Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Backbones made of Cartilage

You know that funny question teachers ask kids? You know the one- "What do you think would happen if you had no bones?" I think that is the most idiotic question in the world. It's like- "Duh. I thought that without my bones, I would still be able to have shape. Thanks for cluing me into the obvious!"

Why did I open this with that, do you ask?

Well, I'm not really sure. We were just on the subject of bones, so I thought it would be cute. Anyway, this is going to be a rant more than anything, so if you can't deal with religion and ranting, I suggest you go find a nice book to read. It'll be better for you, believe me.

One of my online friends was talking about something President Obama supposedly did. I haven't found (and honestly, haven't looked. How lazy is that?) any evidence for it, but anyway. Supposedly, Obama refused to go to the 'National Day of Prayer' shindig. (I didn't go either. Everybody declare a national emergency. I'm not standing up for our country's founding morals!) Anyway.

After that, the President supposedly called for a Muslim jamboree, with prayer rugs, Mecca models, the whole nine yards. Or something like that. So, of course, this is instant proof that a) the President is a Muslim, and b) the moral culture in America is falling apart.

Now...say what again?

I'll give you that yes, his calling for a national Muslim prayer day does indicate he's a Muslim. But so what? There's no religious test for the Presidency.

But that the moral culture in America is coming apart at the seams? Uh...you lost me. (Yes, this is where we get to the 'backbones made of cartilage' part. This is also where we get to the religious part.)

Did anybody ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the moral culture is falling apart because Christians aren't doing their jobs? Think about it.

We traded in Moody Spurgeon for Benny Hin.

We traded in witnessing for nightly idiot-box fests.

We traded in good preaching for apologetics.

We left behind street preaching and took up shamefaced leaving of tracts in toilet stalls at McDonalds.

Yeah. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the moral fiber in our country is shot. Just the fact that these evil liberals have taken over Washington!!

Okay. What about the evil conservatives that sure haven't hindered them?

What about you? Yeah, you, sitting there reading this. Do you ardently pursue the Word? Do you witness to those around you with the joy of the Lord? Do you try?

Or do you settle for half-truths and compromises, hoping (in vain) that you will pick the 'lesser of two evils'?

Grow up, America.

Get a backbone, Christians.

Bookmark and Share

Healthcare- or Insurance?

It seems to be the prevailing notion among nearly everyone that the 'healthcare' bill currently in the Congress will institute some sort of 'universal system'.

Not quite. Of course, I'd have quite a bit more respect for Congress if they'd just go all the way if they absolutely must pass some sort of healthcare bill and just give us a universal system. It's not as if they listen to their constituency in any case.

The bill(s) currently being proposed will not create any kind of system at all; they will merely give more power to what we already have in place. The bills will mandate health insurance coverage for every man, woman, and child, in the US, and create a radically expanded Medicare-like program for those who cannot afford private health insurance (my family would be one of these families).

However, I do not believe this will solve the problem. The insurance companies are the problem, not the lack of government involvement. Insurance companies are corrupt from the bottom up. They deny coverage to many on a regular basis, sometimes for the most idiotic reasons. They jack rates on those who are 'at risk', and people still go bankrupt.

The current bills will only cause that corruption to spread wider, and will put yet more people at the mercy of the insurance companies. Furthermore, I believe some people will simply not get coverage, as they do now, because the fines imposed for the lack of insurance will be much less than getting the actual insurance.

So these bills will not be creating a 'universal system', and will not truly solve anything.

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, October 25, 2009

National Emergency: H1N1

So, I suppose those of you who pay attention to the news know that President Obama has officially declared H1N1 a 'national emergency'.


Of course, I am not going to be getting the swine flu vaccine. In my opinion, the risks (irreversible brain damage; death) are not worth the payout (may not get H1N1). So I'm just going to pass on the vaccine, and if I get it and die, I'll have no one but myself to blame.

But statistically speaking, I'm not going to be getting it.

Of course, we actually don't have any statistics, because the CDC has stopped testing/reporting on cases. (Remember when the big outrage over Mexico refusing to report caused an outrage? A generous dollop of two-facedness anyone?)

Just last week, H1N1 was actually going away. Of course, those statistics are now moot, kaput, totally false, and obviously wrong. (Sounds a bit like some Ministry of Truth action there...) But now, just as the panic and pandemonium over this was starting to go down, President Obama is reviving all the ruckus. Why?

Why, over that terribly large number of 900 deaths in North America alone! (5,000 worldwide)

Let us forget the fact that 200,000-500,000 people die in the regular influenza season. Yearly.

And we're screaming and writhing, virtually comatose in our horror, about 5,000 deaths?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not minimizing the threat here. Well, maybe a little. But it just seems to me that that number doesn't warrant this kind of hysteria- especially when we don't even know how many people have actually got it, because the CDC has stopped testing.

When the CDC starts testing again, and we actually know for sure how many people have it (and its higher than the regular flu count), I'll start panicking. Not until.

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Psalm American

Indolence is my shepherd, I shall not want, for unemployment insurance is with me.

My apathy maketh me to lie down before the TV, I am led through all you-can-eat buffets.

Commercials restoreth my appetite, they lead me in the way of gullibility for profits' sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of responsibility, I shall fear nothing uncomfortable, for the government is with me; their rhetoric and promises they comfort me.

I preparest a table in the presence of my TV, I anointest mine head with a pillow, my cup runneth over for my belly's sake.

Surely good living and willful ignorance will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in a state of euphoria all the days of my life (hopefully).

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

You Might be a Constitutionalist...

By Chuck Baldwin,
October 20, 2009

Archived Article

I originally published this column back in January of 2005. Since then (and especially lately), many people have called and written with requests to republish it. So, with a few minor revisions, here it is.

More than thirty years as a student of American history, constitutional government, and the Holy Bible leads me to the conviction that the two major political parties in this country (at the national level) are equally culpable in stripping America of its founding principles. In my opinion,
both the Democrat and Republican parties in Washington, D.C., have zero fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and zero respect for America's foundational precepts.

In my studied opinion, neither the Democrat nor Republican Party (at the national level) has any intention of slowing the out-of-control expansion of government. Neither party has demonstrated any loyalty to preserving and protecting our constitutional form of government.

Like National Socialists and Soviet Socialists of old, the only thing that concerns Democrats and Republicans today is who is in power. Both are equally willing to destroy the freedoms and liberties of people without conscience or regret as long as their party remains in control.

I am absolutely convinced that without a renewed allegiance to constitutional government and State sovereignty, there can be no resolution to America's current slide into socialism and oppression. Therefore, it is critical that we cast aside our infatuation with partisan politics and
steadfastly stand firm for the principles of federalism and freedom, as did America's founders.

Might you be a modern-day Minuteman who understands the principles of freedom and federalism? I offer the following test. Read it and see if you, too, are a Constitutionalist. (Yes, Martha, this is another Jeff Foxworthy spin-off.)

1. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that every congressman, senator, President, and Supreme Court justice is required to obey the U.S. Constitution.

2. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that before the United States invades and occupies another country, Congress must first declare war.

3. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government should live within its means, like everyone else is forced to do.

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people's liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.

5. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see politicians be forced to abide by the same laws they make everyone else submit to.

6. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that we have three "separate but equal" branches of government that are supposed to hold each other in check and balance.

7. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no authority to be involved in education or law enforcement, or in any other issue that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States, or to the People.

8. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that gun control laws do nothing but aid and abet criminals while trampling the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

9. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the income tax is both unconstitutional and immoral, and, along with the I.R.S. and the Federal Reserve, should be abolished.

10. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government had no authority to tell former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore that he could not display a monument containing the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery; or to tell a Pace, Florida, high school principal that he could not pray before a meal.

11. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that Congress or the White House or any sovereign State is not required to submit to unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings.

12. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that freedom has nothing in common with illegal immigration.

13. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that outsourcing American jobs overseas is not good for America.

14. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the United States should get out of the United Nations and get the United Nations out of the United States.

15. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that it is not unconstitutional for children in public schools to pray or read the Bible.

16. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the Boy Scouts are not a threat to America.

17. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government should honor its commitments to America's veterans and stop using U.S. military personnel as guinea pigs for testing drugs and chemicals.

18. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops should never serve under foreign commanders or wear the uniform or insignia of the United Nations, and that they must never submit to illegal orders, such as turning their weapons against American citizens, or confiscating the guns of U.S. citizens.

19. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no business bribing churches and faith-based organizations with federal tax dollars.

20. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that federal agents who murder American citizens should be held to the same laws and punishments that any other citizen would be held to. (Can anyone say, "Waco" and "Ruby Ridge"?)

21. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and the FTAA (and similar agreements) are disastrous compromises of America's national sovereignty and independence.

22. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to see congressmen and senators be required to actually read a bill before passing it into law.

23. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that it is the job of government to protect and secure God-given rights, not use its power to take those rights away.

24. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that there is nothing unconstitutional about the public acknowledgement of God and our Christian heritage.

25. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that government bailouts and "stimulus" expenditures defy virtually every principle of free enterprise and are a flagrant leap into socialism.

26. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that airport screeners have no business touching women's breasts, using sophisticated machinery to look through passengers' clothing to see their naked bodies, confiscating fingernail clippers, or denying pilots from carrying handguns.

27. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that many public schools' "zero-tolerance" policies are just plain stupid.

28. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that parents have a right to homeschool their children.

29. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that governmental seizure of private property is plain, old-fashioned thievery.

30. You might be a Constitutionalist if you are personally determined to not submit to any kind of forced vaccination.

31. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose any kind of national health insurance.

32. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops are not the world's policemen, that they are not "nation-builders," and that their purpose is only to defend American lives and property, not to be the enforcement arm of international commercial interests or global elitists.

33. You might be a Constitutionalist if you understand that the county Sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer of his district and that federal law enforcement (much of which is unconstitutionally organized, anyway) is obligated to submit to his authority.

34. You might be a Constitutionalist if you are determined to oppose America's merger with any kind of regional, hemispheric, or international government, such as the North American Union.

35. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose sending billions of taxpayer dollars as foreign aid; the U.S. State Department meddling into the private affairs of foreign countries; and ubiquitous foreign entanglements that require vast sums of money, create animosity and hostility towards us, and expose us to foreign wars and conflicts in which we have no national

36. You might be a Constitutionalist if you would like to meet one single congressman or senator besides Ron Paul who acts as if he or she has ever read the U.S. Constitution.

Well, how did you fare? Are you a Constitutionalist? If so, your country desperately needs you to stand up and fight for freedom's principles before they are forever taken from us. This means never again voting for anyone--from any party--who will not preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. So, don't just take the test; make the pledge!

Note- I disagree with #10. Judge Roy Moore was wrong, and any public show of faith (praying, posting 10 commandments) by a public official is wrong and unconstitutional. #24 is also iffy- I think you all know where I stand there. ;)

Bookmark and Share

Friday, October 16, 2009

A Bi-Partisan Interview

Recently, I sat down for an interview between two of the (alleged) brightest minds in the political debate- Barack Obama and Sean Hannity. Both agreed to see me on a set date, and we were going to discuss a few things.

We sat down, and I started the conversation.

Liberty: I'd like to discuss the current wars and the recent actions that have been taken.

Barack Obama: Yes, about that- I uh, I'd have to say that my actions in Afghanistan are wholly justified.

Sean Hannity: What, giving up?

Liberty: Mr. President, before your recent lengthy deliberations on the subject of further troop increases, you sent yet more troops into Afghani territory. Do you think that was justified?

Obama: Wholly.

Liberty: And do you think the troops will be able to do their job with what they have?

Obama: You know, I'm listening to my advisers, and they tell me that the troops will be able to.

Hannity: But you're basically surrendering.

Obama: No, no I'm not. We're pursuing a new line of attack, that is all.

Liberty: Would you care to expand on this new line, Mr. President?

Obama: Well, uh...it's going to be revolutionary.

Hannity: You didn't answer the question.

Liberty: I agree with Mr. Hannity, Mr. President. Would you please expand on your new plan of attack in Afghanistan?

Obama: You know, I just think that I am unable to currently reveal our plans.

Liberty: Well, you'll let me know once you can, right sir?

Obama: You'll be right behind Fox News.

Liberty: Well then. What about the Iraq conflict? What are your plans there?

Obama: You know, we're really trying to get out of that.

Hannity: That's a mistake. Those people are trying to kill us.

Liberty: Do you have any proof of that Mr. Hannity?

Hannity: well...uh, you know, I didn't bring it with me. It's on my other laptop.

Liberty: Of course it is. Now in my research, I've found that there is no actual proof that Iraq was giving aid to terrorists, including al Qaeda and the 9/11 conspirators. Three studies, two from the congress and one independent bear this out.

Hannity: You know they're skewed towards the liberals.

Obama: I always thought it was the other way around.

Liberty: Gentlemen, let us pretend for one moment that all these studies are unbiased- which they are, for the most part. What would you say then?

Obama: That obviously, Iraq was not giving aid to al Qaeda.

Hannity: I would say that the reports were sketchy, just as they are now..

Liberty: Thank you gentlemen. Now then, Mr. Hannity- on your show, you have defended some of Bush's less-than-constitutional measures multiple times, including the PATRIOT act. How do you line up the nature of the PATRIOT act with your professed love of the Constitution?

Hannity: You know, I don't think there's any way those two things can be adverse to each other. The PATRIOT act is good- it protects us from terrorists.

Liberty: But it strips us of our fourth amendment rights. How can it be in keeping with the Constitution?

Hannity: Sometimes, certain liberties have to be compromised in the interest of keeping the American people safe.

Liberty: The founding fathers warned against that. Patrick Henry famously declared "Give me liberty or give me death," and Ben Franklin specifically said that any people that would give up liberty for safety deserved neither. What would you say to that?

Hannity: I would say that desperate times require desperate measures.

Liberty: So you're saying that the founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen what is happening today, and so what they said- including the Constitution- is basically moot?

Hannity: Uh, no, not at all.

Liberty: So what are you saying?

Hannity: I'm saying that sometimes, we have to compromise.

Liberty: But where do we stop compromising? You've said it yourself- once we start giving up liberties, we're well on the road to socialism.

Hannity: Yes, I have said that.

Liberty: Right. So, how does that bear out with your stance on the PATRIOT act.

Hannity: I don't see any contradiction.

Liberty: Yes. I'll let you think that contradiction over that for a while. Mr. President, do you have anything to add?

Obama: Well, I'd just like to say that I don't think the PATRIOT act was a mistake, and that there comes a time when the traditions of the past should be forgotten. It's time we moved on.

Liberty: So tell me, if we move on past the Constitution, what is left of our system of government?

Obama: We still have the men and women of America, as well as her leaders.

Liberty: But the whole point of the Constitution was to keep her leaders in check.

Obama: I don't see why they need to be kept in check.

Liberty: I think the logic is quite indisputable. It is common knowledge that power corrupts, and checks have been put in the place of people who would try to grab too much power- namely, the Congress, the President, and even state governments.

Obama: I'm guessing you watch Fox News.

Hannity: Talking like this? No she doesn't.

Liberty: Mr. Hannity is correct, Mr. President. Would you agree with me that power corrupts and we should have checks in place of too much power-grabbing.

Obama: I think that would be safe to say.

Liberty: So if we move on past the Constitution, what checks will be in place for that power-grabbing?

Obama: Well, some restrictions would have to remain in place, of course.

Liberty: So you're basically saying that we should pick and choose what we want out of the Constitution?

Obama: Uh...no. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that some of the restrictions and regulations in the Constitution are outmoded, and I don't think we should be so fanatically bound to the stuffy traditions that people had 200 years ago.

Liberty: If you study history, our system of government and the Constitution that was made isn't exactly a 'tradition.' The Constitutional Republic was a very new, revolutionary idea in that day and age.

Obama: Uh...

Liberty: If we wanted to be held to the traditions of that day, we'd be held to a monarchist system with repressive royalty.

Hannity: Heh. She's got you.

Liberty: Mr. President?

Obama: Yeah, well, maybe we should talk about the merits of change.

Liberty: This discussion is not about abstract concepts Mr. President.

Obama: Of course. You know, I have a press conference at four.

Liberty: You'll be out of here in plenty of time. Both of you, what is your opinion of the new healthcare bills in the Congress?

Obama: It is an admirable expression of the way this country is going. Of course, it could be improved, but that'll come.

Liberty: It is my understanding that earlier in your career, you were an avid proponent of a single-payer system.

Obama: I never said that.

Liberty: You were captured on video saying that you wanted this. If you do, why don't you just come clean and say so now that you are in power?

Obama: I do not recall that incident.

Liberty: You didn't answer the question, Mr. President.

Obama: I think that this country is just simply not ready for that kind of program.

Liberty: Very well. Mr. Hannity, what is your opinion?

Hannity: This bill will give undue power to the executive branch.

Liberty: But letting the executive branch use 200+ signing statements for it's own ends, and letting it put people in jail for nothing but the suspicion of terrorist activity is alright?

Hannity: I didn't think that was what we were discussing.

Liberty: But it is related. Would you mind answering the question?

Hannity: No, I don't think so.

Obama: Time is ticking.

Liberty: I'll take up just a few more moments of your time Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about your recent Nobel Prize. Do you think you acted in the best interest of the US as a whole?

Obama: Totally. I didn't personally receive the prize, not really. The prize was more like something that was awarded to the US as the whole.

Hannity: That didn't prevent you from taking it.

Liberty: Some have suggested that you could have refused the prize as an undue honor and instead conferred it upon the military or simply refused it.

Obama: You know, I really have to get going.

Liberty: Would you mind responding first, Mr. President?

Obama: Not at all. You know, I think I responded with as much humility and gratitude as possible. I think that I needed to accept the prize so as to give the world a better opinion of us.

Liberty: What does taking a token of the personal opinion of five Norwegians do for the world's opinion of us? Wouldn't having a revolutionary new foreign policy accomplish that more directly?

Obama: You know, it's over now, and I have to get going.

Liberty: Of course. Thank you for your time, Mr. President.

Hannity: Yeah, uh, I've got to get outta' here too- show comin' up!

Liberty: Certainly. Thank you for your time and your patience sirs.

Note- Unfortunately, this interview has not yet occurred. Apparently, neither President Obama nor Sean Hannity care about my opinion. However, I'm still holding out hope. In the meantime, this will have to do.

Bookmark and Share

Monday, October 12, 2009

To the Nations of the World

Dear Nations of the World-
We would like to extend a thank you for some things. For starters, thank you for letting us shelter our delusion that we are still the top dogs of the universe. You can't know how important that makes us feel. We enjoy knowing that at any given time, we will be able to mandate our will upon you, the ignorant, unwashed masses of the globe.

We also thank you for humbly submitting to our occupation of your countries. We know that Germany has not been in the grasp of a tyrannical dictator for sixty years, and we also recognize that Iran just might feel threatened by the American military bases surrounding it, but really, we thank you for giving us the benefit of the doubt on that matter.

We also thank you for cooperating with our imperialistic vision of the world. Once again, being able to occupy your countries even in a state of peace makes us feel very important and as if we were actually doing something to contribute to peace.

Because of your humble, honest cooperation we can all have peace, regardless of whatever arrogant dishonest drivel comes out of our leaders' mouths. Peace is good. Peace is our friend.

Understandably, we also thank you for the right you have reserved to us- the right to crush you if you trespass on any statute of our very important, as yet unspoken, American-world treaty. However, we can sincerely say that we have not had many problems with you.

And so, we can all dance and sing kumbaya in the peace and serenity that comes with cooperation. Thank you.

The United States of America

(Note- this letter is not real, however IMO it conveys the view of our current foreign policy.)

Bookmark and Share

Friday, October 9, 2009

Presidential Peeve

Barack Hussein Obama.
Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
Osama bin Lyin'.

I hate it. It is getting very annoying- people (especially on the right) making a big deal out of his middle name, or the similarity of his last name to someone else we all know. Is this seriously the biggest piece of ammunition we can bring out on this guy?

Frankly, it's annoying when people make such a big deal out of his name. Hussein is a common name in the Muslim community. So it also happened to be the name of a tyrant. So? Is that your ultimate problem with the man? Can the President help that his name is the same? Do you think the baby intentionally chose it because he foresaw that Saddam would become a dictator?

Or making a pun on his last name and Osama bin Laden's. His last name came from his father. Could his father help it?

This kind of nit-picking and completely un-subtle hinting is petty and- to be totally honest- pretty dumb. It doesn't matter what his name is. Let's focus our attention on what really matters: the fact that his policies are going to hurt America.

Bookmark and Share

A Nobel Peace Prize

Our President won the Nobel Peace Prize, apparently because he's made such strides in peacemaking, what with sending more of our boys and girls into danger in Afghanistan, and trying his darndest to start a war in Iran!

The committee for the Peace Prize stated that this was the reason for Obama receiving the prize- "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Of course, this prize is not due to any personal achievement (whatever that unimportant council that actually awarded the prize says), but to some mystical "affirmation of American leadership." Last I checked, he saw himself as the American leadership, so...wait a minute! That means that this prize is due to personal achievement!

Whatever that personal achievement is, I think it is just a little freaky that he was nominated, not a few weeks ago, but on Febuary 1. That means that Obama had only been in office for rougly two weeks. Before that time, he hadn't done anything. (Except of course, getting those pesky Bush recriminations out of the way and rearranging the furniture in the kids' bedrooms. Apparently, he promoted inter-country peace by having a mix of Arabian and Israeli bedroom furniture.)

I'll end with this little tidbit- "Some analysts have speculated that the prize could give Obama additional clout as he forms a strategy for the war in Afghanistan and attempts to engage Iran and North Korea."

Oh yes! Attacking people will sooo promote "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Contintental Congress '09

Voting is this Saturday. If you want government to get back within the bounds of the Constitution, get out and vote. Don't settle for second-best.

Bookmark and Share

Monday, October 5, 2009

States & Medicare

Well, big surprise- the states aren't so hot on the idea of Medicare being 'reformed'. Just for the record 'reformed' is code for 'expanded'.

From the page-
"Under the Senate bill and a similar House proposal, a patchwork state-federal insurance program targeted mainly at children, pregnant women and disabled people would effectively become a Medicare for the poor, a health-care safety net for all people with an annual income below $14,404."

I applaud wanting to make sure poor people are able to get good healthcare. I know that sometimes I seem to be some sort of cold, calloused jerk who only cares about her money. That might be true, to a limited extent- I love money as much as the next person.

But it is wrong that states are being required to spend more money, even as they are going as bankrupt as our federal government.

State governments have been cutting spending anywhere they can. That's a good idea- it's something our federal government should have done long ago. As I've said before- it's not smart to spend trillions of dollars when you're trillions of dollars in the hole.

When you've dug yourself into a hole over your head, stop digging.

We have to be making compromises here. What do we want more- healthcare or education? Money or bankruptcy? Because sad to say, that's the point we're at. We cannot have the best of both worlds. It will no longer work.

Bookmark and Share