US COVID-19 Deaths Surpass Influenza...Or Has It?

So, COVID-19 deaths have exceeded those of what we have been seeing for seasonal influenza...just as the "experts" told us they would.  But, have they really?

It has been admitted that, as Dr. Deborah Birx said in a recent press conference, "...in this country, we've taken a very liberal approach to mortality."  She went on to say,  "There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition and let's say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem. Some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death."  She then concludes that, "The intent is right now if someone dies with COVID-19, we're counting that as a COVID-19 death."

Notice the difference.  If you died with COVID-19, they are counting it as you died from COVID-19.  And, I will remind you, that even with the "very liberal" accounting of COVID-19 deaths, it is still far lower than pneumonia deaths (42,560 in the first 12 weeks of 2020 alone).

But there is also more to this story.  Dr. Birx talks about the virus "causing" you to go to the ICU, but there are reports coming out, like this one on Fox News from Dr. Scott Jensen, that, unlike at other times, doctors are being encouraged to count deaths of nearly any kind as a COVID-19 death if they have been confirmed to have have the virus.  Dr. Jensen said, "If I have a patient died a month ago, had fever, a cough, and died after three days and had maybe been an elderly, fragile individual, and there happened to be an influenza epidemic around our community, I wouldn't put influenza on the death certificate, and I've never been encouraged to do so.  I would put, probably, respiratory arrest would be the top line and the underlying cause disease would be pneumonia, and in the contributing factors I might well put emphysema or congestive heart failure.  But, I would never put influenza down as the underlying cause of death, and yet, that's what we're being asked to do here."

Much has also been made of the bad time that Italy has had with the virus.  In fact the US and other countries have been using numbers from Italy to model the possible spread and lethality of the epidemic.

But, is Italy the proper case to base a model on.  It has been widely discussed that Italy's demographics skew significantly toward the older population, which are the most vulnerable to COVID-19.  As reported in The Telegraph:

According to Prof Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health, the country’s mortality rate is far higher due to demographics - the nation has the second oldest population worldwide - and the manner in which hospitals record deaths. 

“The age of our patients in hospitals is substantially older - the median is 67, while in China it was 46,” Prof Ricciardi says. “So essentially the age distribution of our patients is squeezed to an older age and this is substantial in increasing the lethality.” 

But, beyond the demographic issues with Italy, we now learn that Italy too used a very liberal accounting for COVID-19 deaths.  From The Telegraph again:

“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.

“On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many had two or three,” he says. 

Read it again!  "only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus."  12 percent...TWELVE...the number of deaths times 0.12.  Okay, that's significant!

So, what would the chart look like if the US over-reporting was in the same range as Italy?  And remember what Dr. Birx said above, "very liberal."  It would look something like this:

This is much more in-line with what some experts on epidemics were predicting.

The point I will make is that if we are to take such drastic steps...steps that are causing massive unemployment like we have never seen...we have to be more sure of the numbers.  The devastation to the economy in the long-term could likely be much worse than the short-term affects of the coronavirus pandemic.

I am not going offer conjecture on all the reasons for over-estimating the numbers so massively.  I also admit that some number of the cases where COVID-19 was not the cause of death, it may have been a contributing factor.  The point I will make is that if we are to take such drastic steps...steps that are causing massive unemployment like we have never seen...we have to be more sure of the numbers.  The devastation to the economy in the long-term could likely be much worse than the short-term affects of the coronavirus pandemic.

These are the kinds of results you get when you allow "government experts," of any kind, to make extremely consequential decisions for the whole country.  Remember that their initial models that caused the panic to begin with...the ones that launched the police-state lock-downs...were that 2 million Americans could die.  They have continued to back down those predictions, but their prescription has remained the same, and has gotten worse as more and more jurisdictions have inflicted stricter "social distancing" mandates on their citizens.

Fauci, Birix and the other CDC experts are all working from mathematical modeling that, as Fauci admits "are only as good as the assumptions you put into the model."  But, while he claims to not pay too close attention to the models, these were the numbers that have been reported that caused panic and were, at least in the early days, used to justify the lock-downs.

But these experts are only expert in one, narrow area.  They are not economists...they don't have any real concern for economic realities.  Their concern has always been expressed about "overwhelming the healthcare system."  In addition, the experts in charge...the ones who have the current levers of power...are allowed to ignore other, contradicting expert opinions, like Stanford University epidemiologist John Ioannidis and others.  Some say that "flattening the curve" only prolongs the problem, and therefore the economic affects, by delaying the acquisition of "herd immunity" in the population.  But, they only allow voices that agree with their assessments, even as they are shown to be wrong.

A sample epidemic curve, with and without social distancing. 

Image credit: Johannes Kalliauer/ CC BY-SA 4.0)

 Notice in the diagram above, "flattening the curve" may help the health care system, but it drags the over-all problem out over a much longer time horizon.  This will, therefore cause longer-term negative effects to the economy.  The longer a business is kept from pursuing revenue, the less likely it will be able to survive...the higher the number of long-term unemployed and financial damage.  But, as you can see from the diagram, the total number of deaths is likely to be nearly the same.

While we know that the defense of the "flattening the curve" approach is to guard against overwhelming the healthcare system, have we really critically questioned the assumptions.  Yes, some areas are being hit hard, New York City, in particular, but nothing like what was predicted.  Remember, Governor Anthony Cuomo's exasperated question "What am I going to do with four hundred ventilators when I need thirty thousands?"  Well, it hasn't turned out that they have needed anywhere near that number.  But even if it had been worse than it is, we have the vast majority of the rest of the country with excess healthcare sitting idle with employees being furloughed..  Surely we could have made this work in the short term to get through this faster.

When asked about when we can expect to open the country back up, Dr. Fauci said. "I think reopening it is not going to be like a light switch that you switch on or off.  Because, if you look at throughout the country, it's a large country and the outbreaks are really quite different, depending on where you are."  This seems to make some sense, but the question I have is why did we have to switch the country off all at one time?   As Fauci continued, "New York, New Jersey area is very different from now what we've seen in Washington State and in California, in which there was the threat of a real big spike, but it really didn't occur and is at that low level."

In fact, it is true that areas in the country are very different.  The following chart shows the number of deaths (reportedly) caused by COVID-19 per State as of April 10th.

 So, from this chart, we have to ask, why do we have nearly the entire country on lock-down?  The answer is simple...FEAR.  Fear started and perpetuated by the so-called experts, based on faulty mathematical modeling.  Fear of the disease...but also fear that politicians of all stripes might be held responsible for not doing enough.  Fear that was not tempered in any way by the opinion of other "experts" in the same or other areas.  I've laid out what I think some of the other causes have been in a previous post.

The arguments we keep seeing are based on a false dichotomy.  There are not only two choices: Total shut-down...OR...we're all going to die!  There are many, many choices in between.  As we get through this current scare and come out the other side, I hope, and believe that the economy will rebound.  There is no-doubt pent up demand that is being held back by the lock-down.  But, how many of your favorite businesses will survive it?  How many people will be out of jobs?  The longer this goes, the worse those effects will be.  Let's start reversing this lock-down anywhere we can...NOW.

We cannot retain our liberty if we uncritically accept anything that comes from so-called government experts.

Anatomy of a Panic

UPDATE:  Just to be clear, when I speak of COVID not being as bad as other flu epidemics, I'm talking about the number of deaths.  That is the bottom chart on this page.  And, the vast majority of cases, by the reported numbers, worldwide and in the US, are MILD.  I understand that this does not mean fun.

While the statistics, and some very distinguished experts are saying that COV-19 is not as bad as other, seasonal flu epidemics...that the recovery rate is good...that those at risk of death are basically the same as any other flu seasons (the elderly and those with preexisting medical conditions), why does it seem like politicians, companies, schools, sports teams, etc. are completely in support of the extreme measure of shutting down the economy?  That HAS TO MEAN that it really is bad, right?

Well in my opinion, NO!  How, then, did this happen?  Here’s how I see it:

RATINGS:  The 24/7 news media loves this stuff.  They live for panics, catastrophes, and other mayhem, because it brings them big ratings.  It makes the individual reporters and talking heads feel important.  We have seen this many times before, and they don’t care who they hurt, as long as they get their ratings.  That’s the start of it.

This is not all of media, of course.  Many in media are just like many in the general public, unfortunately, they just uncritically pass along what they are being told.  What makes even most of these followers so bad, though, is that they have to play up what they are repeating, by using grim tones, and looking very serious...for their own ratings.

POLITICS: It is an election year.  The press HATES President Trump.  That’s the next part.  They have been using this issue, like other panics (real or manufactured), to blame it on Trump.  To claim that he is not properly responding to the latest likely apocalypse.  You know, like they tried to blame Hurricane Katrina on President Bush.

Then Trump’s political rivals chime in...they have to make the panic big so they can make the blame big.  The most important thing to politicians is getting their power...and they, like the press, don’t care who they hurt.

Now the lower tiers of politicians have to get into the act to prove that they are on top of things.  So Governors, County Executives, and Mayors, all have to go on TV to show that they are taking proper actions. They don’t want anyone to blame them for improper response, you know, just in case any of this is true.

Then other institutions...universities, and the schools, heaven forbid one of their students gets the virus, even though it’s milder than other forms of flu for the vast majority of people.  They would be crucified by the parents.

SNOWBALL EFFECT:  Now, the momentum is large enough that, even though the epidemic is already on the down swing in China, where it began...even though the statistics show it’s not that bad, compared to other common outbreaks...it’s too late.  The snowball is rolling down hill too fast to stop it now.  Now cities are canceling parades...sports leagues are canceling seasons...businesses are canceling all travel and expanding work from home.  Because they don’t want to be seen as uncaring or ineffectual.

The majority of people are now fully invested in the narrative.  They call for government to "save them."  They want more and more strict actions to make sure they don't get this horrible "novel virus."  And the snowball grows...and the snowball moves faster...and the snowball destroys what's in its path.

PERSPECTIVE: Is COVID-19 a pandemic?  Yes, of course it is.  But that just means that it has spread around the world, not that it is the zombie apocalypse.  Have people died?  Yes, unfortunately.  But this happens EVERY flu season.  Can the virus become particularly nasty? Yes...like many strains of Influenza.  Should you wash your hands and avoid other sick people?  Of course.  Should we even take unusual actions to protect the most vulnerable, like those in nursing homes, and those with other high-risk factors?  Yes, those people should take precautions and probably practice an appropriate amount of isolation.

But should we panic?  Absolutely not.  This thing is way overblown.  Hospitals are becoming
overwhelmed, not by a horrible pestilence, but by panicked overreaction.

How can I say this?  Because the numbers are clear.  Looking at the numbers being published from all over the world, the vast majority of those who get the virus have MILD symptoms (94.57%) to those with SERIOUS/CRITICAL (5.43%).  Similar in the US (MILD-97.53%; SERIOUS/CRITICAL-2.47%).  But, I hear what some of you are saying..."What about Italy, smart guy?  It is horrible over there.  We could be just weeks...or days behind them."  Italy is having a bad time of it, but they have the oldest population on the oldest continent in the world.  This is the most vulnerable group.   Italy (MILD-94.38%; SERIOUS/CRITICAL-5.62%)

There are, at the writing of this post, 99,908 active cases in the US.  2,463 are SERIOUS/CRITICAL.  This is across the whole country.  In general, Serious means hospitalized...Critical means in the ICU.  We are not given the percentages between these categories.

Certainly there are higher concentrations of active cases in more populous areas, like New York City.  But at 2,436  SERIOUS/CRITICAL cases in the whole country, how is it that the US Healthcare System is in danger of being overwhelmed?  In fact, hospitals around the country are furloughing people because of the lock-down.  They just don't have the patients.  If some hospitals are overwhelmed, is it from serious cases, or from panicked people clogging the ERs because they have some kind of symptoms and have been scared by the hype.  Would they have even called their doctor this time last year for the same symptoms?  We're not being told those statistics, but refer back to 97.53% MILD from above.

Do some searching on the Internet.  You will find dire predictions from past flu seasons also.  You will also find isolated areas where a hospital or two were being overwhelmed.  But we never locked down the country...even with past "novel viruses."

Businesses will lose billions of dollars.  The stock market is tanked.  Jobs are already being lost...because, like every few years, there’s a new virus strain.  This one just happened to take off quickly in a region of China, and we are at peak media frenzy.

Additionally, this:

"British scientist Neil Ferguson ignited the world’s drastic response to the novel Wuhan coronavirus when he published the bombshell report predicting 2.2 million Americans and more than half a million Brits would be killed. After both the U.S. and U.K. governments effectively shut down their citizens and economies, Ferguson is walking back his doomsday scenarios."

"But after tens of thousands of restaurants, bars, and businesses closed, Ferguson is now retracting his modeling, saying he feels “reasonably confident” our health care system can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in a few weeks. Testifying before the U.K.’s parliamentary select committee on science and technology on Wednesday, Ferguson said he now predicts U.K. deaths from the disease will not exceed 20,000, and could be much lower."

You may disagree, but that’s how I see it. Just my opinion.  That and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.  But, I just don't see a lot of critical thinking around this subject.  Those experts who are making the case for more reasonable response and lack of panic are being drowned out by the noise.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." ~ Agent K, Men In Black

COVID-19 Update: 3/24/2020

2020 Influenza numbers are for the first 10 weeks of the year only.  COVID-19 numbers are total. 

You're not exempt from the math

This is a very simple and unemotional explanation on why Obamacare sucks.  Dave Ramsey does a great job explaining that regardless of how people may want there to be some kind of magic that will allow this monstrosity of a law to work as we were promised it would...you can't escape the simple math of the situation.

Do Words Matter?

Obama says "Don't tell me words don't matter."  I agree...they do.  This video takes a look at Obama's own words...and the truth.

Obama Care - Still a Bad Idea

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court found it constitutional or not, I thought it was time to remind everyone of why Obama Care is still a bad idea.  The basic facts have not changed since I did a post about the Democrat's wild rush to pass this monstrosity back in July of 2009. At that time, Gallup polls indicated that 56% of likely voters believed that passing some form of healthcare reform was important.  This past week, Rasmussen reported that 53% of likely voters support repeal of Obama Care.  Gallup reports that, "Americans are more likely to say the 2010 healthcare law upheld by the Supreme Court last week will hurt the national economy (46%) rather than help it (37%), while 18% say they don't know or that it will have no effect." Which agrees with what the Congressional Budget Office said in 2009 when it reported that the Obamacare legislation would raise federal health care costs"to a significant degree" while not reducing health care costs in general.  This tells me that while people thought there were problems with the health care system, they do not believe that Obama Care is the right solution.  But, the majority of Americans have continued to say that they do not want a government takeover of health care all along.

The very basis of Obama Care were the claims made by supporters that a large number of Americans were not covered by health insurance.  Here's what I wrote then, which is still true:

The President and the Democrats trot out all of the normal, emotionally charged statistics to back their claim that we are in a health care crisis. Particularly they point to the last U.S. Census data that shows that nearly 47 million were uninsured as of the 2006 census. Taken at face value, this seems like terrible thing, but once the data is broken down you begin to see a different picture. For example, 10.2 million of this number is made up of non-citizens. 8.3 million are between 18 – 24 years old, a group that typically chooses not to spend their money on insurances. Another interesting group is the 9.2 million with household incomes of $75,000/year or above. Now that number does not seem nearly as tragic, does it.

So, the lie is revealed.  The 47 million who are tragically uninsured is really more like 19 million.  Of these, many were only temporarily uninsured do to job changes but were reported in the snapshot of the 2006 Census.  But, let's take 19 million as the number.  That is 19 million of a population 310 Million, or 6%.  Should we completely overhaul a system that is working for most Americans for 6%...a number that seems to be high to begin with?  Should we trust the central government to control one-sixth of the economy?  From my earlier  post:

What in the history of the Federal Government or the career of Barack Obama recommends them to be able to run health care any better than the private sector? I submit that, in fact, the opposite result is indicated. Government never has to compete…if they fail; they just raise taxes or print more money. More Americans (45%) trust doctors and hospitals to address the problems than either the Democrats (33%) or Republicans (10%). Beyond the trust issue, the Federal Government has long been known as a paragon of inefficiency. While large corporations can have their own level of bureaucracy, they seldom pay $2,000 for a toilet seat or hammer. Companies are responsible to their stock holders and must compete against other companies to survive…unless they are a bank or auto manufacturer, I guess. The government mostly exists to further its own size and power.

Look, we didn't want it when it was Hillary Care, and we don't want it now.  Let's repeal Obamacare.  Let's dump the largest tax increase in the history of the country.  To do that, Obama Must Go!  Elections do indeed have consequences.

Obama Care and the Death of a Republic

Today's Supreme Court ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obama Care, is a huge disappointment for anyone who cares for the Constitution and the rule of law.  This law was shoved through Congress against the will of a strong majority of the people in this country.  It gives unprecedented power to the central government to control the lives of individual citizens.   This has been done over the objections of several States.  It also gives the central government control over approximately one-seventh of the economy...in effect socializing a  whole segment of the private industry.

One of the most troublesome aspects of this law, the so-called "individual mandate," which forces individual citizens to purchase health insurance, whether they want to or not, under the penalty of being fined, was held to be constitutional under Congress' taxing power.  Chief Justice Roberts found, in writing the majority opinion, that "In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."  This flies directly in the face the wording of the act and of what was continually claimed by Obama and his minions.  He claimed that the individual mandate was "absolutely not" a tax.

Rather than interpreting the law, as is the mandate of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts and the other assenting members have legislated from the bench.  The mandate language in the law did not call for a tax, but rather a penalty.  Roberts and the others changed the law by judicial fiat.  In writing for the dissenting members,  Justice Kennedy explains that, "In a few cases, this Court has held that a 'tax' imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act adopt[s] the criteria of 'wrongdoing' and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax."  But that's what the majority clearly did in this case...they interpreted a penalty as a tax.

Justice Kennedy, also explained:

"As for the constitutional power to tax and spend for the general welfare: The Court has long since expanded that beyond (what Madison thought it meant) taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that were within the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, see United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65–66 (1936). Thus, we now have sizable federal Departments devoted to subjects not mentioned among Congress’ enumerated powers, and only marginally related to commerce: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The principal practical obstacle that prevents Congress from using the tax-and-spend power to assume all the general-welfare responsibilities traditionally exercised by the States is the sheer impossibility of managing a Federal Government large enough to administer such a system."

"The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying nonconsenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have beenenacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative."

The truly frightening part of this decision is that it sets precedent that will likely allow the central government to control any activity or sector of the economy they wish through their seemingly unlimited power to tax. Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La. had it right when he spoke on the steps of the Supreme Court after the ruling,  “They basically have said Congress has no limit to its taxing power. This is the largest tax increase on the poor and the middle class in the history of this country . . . it was sold to the American people as a mandate and not a tax.”


The short-term solution is to vote Obama and all of his central planning, socialist cronies out of office and push the new president and Congress for a total repeal of this bad law.  But this is not enough.  The problem is systemic...the government given to us by the founders has rotted to the core.  The central government can not be trusted to act on the principles of the founding and the original intent of our bedrock legal document, the Constitution.  Neither can Supreme Court be counted on to take up the cause.  As I wrote in a previous post:

Where are the checks and balances that safe guard our liberty? The Supreme Court? This is only a small group of politically appointed lawyers, with tenure for life, who have a history of rubber stamping government expansion. No, the only real hope is to return to America's founding principles, and it is The People who must demand the changes necessary.

Notice that throughout this post, I have referred to the "central government" rather than the Federal government.  I do this with a purpose.  The founding fathers provided us with a federal republic form of government.  It was a republic in that ultimate power originated from "the People."  It was federal in that there was a small body that was to represent the interests of the federation of the sovereign United States of America.  This central government was to be very limited in scope and power and, derived it's power from the States and the People.  The chief check on the power of the Federal government was to be the sovereign States.  With this ruling, and many before it, we no longer have a federal form of government in practice, we have a national one with the States now being subservient to the central body.  This is why I will no longer refer to this body as federal.  There are no sovereign States, and soon, if we don't make a change, there will be no republic.

Because the central government has become so corrupted, we cannot hope to restore it from within.  We must return to the principles of federalism.  The States must retake their rightful role as the check against usurpation and aggression by the central government.  To do this, we must repeal the Seventeenth Amendment (see these post for more information on this topic: Repeal the 17th Amendment ; Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!).  The states must then nullify unconstitutional laws and rollback the central government to it's rightful scope.  Without these steps, the republic is truly dead.

See the following posts for background on Federalism:

Balance of Power

The Utility of Federalism

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 1

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 2

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 3

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 4

Hypocrisy! - REDUX

In March of last year, I posted an article about the hypocrisy of the Democrats in the Senate.  I had attached a video that I think needs to be pulled out again in light of the Democrats' latest hypocrisy. Last March the issue was the use of reconciliation.  The video documents the response of several prominent Democrats in the Senate to George W. Bush's request for the use of this procedural device to approve judicial appointments with a simple (51 vote), rather than a "super" (60 vote) majority.  That he asked the Senate to change the rules to fill vacant judicial seats was decried as the most heinous assault on the republic that could be imagined  The Senate rules and traditions, they screeched, were sacrosanct and cannot be changed.  However, when they wanted to use it to pass Obamacare, it was fine...just common sense and good government.

Now they are at it again.  Now that the Democrats don't have as firm a grip on Congress that they had before the November elections, it's no big deal to change the rules to suit their needs.  What they want to do now is change the rules so that the minority party in the Senate (currently the Republicans) cannot hold up legislation through the use of the filibuster.  Notice in the video that they specifically say that the filibuster is needed and that the minority party should be able to slow progress of a bill.

Once again, the hypocrisy is stunning.  Do these people have no idea of the age in which they live?  Do they not know that the documentation of their past statements and actions is easily found on the Internet...or do they think we are all too stupid to see it?  Or...is this the reason they want Net Neutrality so bad...so they can limit the access to such evidence?  I'm not sayin'...but I'm just sayin'.

The Socialist Ascendancy

Anyone but the most sheltered or willfully ignorant among us must surely be able to see that the socialists have come to Washington and have taken over. Socialists, Marxists, communists, progressives ... call them what you want, these all come from the same root philosophies. Over time and in different parts of the world, these philosophies have been carried out in slightly different ways...state ownership of the means of production...state control over the means of production...or just excessive regulation. It always ends up the same way, despite of all the populist rhetoric, centralized control by a few ruling elites and ultimately, if they have their way, totalitarianism. For the purpose of this post, we will just call them all socialists.

Since the beginning of the Obama administration, the socialists have become more emboldened than any time since maybe the Wilson administration. With flagrant disregard for the will of the people, they have bailed out their cronies in the banking industry which allowed them, despite presiding over the failure of their industry, and the economy in general,  to continue with their excessive bonuses and lifestyles.... Similarly, they bailed out failing Chrysler and GM. While totally disregarding existing bankruptcy and contract law, the government stiffed the bond holders and creditors of these companies and funneled huge amounts of money to more cronies in the auto workers unions. With these two moves, the government established stronger control in the banking industry and had, in-effect, taken over a large portion of heavy manufacturing.

The next target was health care. Here, despite huge amounts of opposition from the citizenry, they shoved a bill through Congress that gives them almost complete control over one-seventh of the economy. This massive piece of ... ah, legislation was passed before anyone was allowed to read it and while some parts were not even complete. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said that they had to pass the bill first before anyone could know what was in it. When asked in a press conference where they got the Constitutional power to control health care, and force citizens to buy coverage, Ms. Pelosi laughed and simply said, "Are you serious...are you serious?"

This move on health care set some potentially dangerous precedents. First that they would show such blatant disregard for the will of the people. Second, the fact that they were able to pass such a bill without anyone reading it. And third that they could so flippantly wave off the Constitution...without seemingly much consequence at all. This victory emboldened the socialists to pursue their agenda with all abandon...regardless of any possible electoral consequences.

Then, shortly after the global warming scam began to come unraveled, the socialists began floating the theory that they really didn't need legislative authority to implement cap and trade. As Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) told the attendees at the climate change meetings in Cancun recently, the "E.P.A. is busy trying to implement cap-and-trade through the backdoor." He added that "the Obama Administration is trying to achieve administratively what it could not legislatively. Cap and trade is now as dead as a doornail, as the American people rejected it at the ballot box on November 2. But that hasn’t stopped the Obama E.P.A."

The socialists believe that they can simply enact cap and trade regulations through the E.P.A . This is, after all, important...the very survival of the planet is at stake, they lie. And with this move, they hope to put the final nail in the coffin of this bothersome obstacle of (little r) republican rule in this country. Now, regardless of who holds office, they can simply rule by fiat through the established regulatory bureaucracies.

Most recently, flush with hubris, the socialists have tested the theory again by moving to apply "net neutrality" regulations on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Contrary to popular belief, the Internet is not a government-owned, homogeneous network.  Rather it is a conglomeration of hundreds and even thousands of individual, privately-owned networks that are interconnected.  But this does not stop the FCC, who's charter is only to regulate broadcast frequencies, from attempting to take control.  Many people see net neutrality as unnecessary tampering at best and the first step toward controlling content on the Internet at worst.  More than 300 Congressmen, including 86 Democrats, asked the FCC to stop it's efforts in this regard and defer to the legislature.   Even the Federal Court has previously ruled that the FCC does NOT have the power to inflict net neutrality regulations on the Internet. The court said, regarding the FCC's reasoning, that "if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether."  In other words, it would allow ruling without representation of  The People.

But, as The American Spectator reported, "without compelling reason, law or even politics on their side, on December 21, on a 3-2 party line vote, the FCC voted to impose its 'net neutrality' rules on the Internet. What net neutrality means is that the government now has the power to decide how ISPs and broadband operators manage the access they provide to the Internet. It is as if the government decided to regulate how FedEx delivers its overnight mail, and what routes and what vehicles they use." 

The trend is clear; the patterns are well known from history.  The socialists are on the move doing what socialists always do...moving toward their goal of total state control. As we move into the new decade, we must not think that our job is over because of a few electoral victories last November.  This barely slows the socialists.  They only retool and set off with even more conviction than ever.  This cancer has been growing for years and will not respond to quick doses of aspirin or applications of band-aids.  The cure will take time...and strong medicine.  The answer lies in a return to our founding documents...but we are so far afield of these principles that the way back will be murky and fraught with pitfalls.  It is, however, a trip we must take...before it is too late.

Early signs are good.  The people have begun to waken from their slumber and begin to see the extent to which liberty has been eroded.  But this is no easy task.  It is, in fact, a generational task.  We must fight as hard as we can now...and prepare our children to carry on the fight.  But, the fight can be won...it has been won before...by the very founders of this great country.

So raise high the banners...light the fires of liberty anew...and stand, arm in arm with your fellow citizens, to be counted for the cause of freedom.

And...have a blessed and prosperous 2011.

---

UPDATE:  (12/30/10; 9:24 pm EST)  This must be some kind of record.   I no sooner published this post when I came across another story to back my assertions.  Here is the link:

Obama Moves to Strengthen Labor Unions - Communists Approve

Paranoia or Justified Suspicion

They say that you're not really paranoid if someone is out to get you.  That's how I feel about the current Federal government. I don't think they are out to get me personally, mind you...I'm not that paranoid.  But remember, the big debate at the founding of this country was between those who wanted a limited government (the Federalists) and those who wanted an even more limited government (the Anti-Federalists).  The Anti-Federalists were afraid that even with all of the limits, checks and balances being discussed by Madison and others, that the central government would become too large and powerful.  As Patrick Henry said before the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 5th, 1788, "suspicion is a virtue, as long as its object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds."   

The current issue that exemplifies the reason for suspicion is the health care debate.  Look, even if you believe that our current health care system is hopelessly broken, you have to be suspicious of the manner in which the Democrats and this President are conducting themselves.  From the very beginning they have sought to deceive the public and subvert the process of government to get what they want.

First of all, the Democrats have completely created a "health care crisis" where none existed.  A large majority of people in this country have said over and over that they are generally happy with their health care.  Yes people are worried about costs rising and believe that there's some room for improvement...but generally, they are happy.  Using data from the last Census, the Democrats told us that nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured.  But this number wasn't quite what it seemed.  Out of this total 10.2 million are non-citizens. 8.3 million are between 18 – 24 years old, a group that typically chooses not to spend their money on insurances. And  9.2 million are households with incomes of $75,000/year or above. This leaves us at less than half of their original number.  These people may truly be in need of help...but for this, they tell us, we need to completely overhaul the health care system for the other 270 million or so Americans.

Then there is the constant parade of poor unfortunate souls who don't have health insurance and are in dire straights. The latest was trotted out by President Obama in a speech he made in Ohio on Monday, March 15th.  Natoma Canfield, of Medina, Ohio is a cancer survivor who has been in the Cleveland Clinic.  Natoma, the President told us, might lose her house.  But this, like so many things he says, just isn't true.  The Cleveland Clinic, who is providing her with treatment,  has already said that they are not going to place a lien against her house and that, in fact, she is already receiving charitable assistance and is eligible for aid. Don't get me wrong, I hate to see anyone have to go through cancer or any other serious illness, but these anecdotal examples are not sufficient evidence that the best health care system in the world must be completely overturned.  They have created a crisis and played on the fears and emotions of the people to try to get them go along with the program.  This tactic is truly despicable, in my opinion, and shouldn't be used by either side.

Then, after promising to post any new bills on the Internet for public review, they initially tried to get Congress to vote on a bill that was not even written yet...so no one was even able to read it...not even the congressmen.  Then they they tried strong-arming, pleading and out right bribing...remember the so called "Corn Husker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase" where sweetheart deals were made with some states in return for votes?   They have told fellow democrats in the face of overwhelming voter opposition to the bill, that even if they lose their seats in Congress, they need to sacrifice their political careers on the alter of health care and vote for this take over of one-sixth of the American economy.

And now the scariest move yet...the so-called "deem and pass" maneuver.  Since with all of the arm-twisting and and bribery they haven't even gotten enough votes to pass this bill using reconciliation...because if they had the votes it would already be done...they are floating the idea of just passing it without a vote at all.  This is a maneuver that is rarely used, and as I understand it, is meant for trivial matters of procedure, not to be used on bills that will have a major effect on a part of our economy that is larger than the entire economies of any other of the G8 countries.  This is obviously a statement that the current Democratic leadership has no  regard whatsoever for the will of the people or the rule of law.

This is a naked power grab.  Politicians do not normally lay down their careers willingly to go against the overwhelming will of voters...even if they think the cause is right.  Even for those who believe that health care reform is a top priority, you must realize that this "the ends justifies the means" approach of the Democrats is dangerous to our republican freedoms.  If they can subvert the democratic process and force the health bill into law against strong voter opposition...they can do it with other bills.  You may want to see this bill passed, but what about the next one...one that you may be as strongly against as you are for this one?  It will be too late then, you will have lost your voice...and a very large portion of your freedom.

So yes, I am suspicious and afraid of this government.  I think my fears are justified, and I believe that I am in good company with my my suspicions of centralized power...the Founding Fathers.  Even if you're for health care reform, you should let your congressmen know that you don't want it done in this way...you don't want it done in an unconstitutional, totalitarian way.

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body..." - Thomas Jefferson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.  Suspect every one who approaches that jewel." - Patrick Henry