Belle of Liberty

Letting Freedom Ring

Saturday, July 07, 2012

Everyone's Independence Day

According to comedian Chris Rock, writing in a Fourth of July tweet:  “Happy white peoples Independence Day the slaves weren't free but I'm sure they enjoyed fireworks.”  Rock is known for his racism and his tweet set off numerous fireworks.

His tweet coincided with the 160th anniversary of a Fifty of July speech by black abolitionist Frederick Douglas in Rochester, N.Y.  The theme of his July 5, 1852 speech was “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”  He excoriated the white society for dragging slaves in chains to a celebration of white America’s independence from England.

That was a fair enough argument – in 1852.  Eleven years later, in Gettysburg, Pa., the blacks would get their Independence Day.  In a decisive, three-day battle, pitting the North against the South, the Union Army prevented an incursion of Grant’s rebels into the Northeast.   The entire Civil War cost the lives of over 140,000 Union soldiers; 3,155 of them died at Gettysburg between July 1 and July 3, 1863.  Another 14,529 were wounded, and 5,365 were listed as missing.  On July 4, the Confederated Army formally ceded the Battle of Gettysburg to the Union Army.

The Civil War would rage on for another two years, but Gettysburg was the decisive battle.  The Battle of Gettysburg wiped out one-third of the Confederate forces.

In any case, Pres. Abraham Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, freeing all the slaves “still in areas of rebellion.”  States’ rights did not include immoral acts such as slavery.  When Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he has good as signed his death warrant.
So, July 4th is just as much Independence Day for blacks as it is for everyone else.  All the legislation in the world could not – and cannot – eradicate such ingrained prejudice.  Another hundred years, and more legislation had to be passed to give blacks the right of citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to work.

But Chris Rock wants more than that, something he’s not going to get unless he can find a way to give life back to those 140,000 dead Union soldiers, restore the lost limbs of the injured, and assuage the heartache of their family members.  Unless he can make a movie about it, he has no right to talk about social justice.

Just as we no longer fight with the Japanese, so too, the Civil War ended, in 1865.  The freed black slaves, for all their lack of education, had more common sense than this predecessor of theirs.  A statue was built by the blacks in memory of Lincoln, with the blacks kneeling in gratitude for the sacrifices he made on their behalf.

Lincoln had many death threats against him.  His Pinkerton guards were the first Secret Service agents.  But still, Lincoln would not cower behind them and went about his daily life more or less freely until John Wilkes Booth assassinated him at the Ford Theater on April 14, 1865.  Lincoln died the next day.  The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, was ratified on Dec. 6, 1865.

Although the United States declared its Independence on July 4, 1776, it took several weeks for it to reach the King George III in England.   The War for Independence began in 1775 and only ended in 1783.  Then another battle began in 1787, to get the U.S. Constitution ratified in order to replace the weak and useless Articles of Confederation, began.   It took two years for the required nine states to ratify the Constitution.  The government declared the Constitution in effect on March 4, 1789.  Vermont was the last of the original 13 colonies to ratify the Constitution on Jan. 10, 1791, four years after the process had begun.

Today, 236 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, 223 years after the Constitution was technically ratified, and 221 after its formal ratification; 151 years after the start of the Civil War, 149 years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, and the Battle of Gettysburg, and 147 years after Lincoln’s assassination, the end of the Civil War, and the ratification of the 13th Amendment; and 47 years after the signing of the Civil Rights Act, blacks have everything that everyone else has:  the freedom and opportunity to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That’s all the guarantee to which any of us has the right to make a claim.  To demand more than that is to degenerate our society into a community of liars and thieves, and return us to the chains of tyranny.

We would not bow to King George; we will not bow to Chris Rock, or any other Progressive Liberal who still thirsts for vengeance, not justice.

Friday, July 06, 2012

Keep the GWB American Flag Flying

This story from the New Brunswick Patch tells the whole story of why it’s so important to keep the George Washington Bridge’s American Flag flying, from dawn till dusk, on the eight holidays that it’s flown.  Recently, the flag has only flown during the day for as long as that particular bridge operation crew’s shift lasts.  This year, on July 4th, the flag was taken down at   2 p.m., in order to avoid overtime costs.

Steve Napolitano, who was the General Manager of the George Washington Bridge and Bus Station on Sept. 11, 2001, remembers standing on the sidewalk the day after the terror attacks, staring at the American flag workers had just unfurled on the bridge "while car horns beeped as they drove beneath it."

“It was really important that we do that; that we hang that flag," Napolitano said. "Not only for us to remember, but for all Americans to see.”

Maintenance employees looking for meaningful ways to help had located the original 60 foot by 90 foot [450 pound] American flag that hung on the bridge for seven years until it was retired in 1988 in a storage room on the New Jersey side.  Everyone, including Napolitano, worked around the clock on their hands and knees on the floor of the maintenance garage painstakingly sewing and painting the flag to restore it to its former glory and unfurl it at Ground Zero. It was their way of showing solidarity with their fallen comrades and displaced colleagues. The flag was unfurled on September 24, 2001.

The focus of operations for the George Washington Bridge had always been mobility and keeping the flow of traffic moving. Although security at the bridge and Port Authority buildings was always a primary concern, in the post-9/11 world, security was the number one priority.

Ten years later, Napolitano has moved from overseeing bridge operations and is now in charge of the Port Authority Bus Terminal at 42nd Street.

“Ten years later I worry about the future of the world for my kids," he said. "They’re the ones who have to live with the real impact of 9/11. Up until 9/11 we lived our lives in total freedom. Our children will never know that luxury.”

As Napolitano pondered that thought he turned his chair towards the window overlooking 9th Avenue.

"Look at that sky," he mused. "Not a cloud in it. It’s a 9/11 sky."

The Port Authority Administration Building Plaza South is named in honor of PA Police Officer Bruce Reynolds who was assigned to duty on the George Washington Bridge on 9/11, but rushed down to the World Trade Center to assist in the rescue efforts and perished.  If for no other reason, the flag should be flown for the full day in his honor.  It would be nice, too, in consideration of these hard economic times if their fellow officers “sacrificed” their overtime pay in honor of their fallen comrade.  Fat chance of that, though.

The Port Authority knows bridge security needed top priority ever since the Landmarks Terrorist Plot in 1993.  At the time, it was felt that the bridge was too insurmountable an object for a terrorist attack, even though terrorists managed to blow up every bridge in Afghanistan in that same time period and later, during the war in Iraq.

That the flag – the largest free-flying American flag in the world flying over the busiest bridge in the world – is still flying is a testament to the sacrifice of our soldiers, the vigilance of our law enforcement and citizens, and the determination of the American people to live in freedom.

The George Washington Bridge flag deserves its full day in the sun, and should no more be held hostage to union greenmail than to Muslim terrorists.

Long may the George Washington Bridge stand and the Star Spangled Banner wave over the motorists and pedestrians passing under her protection.

Thursday, July 05, 2012

The Key to Freedom

The nephew and his girlfriend have returned from a visit to her home city in China.  She very generously brought us many gifts, including a Mao hat, which she tells us in on sale at every tourist center, a replica of a letter holder with a poem by an ancient Chinese poet engraved into the wood, and a Maobama tee shirt.

Yesterday, I went to a local colonial fair (in my Molly Pitcher costume) and picked up a few “American” souvenirs for her.  A lace night cap, a lady’s tricorn hat, a silk change purse, and a copy of the Declaration of Independence.  I’m also trying to get her an “I Love Limited Government” tee shirt.

She gave me a souvenir notebook with the blessings of Mao on it.  I told her I had a copy of Mao’s “Little Red Book”.  The actual title is “Quotations from Chairman from Mao Tse-Tung.”  I explained that the book is in both English and Chinese.  She looked at me in surprise.  I’m not quite sure why she was surprised since Brother B specifically asked her for the Mao cap and a Maouse pad (mouse pad), in addition to the tee shirts.

She said her father didn't read the book; he had to memorize it – all of it.  Discounting the translation, that comes to 290 pages.  Can you imagine any American student having to memorizing a nearly-300 page book?  It wouldn’t be a bad idea, actually, for high school students to memorize, for instance, The Federalist Papers, which are the reasoned justification for the U.S. Constitution.

Here is what Chairman Mao had to say about the Chinese Communist Party:

The people's democratic dictatorship uses two methods.  Towards the enemy, it uses the method of dictatorship, that is, for as long a period of time as is necessary, it does not let them take part in political activities and compels them to obey the law of the People’s Government and to engage in labor and, through labor, transform themselves into new men.  Towards the people, on the contrary, it uses the method not of compulsion but of democracy, that is, it must necessarily let them take part in political activities and does not compel them to do this or that, but uses the method of educating and persuading them.  [June 23, 1950]

Later in the book, but from an earlier speech, he says this about the common people:

The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history.  [April 24, 1945]

Then, in the Preface and Postscript to Rural Surveys, March/April 1941:

The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant, and without this understanding, it is impossible to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge.

Mao’s demagoguery was unbounded.  His ambition was plain as early as 1927, when he wrote in “A Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Upsurge in Hunan”:

The present upsurge of the peasant movement is a colossal event.  In a very short time, in China’s central, southern, and northern provinces several hundred million peasants will {note:  “will”, not “have”]  rise like a mighty storm, like a hurricane, a force so swift and violent that no power, however great, will be able to hold it back.  They will smash all the trammels that bind them and rush forward along the road to liberation.  They will sweep all the imperialists, warlords, corrupt officials, local tyrants, and evil gentry into their graves.  Every revolutionary party and every revolutionary comrade will be put to the test, to be accepted or rejected as they decide.  There are three alternatives.   To march at their head and lead them?  To trail behind them, gesticulating and criticizing?  Or to stand in their way and oppose them?  Every Chinese is free to choose, but events will force you to make the choice quickly.

Some choice:  kill or be killed.  Then in the foreword to the 1955 The Socialist Upsurge in China’s Countryside, Mao wrote:

The masses have a potentially inexorable enthusiasm for socialism.  Those who can only follow the old routine in a revolutionary period are utterly incapable of seeing this enthusiasm.  They are blind and all is dark ahead of them.  At times, they go so far as to go so far as to confound right and wrong and turn things upside down.  Haven’t we come across enough persons of this type?  Those who simply follow the old routine invariably underestimate the people’s enthusiasm.  Let something new appear and they always disapprove and rush to oppose it.  Afterwards, they have to admit defeat and do a little self-criticism.  But the next time something new appears, they go through the same process all over again.  This is their behavior in regard to anything and everything new.  Such people are always passive, always fail to move to move forward at the critical moment, and always have to be given a shove in the back before they move forward.

Sound familiar?  The Progressives have been touting this very propaganda for decades, and they always aim their megaphones at the young, who frequently don’t know any better.  They take gross advantage of our peaceful natures, all the while encouraging their minions to worse and worse acts of violence.

Reading the Little Red Book and the Communist Manifesto (among others), but they must be read, and read alongside China’s Destiny and Chinese Economic Theory, The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, The Wealth of Nations, Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography, John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.

My nephew’s girlfriend is fortunate in that she’s staying in my brother’s house.   Brother B is an amazing history buff and can teach her the dates and facts of American history.  He can tell when and where events happened.  He’s not so good on the why’s and wherefore’s, however.  That will probably fall to me to teach her what freedom really means.  I have many copies of the pocket Constitution and Declaration of Independence lying about.

The souvenirs are nice, but the best gift I can give this young lady (whom I hope in future to call my niece-in-law) is the key to freedom.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their Just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

Proud To Be An American

In its 236 years as a nation, the United States of America has undergone a constant debate about what it means to be an American.  The U.S. Constitution, formalized in 1791, had to make provisions to account for people in those times who were born in other countries, but had come here to be Americans.   I don't like to speak against every single every illegal alien.  I would gladly see my neighbor, The Tattooed Lady, shipped off to the Mexican desert (the old lizard; she belongs there with all the other reptile) and the landscaper amigo who saved me from her pernicious abuse permitted to stay.  I'd welcome him as a neighbor any day of the week.  God bless my kindly Mexican landscaper for taking pity on me!  God must have heard my prayer and sent him to help.

As for the less well-intentioned aliens, on the other hand:  Naturalization is the process of gaining United States citizenship. Becoming an American citizen is the ultimate goal for many immigrants, but very few people are aware that the requirements for naturalization have been over 200 years in the making.

Legislative History of Naturalization*

Before applying for naturalization, most immigrants must have spent 5 years as a permanent resident in the United States. How did we come up with the “5-year rule”?

Naturalization requirements are set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act, the basic body of immigration law. Before the INA was created in 1952, a variety of statutes governed immigration law.

·         Before the Act of March 26, 1790, naturalization was under the control of the individual states. This first federal activity established a uniform rule for naturalization by setting the residence requirement at 2 years.   The Act of January 29, 1795 repealed the 1790 act, and raised the residence requirement to 5 years. It also required, for the first time, a declaration of intention to seek citizenship at least 3 years before naturalization.

·         Along came the Naturalization Act of June 18, 1798 - a time when political tensions were running high and there was an increased desire to guard the nation. The residence requirement for naturalization was raised from 5 years to 14 years.  Four years later, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of April 14, 1802, which reduced the residence period for naturalization from 14 years back to 5 years.

·         The Act of May 26, 1824 made it easier for the naturalization of certain aliens who had entered the U.S. as minors, by setting a 2-year instead of a 3-year interval between declaration of intention and admission to citizenship.

·         The Act of May 11, 1922 was an extension of a 1921 Act, and included an amendment that changed the residency requirement in a Western Hemisphere country from 1 year to the current requirement of 5 years.

·         Noncitizens who had served honorably in the U.S. armed forces during the Vietnam conflict or in other periods of military hostilities were recognized in the Act of October 24, 1968. This act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, providing an expedited naturalization process for these military members.  The 2-year continuous U.S. residence requirement was done away with in the Act of October 5, 1978.

·         A major overhaul of immigration law occurred with the Immigration Act of November 29, 1990.  In it, state residency requirements were reduced to the current requirement of 3 months.

 Today's general naturalization requirements state that you must have 5 years as a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. prior to filing, with no single absence from the U.S. of more than 1 year. In addition, you must have been physically present in the U.S. for at least 30 months out of the previous 5 years and resided within a state or district for at least 3 months.   * Source: issues

Immigrants who came here didn’t just want to be “in America”; they wanted to be “Americans”.  They wanted to live in and be citizens of a nation governed by the rule of law, not by the dictates of a tyrant, a collective body, or even a beneficent monarch, all of whom had the power of life and death over their subjects.  Immigrants who came here wanted to be citizens, not subjects.

Those who came here didn’t expect or desire a life free of economic toil or anxiety.  They fled such countries, where they grew up learning that there was a price to be paid for the subsidization of their lives:  their freedom.  They sought to escape from the despotism, corruption, and danger of life in such countries.  Americans have taken those dangers, in their ignorance, for granted.  We have allowed our vigilance to be lulled by the temptation of a free lifestyle in exchange for free opportunity, and a mounting fear of political punition for defending that which is truly American.  We are surrendering what our descendants risked their lives for.

Americans are generous and tolerant.  We haven’t always been so, but we’ve tried to live up to the ideals of freedom.  Much blood has been spilt in reparation for mistakes made over a century and more ago.  Using that history as a cudgel, we are expected by an overweening government to open our borders to illegal aliens who care nothing about being American, but only care about being in America to take advantage of her increasing social and economic largesse.

If we are a nation of laws, then what should compel us to admit those whose very first act in coming here is to break the law?  What sort of citizens will they make, if this is their behavior?  What sort of Americans are these who refuse to assimilate in any manner?  Who refuse to learn the common language, English, refuse to learn our history, and above all, refuse to obey the laws?  If these are to be the new American citizens, America will cease to be a nation of laws, governed by a constitution that is supposed to restrict the size of government.  Their entry will guarantee the enlargement, despotism, and corruption of the government, for caring nothing about this country and the rule of law, they will bring their former culture of corruption with them.

Not long ago, a group of children, graduating from a kindergarten in Brooklyn, N.Y., was forbidden by the school principal to sing the Lee Greenwood song, “God Bless the U.S.A.”  The teacher deemed that such lyrics as, “I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free” would be an offense to people from other cultures.  Later, when they and their parents found another free place in which to sing the song, the five year-olds were heckled by Progressive activists, who screamed at and called these innocent children offensive names.

Dissent of opinion is advocated, even by those who purport to love their country.  Patriotism, on the other hand, is derided as dangerous, likened to the national socialism of Nazi Germany.  To love America is to love freedom and the rule of law; it is nothing like Nazism.  That is why little children wave flags and sing “God Bless the U.S.A.” on the Fourth of July.  It is why the real Mia fought Nazism through the Dutch Underground, joined her countrymen on the streets of Maastricht to greet the American soldiers who’d come to liberate Holland with shouts of “God Bless America,” and after World War II, legally immigrated here with her husband, because she loved America so much.  She was proud to be an American.

Tuesday, July 03, 2012

The Battle of Derecho

Brother A just returned Sunday night from a weekend trip to Virginia for a caving conference and expedition.  A fellow caveman heard it first – the build—up of a ferocious wind.  He grabbed hold of his tent canopy and warned Brother A to hold onto his.

Brother reported that there was a slight breeze and just a second later, a 70 mph blast of wind that sent everyone else’s tents flying, equipment hurtling through the air, and trees crashing onto campers’ cars.  No one was seriously hurt, although some of the cavegals were scraped up and scared.  One group of campers had a tree crash right onto their vehicle.  Miraculously, no one was hurt or killed in that car, but it took rescuers hours to get them out.

If you believe in the Wrath of God, one can’t help wondering about this wind storm – a second followed.  The District of Columbia suffered a three-day power outage.  Power is something that Washington craves and abuses.  The general public had never heard of a derecho (pronounced the same way as Jericho, only with a “D”) before this.  No one had ever heard of a Supreme Court – in the history of the United States – declaring that Congress has the power to tax citizens into buying something.  We’re taxed for buying something, but not for not buying something.

Nobody ever knows whether God is on their side or not.  The question is really whether we’re on God’s side.  Obamacare was legislation polls cleared showed that Americans did not want.  God was watching and listening as Nancy Pelosi, sledge-gavel in hand, declared that if Americans wanted to know what was in the bill, their representatives would have to pass it.  God was listening as Judge Roberts declared that, one way or another, Obamacare had to be upheld.

That was Judge Roberts’ opinion.  The Washington elites should ask themselves if the derecho was God’s opinion.

Monday, July 02, 2012

The TEA Party March

Yesterday’s Bergen Record ran an article about politicians and political groups participating in holiday parades such as the Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day parades.  In Leonia, a woman was criticized for carrying an anti-abortion banner in a Memorial Day parade in an event designed to honor our fallen heroes.  Some case could make for an argument against that kind of sign in a Memorial Day or Labor Day parade.

But the reporter was specifically concerned about the Fourth of July Day parade.  The headline read, “Some say leave message home.” 

“The co-opting of parades and holiday celebrations by groups wanting to reach an audience with their message, such as anti-war protestors, abortion opponents, Tea Party activists, gay rights advocates, and white supremacist, presents municipalities with a challenge; how to keep events apolitical without violating free speech rights.”

The town of Ridgewood, N.J.’s parade committee incorporated itself into a nonprofit organization.  As a private public entity, it now has the bar any group it wishes, just as the Catholic Church was able to bar gay rights activists from marching in the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade, which it sponsors.

The America of today is not the America of 1776, when anyone could stand on a soapbox or crate under the new American flag and give a speech.  Municipalities, states, and even the federal government have enacted ordinances “protecting” the public from the inevitable consequences of free speech:  dissent and controversy.  The only fireworks municipalities want are the ones hosted by the local fire department.

Alas, I can’t be there with the NJRTP when they once again march in the parade.  For the last 35 years, I’ve been committed to a local marching band.  Not sure I’m going to make it through these two parades, as the forecast is for 92 degrees or better, just as we’ll be marching down the Main Street of Chatham.  Maybe we can convince our officers to let us march in our tee shirts.

Anyway, I feel bad about not being there for the Tea Party, seeing how crucial this election year.  But to make it up for it, I’ve composed a little Tea Party March, to the trio and break strain of Americans We.  I figured what better march for the Tea Party than Americans We, because that’s what we are – Americans, through and through.

The TEA Party March

(sung to the tune of Americans We – break strain and trio – the chorus, for those of you who are non-musical)

Oh, we are the party
Of liberty.
And Constitutionality!
Oh we fight for freedom
And fiscal curbs;
We don’t believe in Socialism

We are the party
Who salutes the flag
And those who gave their lives.
Oh, we will strive on
In remembrance of Ron   
So our nation will thus survive.

Begone, Media Goons!  Your cameras cannot frighten us!
So long, Liberal Loons!  Your programs only tighten us!

TEA Parties, lead on!
TEA Parties, fight on!
TEA Parties, hang on!
Our country shall not fall!

Oh, we are the party
Of liberty.
And Constitutionality!
Oh we fight for freedom
And fiscal curbs;
We don’t believe in Socialism

We are the party
Who salutes the flag
And those who gave their lives.
Oh, we will strive on
In remembrance of Ron
So our nation will thus survive!

Sunday, July 01, 2012

"Free Riders"

ABC News has been touting a statement presidential candidate Mitt Romney made about the Massachusetts state health care plan – Romneycare.

“In what is now a well-known exchange from ABC News’ January 2008 Republican presidential debate at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney declared “I like mandates” when asked by moderator Charlie Gibson about his approach to health care reform in Massachusetts.

But there’s another moment from the debate that’s getting more traction after yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling — on in which Romney says “yes,” when asked is the health reform law he ushered in as governor constituted a tax.

GIBSON:   Governor … you imposed tax penalties in Massachusetts?

ROMNEY: Yes, we said, look, if people can afford to buy it, either buy the insurance or pay your  way; don’t be free-riders."

Free riders?  Yes, let’s talk about all those “free riders”, beginning with the illegal immigrants who pay no taxes into our economy at all, who are allowed to charge everything from diaper rash crème to heart surgery to the government – that is, the taxpayers.

Let’s talk about all those lower-income Americans whom we’re told we must subsidize from the bottom of our hearts – and our pocketbooks.  Every time they’re child sneezes, we pay for their medication.  We already pay for their food, their homes, and their education, and we pay for their medical care.

These two groups alone are responsible for driving up the cost of medical care.  The third guilty party is the government itself, with numerous fees and regulations that cost hospitals and doctors’ offices millions in additional staffing and time.

The government can hardly accuse the elderly of raising the cost of health care, since every retired citizens has already contributed to Social Security and Medicare through their taxes.  They’re hardly the “free riders” Mitt Romney and the Progressive Media would paint them to be.  If you’re working (if you’re lucky enough to be working, you are paying your freight).

Yet Social Security is bankrupt and Medicare is about to be gutted by Obamacare.  Why has no one audited the true costs of Medicare; the same cost that plagues every business – labor?

One of the provisions of Obamacare is education for legions of new doctors and nurses to replace those doctors who are getting out of the business?  The doctors aren’t unionized, but probably will be – a Democrat Senator has already made the motion.  Who do you think will be paying the tuition of these new doctors and nurses?  Neither the free riders, nor the students.  Again, it will be the taxpayer.  “Free riders” who have a conscientious objection to this government intrusion on our personal lives will face paying the tax, or jail, if they don’t.

Advocates claim the transformation will be incremental.  Of course, it will.  Otherwise, voters would openly rebel and put the entire lot of crooks out on the street where they belong.  That’s how Obamacare got past the first judicial stage.  Because the bill wasn’t a tax – yet; no tax had been collected, so no one could sue for a refund, SCOTUS was able to let it go by.

Wherever Government treads on our freedom, paperwork and bureaucracy follow.  Thousands of IRS agents have already been hired, causing yet another burden on the taxpayer and on a flailing economy.

These are the reasons the cost of health care is so prohibitive and why the “free riders” avoid it as long as possible.  Few insurance companies care to deal with health insurance because the costs to them are so prohibitive.  They know that you can charge only so high a premium before you lose customers.  They, too, must hire numerous legal experts to deal with the mounting bureaucracy.

Companies have been generous – overly-generous – in their health care benefits.  They have deductibles, and most people choose the lowest (naturally).  New Jersey is one of the worst offenders in terms of health care bureaucracy.  My former company stopped selling health insurance in this state years ago.  It’s not because New Jerseyans are sicker; it’s because the state regulations are so onerous.  In New Jersey, in order to sell health insurance a company must appoint the governor to the board of directors.  Essentially, the government runs the health insurance companies in New Jersey.

With so little competition, the largest company can afford to charge outrageous premiums.  People in their late fifties often pay up to $800 or $900 a month for health insurance.  Some of these are people who were employed, had company health insurance, but lost their positions, thanks no doubt, in part, to the cost of providing health insurance in this state.  No wonder companies are fleeing.

If private health care insurance could be purchased at a reasonable premium, young people would do so.  That would not prevent the insurer from raising the premium as they got older, however.  Just as young drivers pay a high premium, which goes down as they get older and safer, premiums for older people will go up as they get older and sicker.  Forcing younger people into the system will not change that.  All they would be doing is subsidizing the more at-risk group, something car owners do not have to do.

However, automobile owners are, or were nearly, forced to subsidize drivers in the cities, who have worse driving habits, exhibit less responsibility, and more tickets.  No one knows whether this nasty piece of regulation has passed.  Like Obamacare, it represented a tax, more or less, on more affluent drivers.  The insurance companies were forbidden to inform their policyholders of the reason for this fee on their bills.  The Media has been less than forthcoming on news of this piece of regulation.

There’s another reason, beyond the Constitutional, that makes Obamacare bad legislation and SCOTUS’ ruling outrageous:  Obamacare creates a moral hazard.  Before universal health care became the vogue, before Medicaid and Medicare, the employed had limited health care insurance from their companies, which only covered two issues:  hospitalization and catastrophic illness.  If you got a cold, or had diabetes, you were on your own.  So people had an incentive to take better care of themselves.  People weighed less.  People ate less.  There was no government to buy their food or take care of them when they became ill from overeating.

That all changed in 1965, with the introduction of welfare, Medicaid and Medicare.  Why worry?  Whatever you did, the government would take care of you.  Smoke away, gorge yourselves, lie on the couch and watch television instead of taking a walk in the evenings.  You had nothing to worry about.  Uncle Sam would pick up the bill.

But there’s no such thing as a free lunch.  Uncle Sam has decided you need to pay the piper.  Even though the U.S. taxpayer is the piper, Uncle Sam is calling the tunes.  At least now he is.  You can be compelled to do anything he says.  Enroll at the gym (on your own dime; if you’re in the entitlement class, on the taxpayer’s dime), buy and eat what food he dictates, go to a government doctor, who will eventually (depend on it) compel you to accept an implanted chip which will not only monitor all your activities but your financial records as well.

Meanwhile, Uncle Sam will take good care of his union minions.  They are exempt from Obamacare’s mandates.  Free riders?  Mitt Romney and ABC must be kidding.  Who do they think they’re kidding?

It’s time for the Tea Parties to rally again, signs and all:  Taxed Enough Already.