Are We As DUMB As Our Elected Representatives THINK We Are?

Hav yu goten thee impreshun that hour politishuns thenk We the People ar stoopid? We seem to provide genuine proof of that opinion by our voting records. We repeatedly put the same worthless people back into office, even after they have shown their disdain for what the people who put them into office really want.

If our politicians were half as smart as they think they are, they would be serving their constituency rather than "servicing" them. Obama just finished his "Health Care Summit", loaded of course, to his advantage - 20 Democraps and 17 mostly RINOs (Republican In Name Only). There was no discussion... simply a lecture by The Chosen One, laying the blame for his failure to move Obamacare through the House and Senate at the feet of the Republican party. That's politics for you! The Republicans are reflecting the true desires of the majority of Americans - we do not want or need a socialist takeover of health care by the Government. It is not cost effective, it will increase taxes. It will result in longer waits for treatment and, in some cases, the wait will be too long. It will cover those who are not citizens of this country, most of whom - if working at all - are working for "cash under the table", and are therefore not paying into the system. It will overtax our existing medical workforce, resulting in qualified medical personnel leaving the field, placing an increasing burden on those who remain, resulting in even longer waits for medical treatment.
Many doctors have said they would give up the practice of medicine should Obamacare become law. More government interference is not the answer to our health care issues. Tort reform is a partial answer. Severe reductions in the cost of medical training is another partial answer. Reasonable (40% - standard retail markup) profit margins on medical supplies and equipment would reduce expenses, which should reduce patient costs. Allowing the sale and purchase of health insurance across state lines would increase competition, and should therefore reduce premium costs. Including small businesses in large "Group Plans" thereby reducing premium costs. Insurance companies should be responsible for covering preventive care - which may cost them only a small fraction of what corrective treatment would cost.

I am a recipient of Medicare now, having paid into it almost all my working life, and continuing to do so in retirement. My personal physician recently put a letter out to all his patients the general thrust of which was: Doctors lose money on every Medicare patient they treat. This is true throughout the state OMA, and the national AMA. If national health care becomes a requirement I will have to cease treating Medicare and Medicaid patients.
I may be carrying that statement to the wrong conclusion, but it appears to me that although we will have Medicare coverage, we seniors will be unable to get treatment under it. What is the practical difference between that and being uninsured??
Then we will have millions more without usable medical coverage - which we will probably continue to be charged for via Social Security deduction. Where is the gain in that?

Obama Revives Talk of U.N. Gun Control - All Our Rights Are In Danger!

As you enter the U.N. Plaza you will see one of the UN's signature pieces of art, a gun with a knot in the barrel. This should give you an idea of how the U.N. views our 2nd Amendment Right.The United Nations is, as the name implies, a concentration of voting representatives of 192 nations of the world, and two non-voting "Observer States" - the Mission of the Holy See (Vatican City) and the Mission of Palestine (Terrorist City). Those states are "united" only inasmuch as they attend meetings in a single place. Even as this blog is being composed there is some discussion among the sovereign nations of the European Union not just to have a President of the EU, but to convert the EU into a single government state with a single president! (Front runners for this position are rumored to include Belgium's center-right Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and French President Nicolas [get 'em while they're young] Sarkozy.)

As most of us are aware, the United Nations makeup is primarily left-wing nations, dictatorships, and "enforced governments" (voting permitted, but ballots ignored in favor of the incumbent). We are also aware that our Constitution is what makes the U.S. unique among world governments... it GUARANTEES us certain rights that most of the people of the world do not enjoy. Among those rights is the Constitutional right - and power - to replace a non-responsive government that has forgotten the its people ARE its power.

We are NOT Europe, nor do we wish to imitate Europe. We ARE the United States of America. We do not need the United Nations, "International Law", or the "International Court" to dictate how we will run our country. We do not need the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29 to supercede our Constitutional rights -

Article 29.

• (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
• (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
• (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Vaguely worded, legal mumbo-jumbo that can be interpreted in any fashion the dominant authority, which, in this case would be the United Nations (after Obama signs over ownership of We the People to the U.N.) desires. It's a "they win, we lose" situation, just waiting for an opportunity to manifest itself.

Obama's plan seems to be designed to destroy both our national and our individual economies, thereby making submission to a One World government more attractive to those who cannot see through the smoke, and are not misdirected by the mirrors. Our government has spent its way into a very large hole, which it made even deeper by borrowing money from our "good friends" in Communist China. Then Obama has more US currency printed and minted, thereby further devaluing it, and reducing our personal buying power. From March to September 2009, the dollar's value fell 14.9% against the Euro. How did this happen? The dollar is declining for the following reasons:

1. The U.S. debt has risen to over $12 trillion. Foreign investors are concerned that the U.S. will let the dollar decline so the relative value of its debt is less.
2. The large debt could force the U.S. to raise taxes to pay it off, which would slow economic growth.
3. As more countries join or trade with the EU, demand for the euro will increase.
4. Foreign investors may want to diversify their portfolios with more non-dollar denominated assets.
5. As the dollar continues its decline, investors will be less likely to hold assets in dollars as they wait for the decline to stop.

The government is fully aware that this path to destruction will not rest well with "We the People". And, much to the chagrin of that same government, it realizes that it cannot just rescind the 2nd Amendment without a firestorm of response. What's the politically correct, high-deniability, cowards way out? Be able to blame it on somebody else - like the United Nations - by way of "treaty"or "agreement". To me, that doesn't seem like a really feasible way to avoid that firestorm... does it to you? But then, I'm not a politician... I just "call it like I see it"- not how somebody else thinks it should be. If any of these things happen we need to...