they are admitted to the hospital for treatment. The living will gives the hospital the authority to determine, when the patient is viewed as terminal, to pull the plug. The problem is that when you are old enough—over 70—age itself is considered to be a terminal illness because you can't recover from age. You just get older, more feeble, and more in need of constant attention. In addition, you are no longer viewed as a contributing member of society. You drain the assets of the State without returning a revenue stream to it. When you pass from this life, that drain on the resources of the State—both from Social Security check and Medicare and Medicaid—stop abruptly.

It is important for people to understand, in the epilog of this 222-year old saga called "The Demise and Fall of America," "we-the-people" are no longer a free people. We have been reduced to human capital. We have become a commodity of the State—human chattel. Our rights, and our liberty, is being erased by government—one eraser stroke at a time. We need to ask ourselves—and we need to ask this question very quickly—are we going to allow the government of Barack Obamavelt to subvert the Bill of Rights and chain the American people to the global yoke of the transnational industrialists, bankers and merchant princes, whether socialist or free enterprise? Or, are we going to take our government back?

I never thought I would say this since I've always considered myself a voice of reason, but perhaps its time for a good old fashioned march on Washington.

 

Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter. All rights reserved.Just Say No