Obama’s war on individual liberty

By William Murray via WMD  H/T Leslie Burt

The mandate drafted under Obamacare which forces church organizations to purchase health-care policies that provide for contraceptives and sterilization and abortifacient pills is just one small step toward Barack Obama’s hard-left goal of establishing a centrally planned society. The effect of the health-care mandates is more far-reaching than even critics first reported.

Under Obamacare, standards are set by bureaucrats, and all insurance policies must supply mandated services. Most likely the issue of contraception was the opening shot for Obama and his administration to soften up the opposition. The goal is rationing of care according to the “quality of life.” The quality of life concept is a leftist central planning goal that calls for “defective” babies to be aborted and care to be withheld in end-of-life situations to save government funds. As with central planning in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, health care will be available only for those who can continue to contribute to society. Moral issues are forgotten as they are not central to government.

Most conservatives point to Friedrich von Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” in the context of defending free enterprise. For example Rep. Paul Ryan is an expert on the works of Hayek and the economists of the Austrian School. But the thrust of “The Road to Serfdom” was not economic, but rather the loss of liberty under central planning. On moral issues Hayek wrote:

“What our generation is in danger of forgetting is not only that morals are of necessity a phenomenon of individual conduct but also that they can exist only in the sphere in which the individual is free to decide for himself and is called upon voluntarily to sacrifice personal advantage to the observance of a moral rule. Outside the sphere of individual responsibility there is neither goodness nor badness, neither opportunity for moral merit nor the chance of proving one’s conviction by sacrificing one’s desires to what one thinks right.”

At its heart Obamacare is a worst-case scenario of central planning, putting aside not only the will of religious organizations, but the self-determination of individuals as well.

There is no law forcing church organizations to supply contraceptives; this provision is not in the massive Obamacare law pushed through by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid. The mandate for contraceptives is a “rule” written by the Health and Human Services Department under the authority of the original bill. Obamacare gives HHS the authority to mandate virtually anything regarding health care. In the extreme, HHS could order that all costly attempts to save premature babies be stopped. Medicare already mandates that costly medical care for the elderly be restricted.

There are lists of approved Medicare services, and doctors may not prescribe anything that is not on that list for Medicare patients. This same central control is now becoming obvious in Obamacare. Central planning is not limited to just ordering individuals to buy insurance.

Going back to Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”:

“If the law says that such a board or authority may do what it pleases, anything that board or authority does is legal – but its actions are certainly not subject to the Rule of Law. By giving the government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable.”

Pay close attention to this portion of the above quote: “… a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable.”

Canada is defined as a democracy, but there is virtually no freedom of speech in that nation. Individuals have been fined for letters of opinion sent to newspapers. The courts there forced one man who was publicly critical of Islam to work in a mosque as public service. Democracy and liberty are not synonymous. It could be possible for an individual to have greater personal liberty under a monarchy than under a democracy whose bureaucrats have been given unlimited rule-writing powers.

The problem of the loss of liberty through central planning goes beyond Obamacare. Our Congress has abdicated its responsibility in many areas, giving the authority to bureaucrats to write “rules” that have the force of law, “rules” that if violated can bring about not only fines but prison time. The Environmental Protection Agency has jailed innocent land owners for such crimes as cleaning garbage from their property.

Oddly, conservatives have aided in the rush to central planning. Republicans in Congress have sworn off “earmarks,” thus giving Barack Obama and the bureaucrats the full authority to spend trillions of dollars a year as they see fit without congressional oversight. It is now Obama who decides which states get new bridges, not the Congress. Apparently, tea-party members believe that having Obama decide where to spend trillions of dollars is better than the “corruption” of congressmen trying to bring jobs to their districts. The tea party is unwittingly assisting in the creation of even more central planning.

The problem with Obamacare is not Obamacare. The problem stems from both major political parties moving away from the concept of individual liberty and toward central planning, whether it is George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” or Barack Obama’s attempt to control medical care for the entire nation from one central location in Washington, D.C.

We must heed the warnings of Friedrich von Hayek and dismantle the central planning monster we have created in Washington before it devours the last of our liberties.

William J. Murray is the chairman of the Washington, D.C.-based Religious Freedom Coalition and the author of seven books including “My Life Without God,” which chronicles his early life in the home of destructive atheist and Marxist leader Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the woman who filed the lawsuit removing prayer and Bible reading from America’s public schools. Having lived the Ayn Rand lifestyle, he has a unique prospective of the political candidates.

Where Gingrich Stands on Education, Healthcare, Immigration, Energy, Fiscal Responsibility and Nation Defense

America’s 2-T Moment—The Case for Newt Gingrich!


English: Newt Gingrich

Despite the fact that . . .

1. Our debt has now surpassed our entire GDP

2. Congress is about to increase the debt again to 16.4 trillion dollars

3. We are now borrowing forty-two cents of every dollar we spend

4. We continue to deficit spend

5. China owns a significant chunk of our debt

6. The Senate hasn’t passed a budget in three years

7. America is drowning under big government bureaucracy and regulation

8. We are witnessing statism before our very eyes

9. We are rapidly relinquishing our individual freedoms

10. Corporatism trumps capitalism

11. We are now a nation of oligarchies

12. We are becoming an egalitarian society

13. Forty-six million Americans are on food stamps

14. 1 in 6 Americans are poor

15. Nearly half of all Americans pay no income tax

16. America has the highest corporate tax rate

17. We have a Muslim president who has not produced a valid birth certificate

18. Radical Islam is sweeping across the European and African continents

19. More Islamic mosques are being built in America than Christian churches

20. Sharia is infiltrating every aspect of American culture including the judiciary

21. There are twelve million (closer to 20 million) illegal aliens in the US

22. We have wide open and unsecured borders

23. Mexico’s drug wars are spilling over into the Southwestern United States

24. The State Department has teamed up with foreign nations to sue states who enforce federal laws

25. The Justice Department armed Mexican drug cartels in a furtive assault on the 2nd Amendment

26. The nation’s defense budget has been slashed in half

27. Iran is on the cusp of securing a nuclear bomb

28. We have transitioned from a manufacturing and producing nation to a consumer and debtor nation

29. We spend more on education yet rank near the bottom of industrialized nations

30. The leftist media dictates the outcome of wars and elections while it influences the minds of our children . . .

Americans are NOT protesting the road to serfdom, we’re paving it!

Regardless of how we got here, e.g., collective stupidity, addiction to entitlements, a castration of our cojones or mass media mind control, one thing is for sure: Those of us who recognize it need to stand united and fight it!

If we don’t, tyranny and totalitarianism is all that awaits us.

In his seminal book, The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents–The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) Hayek demonstrates how socialist governments (Obama Administration) are motivated by illogical ideology and political posturing. They inevitably tamper with free market principles. In so doing, it usually results in suboptimal economic performance, financial crisis, and even greater intervention. Hayek would argue for solutions based on individual freedoms while limiting government’s ability to intervene in markets, but socialist/marxists see it differently. Instead, they demand greater and greater powers, claiming that only greater intervention can fix the problems that their actions have caused. To the extent that people buy into this thinking and vote to grant governments ever more power, economic and personal liberties are surrendered, eventually resulting in tyranny and totalitarianism.

Hayek also points to the fact that socialism and it’s characteristic “centrally planned” economies tends to concentrate power in a small band of political elites (Obama and his endless appointment of czars). In this type of system, only the most corrupt and politically ruthless tend to advance, and over time it gets to be increasingly difficult to oppose them. Leaders, unable to offer real growth and prosperity, turn to things like thought control, group think (media) and other dubious and nefarious means to stay in power and advance their socialist agendas.

Although construction of the progressive highway to a socialist / communist America began at the end of the Reagan Administration, the one fly in the ointment that they could not foresee was the birth of the internet—the great equalizer, the peoples platform, a conduit of coalescence and the ultimate arbiter of the very definition of free speech. At no time in our country’s young and fragile republic has there ever been a more effective enforcer of our 1st Amendment right.

At the same token, not since the Civil War has America found herself at such a monumental crossroads. We have two choices that lie before us:

A. Fight to preserve our blood-bought freedom and liberty

B. Surrender that freedom and liberty and continue to pave the road to serfdom

This presidential election is America’s 2-T (Titanium Testicles) moment. And from what we’ve witnessed in the race for the GOP nomination, only one candidate has the balls to match his brains and that’s—Newt Gingrich!

To say that Gingrich is not a conservative is tantamount to saying that Obama is not an egalitarian.

In fact, according to the Freedom Index—a congressional scorecard based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements—Newt Gingrich scored an 84 out of a perfect 100, more than double that of his congressional peers. To put that in perspective, the average score for the past two congresses averaged 59.

When Newt Gingrich was confronted on a recent talk show about his being a labeled a “big government progressive,” he replied by saying . . .

“Well, I don’t know, I mean, depends on what standard you’re using. You know, the fact is that I balanced the budget for four consecutive years. And we did so well cutting taxes and increasing employment. So people went back to work; they left welfare; they left food stamps; they left unemployment; and they left Medicaid. Who else has a record of that level of achievement?”

He continued . . .

“I worked with Reagan in ’79 & ’80. I worked with Reagan for eight years in defeating the Soviet empire. I think those are relatively conservative credentials.”

Where does Newt Gingrich stand on the issues? Let’s hear it directly from the horse’s mouth . . .

1. Fiscal Policy: Gingrich claims he would be able to balance the national budget within five years of taking office using a five-point plan: Eliminate the NLRB, replacing the EPA and repealing ObamaCare; cutting regulations on financial institutions; employing a fiscal policy based on Reaganomics; providing a one-year tax moratorium, coupled with the elimination of capital gains tax and reducing corporate tax rate to 12.5%; and limit unemployment benefits to a maximum of four weeks.

2. Tax Reform: Gingrich Favors lower, flatter tax rates, and has a pro-growth instinct toward reforms that lower rates and broadens the base. He favors broader fundamental tax reform; in 2008 enthusiastically praised the idea of an optional, single-rate income tax reform proposal. He said an optional flat tax would save taxpayers more than $100 billion per year and reduce compliance costs by over 90 percent. He has advocated a near flat tax proposal that would lower the current 25 percent income tax rate to 15 percent, affecting close to 90% of American workers. Either option would not only bolster our economy, they would send it through the roof.

3. Free Market Principles: Gingrich believes that workers have basic human rights but unions have outlived their purpose. Unions discourage competition and are overly concerned with politics, spending millions of dollars on influencing government policies while their pension funds are in the red. Unions have made the cost of producing goods in the U.S. prohibitive. In 1994, William F. Buckley, Jr. called Gingrich a “profoundly committed free trader,” and his record and rhetoric over the years bears that out. He is strongly opposed to Sarbanes-Oxley which regulates small businesses in this country; the Dodd-Frank mortgage bill that restricts lending money for mortgages; and opposes the “Employee Free Choice Act,” or “card check,” especially its binding arbitration provision.

4. Personal Responsibility: Gingrich stated the revolutionary idea contained in the Declaration of Independence is that certain fundamental human rights, including the right to life, are gifts from God and cannot be given nor taken away by government. Yet, secular radicals are trying to remove “our Creator”—the source of our rights—from public life. He has an aggressive strategy to defend life and religious liberty in America.

5. National Sovereignty: Gingrich went on record August 14, ’11 stating, “the United Nations and other international bureaucracies are seeking to create an extra constitutional control over us and he rejects the model totally. The United States is a sovereign country; the United Nations has not authorized anything to the United States; the United Nations does not have any control over the United States; and we want to make sure that it remains our core values as we go forward. At the Values Voter Summit in DC, September, 2010, Gingrich told the crowd that it’s time to take federal action to prevent Sharia Law from infiltrating courtrooms in the US; and we should have a federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States and that “no judge will remain in office that tried to use Sharia law.”

6. Constitutionally Limited Government: There’s a long list of big government regulations that Gingrich has opposed. Commendably, he advocates full repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley. He fought Obama’s cap-and-trade scheme and wants to abolish the EPA. He also opposes the Obama EPA’s controversial plan to regulate carbon emissions via the Clean Air Act, and has urged Congress to prevent its implementation. However, in ‘08, he starred in a TV ad with Nancy Pelosi urging a bipartisan solution to climate change. In a debate with Kerry in ‘07, like so many Americans that were duped by fabricated science, he said, “the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere.” While he insisted that government regulation wasn’t the answer, he said, “I would agree you would get more change more rapidly with an incentivized market rather than a laissez-faire approach. ”

7. National Defense: Gingrich believes that the greatest danger to the nation is the rise of radical Islam inside this country. He said Sharia law is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the US. He would call for a federal law barring courts from using Sharia law and endorse efforts already under way to exclude Sharia as well as other non-American law codes from being applied in America’s courts. He thought withdrawal from Iraq without a decisive win was a blow to national security. He also believes it’s dangerous not to compete with India and China stating that losing our economic advantage will cause us to compromise national security. He thinks our secular-socialist system is another danger. Homeland security is willfully hiding from reality, reacting instead of being proactive, and twisting the language instead of targeting the real enemies.

8. Energy: Gingrich supports lifting restrictions on energy production; offshore drilling; drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; nuclear plant construction; and removing bureaucratic and legal obstacles to responsible oil and natural gas development in the United States, offshore and on land; ending the ban on oil shale development and giving coastal states federal royalty revenue sharing as an incentive to allow offshore development. He has long endorsed a federal role in supporting renewable energy projects and the development of clean energy technologies including cleaner energy research and projects with new oil and gas royalties. Replacing the EPA with an Environmental Solutions Agency that would use incentives and work cooperatively with local government and industry to achieve better environmental outcomes while considering the impact of federal environmental policies on job creation and the cost of energy.

9. Heath Care: Gingrich opposes ObamaCare and favors repeal, and more recently has supported tort reform in the context of health care reform and cost-containment. In ‘09, he criticized Obama’s health care overhaul for skirting the issue of lawsuit abuse reform which ignores more than $200 billion in potential savings annually in health care. In his ‘08 book Real Change, he advocated an individual mandate for health insurance (a similar mandate central to ObamaCare and being challenged by 26 states in court as being unconstitutional). However, he also wrote “Individuals are expected to help pay for their care. Everyone should be required to have coverage. Those with very low incomes should receive vouchers or tax credits to help them buy insurance. Those who oppose the concept of insurance should be required to post a bond to cover costs.”

10. Entitlements: Gingrich has been consistently pro-growth and pro-reform on Social Security, favoring personal Social Security savings accounts owned by individual taxpayers and off limits to congressional spendthrifts. He supported the effort in ‘05 to reform Social Security with personal accounts, and a ‘04 plan that would have done much the same. He favors comprehensive reform of the notoriously inefficient Medicaid program and originally proposed the idea of block-granting the program back to the states in ‘95, giving them more flexibility to administer it. He has long advocated expanded health savings accounts, tax free accounts coupled with high-deductible catastrophic coverage to allow people to build a medical nest egg, like a health care 401(k) plan. He played a high profile advocacy role on behalf of Bush’s Medicare prescription drug benefit bill in ’03 by urging House Republicans to pass what was billed at the time to be a $400 billion expansion of the federal government.

11. Education: Gingrich is for empowering parents to pick the right school for their child. He would institute a Pell Grant-style system for Kindergarten through 12th Grade and require transparency and accountability about achievement. He advocates implementing a “no limits” charter system and establishing a pay for performance approach. He would also restore American history and values into the classroom as well as protect the rights of home-schooled children. He would shrink the Department of Education to a bare bones administrator and encourage states to think outside the outdated boundaries of education.

12. Immigration: Gingrich believes that our open borders are a direct threat to our security. He thinks the terrorists can cross our borders at will with little deterrence. He supports a guest worker program that allows a worker to stay here for a certain time then go home. He thinks we should make it easier to come here legally, work, obey the law and prosper. Requirements for any worker visa program must be tough and strict. He thinks everyone here illegally must go home and apply for legal status.

As for Newt Gingrich’s personal shortcomings, let he who hasn’t sinned cast the first stone. I’m not voting for a priest, I’m voting for a president.

Fight for the man who will fight for America . . . Vote for Newt Gingrich!

Until next time . . . Wake Up America!

Kevin A. Lehmann