Category: Politics

Posted on

My Response to Jon Stewart’s Question

Jon Stewart recently interviewed Lou Dobbs and asked him a very good question that deserves a much better answer than what Dobbs was capable of giving.

Mr. Stewart posed this thought:

“People have apparently lost their minds. There seems to be a panic that we have lost the fabric of our society and I’m having trouble getting a handle on what has happened that is so drastic that people would think it’s tyranny or fascism or Hitler-esque or Stalin-esque or any of those things that…uh uh.”

Dobbs’ reply was weak and does not properly capture the true answer to Stewart’s excellent question.

For starters, it could be the exorbitant amount of money that has recently been spent by the government that will almost surely turn us into the Weimar Republic part 2. Watch this video and understand one thing that is “drastic” that would cause “panic”:

This video doesn’t even include the new unconstitutional health care plan and he still gets to 174 mph. As was pointed out in the video, that is adequate reason to freak out. Where the national debt sits now we could take all the money that every Fortune 500 company made in profit last year and not be able to pay off the current debt in 140 years of doing that. With the pedal to the metal on spending we have a real problem.

Next up is the personal beliefs and associations of the new leader. Contrary to what people said during the campaign your associations do matter. It is the old “Show me your friends and I’ll show you your future” bit. When the man sits in a church with a leader spewing hateful anti-American and anti-Semitic type stuff for 20 years, he is either an idiot, or deaf or he agrees with it. To think that the crazy Jeremiah Wright waited for when Obama was gone to go off is just stupid. I can see it now: “Is Barack here? No. OK good, cause let me tell you about how America Sucks and is crawling with those damn Jews.” It isn’t just Wright either the Ayers thing is still a viable issue and I do not buy the whole “He is just some guy around the neighborhood” defense. Especially when you find out that Valerie Jarrett’s and Bill Ayers’ parents were good friends. Obama claims Jarrett is like family and Valerie and Ayers have connections since the time they were childhood playpals. Then you have all the nutjobs that have been selected for positions. There is the large group of upstanding, honest, hard-working Americans who evaded their taxes in key positions. Then you have the population control people, the media controllers, the communist and Maoist types. These things are all concerning to someone who doesn’t want to live under such a government. Obama himself said of his time in school, “I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets” He has also said he wants to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” Americans don’t want to change the fundamentals of the country, they want the politics and the politicians to fundamentally transform, but not into Marxists. I think those are reasons enough for people to panic.

Stewart seems to be viewing things with partisan eyes and seems to believe that the people who are stirred up are just out to get Obama. He has a short memory for how low Bush’s approval was and all the hullabaloo from back then. The truth of it is that the changes to America and the ignoring of the Constitution started a long time ago and have happened so gradually that people didn’t notice much. Things have happened recently that have made many Americans go back and look into what exactly is off. Many people may have read the Constitution for the first time in their lives and now understand that they have been getting ripped off. They may understand more now that States and individuals should have a much bigger role than the federal government. Stewart misunderstands the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. (Watch segment 3 of his Dobbs interview) He thinks that “All men are created equal” = You must help everyone through government control. It is completely devoid of any logic to believe such a thing. The only role of government is to protect fundamental rights. A fundamental right is something that can be claimed without forcing or requiring anyone else to do something. (More on that another day)

When speaking of getting back to fundamental rights and smaller government Stewart states:

“That is, in some ways, idealistic flattery. You know when you watch kind of the stump speech of like a Sarah Palin who will say, you know, ‘It’s time we got government out of our lives and lowered taxes and increased freedom’ We’ve been sold that. That was the 8 years of the Bush administration. ‘I’m gonna lower your taxes I’m gonna bring freedom’ and that was disastrous for us.”

It is amazing to me that anyone thinks that George W. Bush brought us smaller government which failed us. The lowering of taxes had nothing to do with the housing collapse. Smaller government, lower taxes, less intrusion and more freedom are not just idealistic flattery they’re real things that we must get back to. The central government is much too powerful and has taken powers that were never theirs to take. In doing so they have taken power from states and individuals. People today just don’t notice how much trouble the government causes. All of societies problems can be traced back to two things; morals and government. Who prevents real competition in health insurance and then invents a new way to bring health insurance competition? Who makes too many hoops and waiting to become a citizen or limits the number of guest workers and makes it fairly difficult to be a guest worker and stirs people up to fight about illegal immigrants? Who gives married people special treatment over unmarried people, thus not treating them equally and then watches the fight over a word which some see as giving them new rights when redefined? ‘Government’ is the answer to all these questions which means government is not the answer to any of our problems, but the limiting of it is the solution that is needed and many people are finally seeing why the founders of our nation concluded that same thing.

Posted on

Hannity….Oh Boy

I am on record with several people as being one who can’t really stomach Sean Hannity. Not for the usual reasons like me being a communist or a baby killer, but because I have seen him do some misleading and/or nitpicky things. I complained about him in 2008 when he brought up Obama’s mortgage rate that was slightly lower than the average rate at the time as though it is impossible to buy down a rate. If you want to make Obama look scary just show his own words to people. There is no need to make up stuff about mortgages. He also has always been an extremely loyal party man for the Republicans. George W. could do no wrong from what I ever saw coming from Hannity. If someone is wrong they are wrong regardless of party affiliation and I don’t see that attitude from Hannity. Then, you get something like this:

To be fair to Hannity, he may not have known that his crew was using this deceptive editing. Regardless of his knowledge beforehand, it made a worthy cause that he appeared to endorse look stupid because of a pointless deception. He did offer an apology for the creative editing…

…but I still personally believe he is too much of a party man and a nitpicker in some cases. I will not however stoop to the level that most Hannity dis-likers go to and call him names and use other ad hominem attacks that are so prevalent from leftists. I could be wrong about him because I don’t follow him much but, I will simply state that I am not a big fan.

Posted on

I Agree With Elton

I have never really been a fan of Elton John. Some of his older music is decent but overall his sound has not struck a chord with me. Add to that the crazy fashion sense and it was secured that I would not be a fan. He has done duets and accompaniments with every one from Eminem to Leann Rimes. A few years ago when I heard about another group featuring Mr. John I joked that he was going to soon work with Alice in Chains, which has now happened.

Mr. John recently stated that he thinks Proposition 8 in California was asking too much:

“I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

Many people who are ignorant to the real situation behind Proposition 8 think that by having it passed that homosexual people were denied equal treatment with heterosexual people. This could not be further from the truth. Homosexual people already have the ability to form domestic partnerships in California which allow them the same treatment by government as married people. So what was lost with Proposition 8? The word ‘marriage’ was the only thing on the table. If marriage were to be declared a civil right then religious institutions would have been forced to participate in activities that go against their beliefs because otherwise they are denying someone their civil right. That is a clear violation of the first amendment which we could discuss in greater detail later. The battle over the word ‘marriage’ is as silly, to me, as battling over the word ‘heterosexual’. It has a clear definition and origin as being between a man and woman. Where, in principle, procreation is impossible, marriage is also impossible. I always imagine homosexuals protesting the fact that they are not referred to as ‘heterosexual’.

There are two more important issues than the definition of the word, which underlie this issue. First is the issue of government treating people in different circumstances differently. All citizens in good standing should be treated equally in the eyes of the government. Allowing married couples to have tax breaks and other benefits while denying them to others is wrong. This line of thinking should be extended beyond just people who have a sexual partner, over to single people as well. It is unjust discrimination to charge single people at a higher tax rate because they are loners, picky or ugly. The government began treating married couples in such a way because nuclear families are good for society, which leads me to the second underlying issue. Marriage and families are essential to having a thriving, civilized society. Although redefining ‘marriage’ would distort it’s importance, there are much bigger problems to worry about in regards to marriage such as improper treatment of spouses and children and divorce. I have a special disdain in my heart for abuse of children and women. Disloyalty to family and breaking of vows is another despicable act that has a negative effect on society. Failures in marriage and family pose a much more dire threat to society than the definition of words.

Sir Elton John is reasonable and classy in his view on the word ‘marriage’. He is also correct that he has the freedom to choose how to live his own life and has the right to equal treatment under the government. Once again by butting in where it didn’t belong government has created more problems. This issue has served to distract and promote disunity amongst people who should all be concerned and fighting for individual freedoms and keeping government limited.

Posted on

Religion of America

I have been around the internets and found quite a few disturbing lies and distortions of history. Only looking at comments around the internet one would conclude that the founders of the USA were a bunch of secular, rabid atheists. Once again if you look into it, you know it is hogwash.

The one I will address now is that Benjamin Franklin was an atheist. Benjamin Franklin’s parents were Puritans and he was baptized as a youngster. He later associated with the Presbyterian Church for a short time. In 1725 he stated that he didn’t believe Christian teachings and became a Deist with a distaste for “organized religion”. He later came to be embarrassed by a pamphlet he wrote putting organized religion down. He found that he and some of his friends that he had converted to Deism had a decay in moral standards. After that he returned to endorsing “organized religion” without really ever joining one. Clearly he was not an atheist though.

Franklin even set forth what many founders called the “Religion of America” that was taught to children in school. From a letter to then Yale President Ezra Stiles he said:

“Here is my creed: I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render to Him is in doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting it’s conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion.”

Here is a video that sums up nicely, in a hilarious way, what the founders believed.

Posted on

In Defense of Cleon Skousen

I have come across a few articles recently which disparage and belittle the accomplishments of W. Cleon Skousen. The main criticisms people have are first, that he was fired from his position as the Chief of Police in Salt Lake City; second, that his church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, distanced itself from him and third, that he is a crackpot who believes that people want to form a one world government. Each of these charges are distortions and/or lies and when examined truthfully are extremely benign.

The first accusation is true. He was indeed fired from his position as the Chief of Police. Saying this alone makes it sound like he was incompetent or negligent in some sense. You only need to find the reason and timing of his dismissal to know that he was fired because he disagreed with the Mayor about enforcing laws. Mayor J. Bracken Lee fired him and then called him a liar to discredit anything he might say about Lee and his illegal activities. Mayor Lee later stated that it was his worst political decision to fire Skousen since crime jumped up 22% shortly after Skousen left. Any reference to his stint as police chief as a negative for Cleon is a twisting of the facts. I came across an old 1994 family reunion video I have and there is a good section about Skousen’s Police Chief experience. I will let him defend himself.

The second accusation is not true, but is a twisting of a separate announcement by the church. Skousen had formed an educational, political group called the “Freeman Institute” which would read about and discuss many political issues. Some members of the LDS faith had been using the church buildings to hold meetings. Any LDS member who has attended meetings during an election year has heard the standard announcement that the church does not support any particular candidate, nor does it allow it’s buildings to be used for political meetings. In 1979, since the buildings had been used by some in the Freeman Institute, the church sent an announcement to stop the use of buildings which stated, “This instruction is not intended to express any disapproval of the right of the Freemen Institute and its lecturers to conduct such meetings or of the contents of the lectures. The only purpose is to make certain that neither Church facilities nor Church meetings are used to advertise such events and to avoid any implication that the Church endorses what is said during such lectures.” That hardly sounds like the church distanced itself from Skousen, but rather that they had an interest in maintaining a tax exempt status.

The third criticism is based on his belief that people were conspiring to bring about a one world government. In today’s world of continental unions, talk of a one world currency and treaties that give away sovereignty of nations to a global power, a reasonable person would never say that this idea is for crackpots. People have even admitted to being part of a conspiring group to put the world under one government. Criticizing Skousen on this point could just demonstrate complete ignorance, complete complicity or both.

I find it to be very ironic that a major point that Skousen made about the people seeking to gain power was that they were changing history by omitting or twisting certain things when teaching it and now his legacy has fallen victim to the same distortions.

In Defense of Cleon Skousen

Posted on

What We Could Have Bought

I was doing some calculations recently about what could have been purchased for the $1.4 Trillion that our government has gone overboard with this year and came up with some interesting ones. Possible purchases include:

1. Every home that is currently being foreclosed on
2. Every team in the NFL, NBA and MLB X 12
3. A small sedan for every household in America
4. A free home for every illegal immigrant in the country
5. India

After playing with the insane numbers I also saw this video:

Posted on

Government and it’s Place

After listening to people go on about politics and government for some time I must conclude that most people don’t really understand government. The American system of government was made to limit government and it’s intrusion on the lives of citizens. That is an essential principle and is worth stating again. The American system of government was made to limit government and it’s intrusion on the lives of citizens.

The founders of the US were fed up with the age old problem of power-hungry, greedy people ruling over the masses. They devised a system that allowed the people to remove government when it began to oppress them or go contrary to their will. The system that they have created has kept the US free from despotism for the most part, for all the years since and has inspired other countries to creep closer to our system. If you do not believe that people want to enslave and gain power over the American people, then you are a complete idiot and that is the nicest term I can find.

Many of the ways which our independence can be taken were set forth by our founders as warnings of what not to do. A majority of the people of this country have completely ignored these warnings and are sending us down a very bad road. I will post more on these weaknesses later, but for now it will be good to teach ourselves the proper place of government and why it must be kept in that place.

Posted on

Trailer Review: “Capitalism: A love Story”

Well Michael Moore has another movie coming out and I just saw the trailer. If Michael Moore wanted to make it such, this could be an extremely good documentary about corrupt and sinister connections between government and corporations. After seeing the trailer I am going to have to hypothesize that he will get it wrong, only tell part of the story and/or twist the truth.

The first reason for my doubts is the title, “Capitalism: A Love Story”. Apparently the documentary is about government bailouts of huge corporations, which makes the title very deceptive. Capitalism or the ‘Free Market’ system is definitely not a system in which the government intervenes and takes money from the collective and gives it to mega-corporations that have screwed things up. Doing such is definitely against free market ideas. In fact, in regards to the bailouts George W. Bush said, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” (Which is like saying, “I killed my dog so I could save my dog”.) Part of the beauty of a capitalist system is that when people undertake unethical practices their businesses can fail miserably due to either a complete erosion of anything solid in the company or from outside influence such as boycotts or law enforcement, in extreme cases. Under different systems, such as a socialist one in which the collective pays taxes which are used to support businesses, it is exponentially more difficult to get rid of bad businesses. Under capitalism, when the big corrupt greedy groups fail then the smaller companies who have not been cheating get to swoop in and fill the void left by the mega-business, because there is still a need for the service. When the mega-banks got bailed out, that kept smaller banks who had not indulged in risky loans from jumping into their rightful place in the capitalist cycle.

Moore’s trailer seems to highlight the Bush administration’s role in the corrupt bailouts. And it was pleasing to see a mention of Goldmann Sachs with its dirty connections to the Bush administration. I would have liked to have also seen the Obama administration’s dirty connections to the very same company highlighted as well. It would also be nice to see him highlight the auto-maker bailouts which were supposed to prevent bankruptcy then restructuring which ended up happening anyway.

I like the idea of making a citizens arrest at AIG but I think Moore’s motives are all wrong. He seems to be trying to use a completely anti-capitalist situation to make a villain of the capitalist system. Of course he might not be but the trailer makes it look that way.

A few things in the trailer are confusing as well. Why does Moore say ‘donde’ to his cameraman who supposedly doesn’t speak English when he wants him to come outside. Maybe it’s my silly gringo ways but I thought ‘donde’ meant ‘where?’. I would have said ‘vamonos afuera’. Another huge thing is that a guy in the video says, “This is straight up capitalism, sch-schk boom” when it is clearly not capitalism. It is much more closely related to socialism, communism or especially fascism. This misrepresentation of capitalism will only serve to solidify many MTV watchers and people who don’t really understand America in their ignorant ways.

Posted on

Response Continued

I will just do a line by line on a secondary response to Gus:

“By Dale’s counter-argument, we read that “[t]he government has no place in health care…”“

Short note: I should have specified federal government.

“Taking this argument further would include the abolition of medicare, medicaid, and V.A. benefits. The elderly, young, and disabled former service members who take advantage of such programs are quite a bit more prone to sickness and would most definitely not be able to get insurance under the same types of ideas that Dr. Emmanuel enumerates“

Yes, we need to get rid of medicare and medicaid in a controlled way before it simply implodes. But it might be too late. The states can still have their own safety net health systems if they wish and if their state constitutions allow it, but the federal must stay out of it. As far as veterans go, if someone is wounded in the defense of our country that falls under national defense expenditures which is allowed in the constitution. The feds can pay for their care and hospitals can compete for veteran business with veteran priority centers or something like that. No more Walter Reed slumspitals.

“The very things that we read above are the very things that private insurances currently consider for profit. This for profit model of health care is the very reason that we have denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.“

Private businesses are allowed to refuse service for any reason. The government should never discriminate for any reason, ever. Private businesses can be boycotted, government cannot. Private businessmen can go to prison much easier than government officials (Scooter, I’m looking at you) can.

“Although I believe that capitalism is indeed the best way to get money to circulate, I also think that it makes a god out of money.“

When the founders decided to go with capitalism this was a concern. Many of them had studied Cicero thoroughly and based on his concept of natural law they decided that God would punish those who follow greedy ways. They also wanted leaders to always impress upon the people how important giving freely to each other is in our society. With all the millionaires in congress who make 4 times what the average American makes and don’t lead by example one can see how we are doing on that.

“When motivation becomes the Almighty Dollar and human lives are at stake, adding an option that is not run for profit might be a good idea. Whether it is a good idea remains to be seen, but we can see evidence both for and against single-payer systems in other developed countries, where people are generally healthier than in the U.S.“

Again it comes to morals and charity. If only there was some way to teach those kinds of things????? Hmmmmm.

“Of course, we are not speaking of a single-payer system. We are speaking of something which might be preliminary to such a system, but it is a choice to make, not a full governmental solution, such as single-payer would have been.
So, yes, I think that there could be boards in the government that would decide limits on certain types of care based on social and economic factors, much as doctors and nurses, in an emergency, have to decide who receives the limited resources available via a process of triage.“

Again government cannot discriminate, ever. That is an essential principle. I keep thinking of an old commercial where a lady was told she had cancer and was going to die. She went to a different hospital and they helped her to live. With government care you only get the one shot with no hope for a fight anywhere else.

“As a pseudo-libertarian, I agree that the government having more power might be a bad thing.“

I hate the word libertarian because I hate the ‘arian’ part. Like vegetarian or aryan nation. It just rubs me the wrong way. If I didn’t hate the smell of pot so much and hate the name I might slightly consider changing my ‘unaffiliated’ status.

“I think that the government should be in the business of protecting rights, not granting them. One of the most important rights that a government can protect is the right of its citizens to live, and it would seem that in today’s society the right to live is connected with one’s ability to receive health care.“

The rights that the government must protect are the ones given by ‘Nature and Nature’s God’. Man is not given the right to health care or food or shelter he must work for those. He has been given life, liberty, the ability to pursue happiness and property, speech, religion, press (information), defense of self and so on and on. Our government must protect those freedoms and leave the rest to society.

“All that being said, I agree with Dale that tort reform would do wonders to help replenish our ailing health care system, hopefully saving doctors from unnecessary expenses, except in cases of negligence.“

We have laws about not suing when a plane crashes why not when something goes wrong when a doctor did their best? If they cut off the wrong appendage that is a clear case to sue, but if they gave you the wrong pills for a week and you felt ill, no way.

Posted on

Response to Gus

Since I like good discussions and Gus is the only one that I have such discussions with nowadays I am putting a long response to his post here:

You are gonna have to pity this fool then Gus.

Mr. Beck stated that he doesn’t believe Dr. Emanuel when he says he doesn’t believe in the ‘allocation’ system that he devised. You countered that with Dr. Emanuel saying that he doesn’t believe in his system. These two examples leave us with a ‘he said, he said’ situation and it is not clear that there is ‘outright deceit’ by any party, but we rather have a situation where we must deduce things.

Dr. Emanuel’s ‘complete lives system’ is an alternative to the ‘first come, first served’ waiting list system and also includes proposals for the rationing of medical care other than organs when ‘scarcity’ calls for it. The fact that the government will soon be bankrupt creates ‘scarcity’ and thus calls for ‘allocation’ if the government takes over health care. ‘Death Panel’ is just a cute name for the group of people who will decide where things get allocated. Mr. Beck stated that he didn’t believe Dr. Emanuel when he claimed that he doesn’t endorse his own ‘complete lives system’. Seems logical to not believe someone when they tell you they don’t like their own work. I think ‘first come, first served’ is fair enough rather than discrimination based on age or impairment status. There is no need to work up such a system unless you think it might actually be used. Unlike Dr. Emanuel’s thesis on “Puppy-punching”, that one was purely for fun.

The Doctor was not taken out of context as the entire context of his research was on deciding who gets treatment over others. There is no question of context because that was fully his topic, he set the context. The only question that would remain is whether it was just a waste of time for him and he doesn’t believe any of it should ever be used, or he believes it. He says he doesn’t, Beck doesn’t believe him. The Doctor is the ‘health-policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget’, so his research and conclusions in previous works about health-policy ‘allocation’ aka ‘budgeting’, should be applicable. He states that he is against the ‘Right to Die’ when that is not the question. ‘Right to die’ people want to die. People who are concerned about a discriminatory system of allocation want to live. It is not assisted suicide if a person just lets someone die.

The doctor also claims that people are taking him out of context because they don’t have any solutions for health care costs. I have heard some real good alternate solutions. Tort reform is a huge one. I was sick a while back and the doctor misdiagnosed me and caused another problem. I told this to a friend of mine who was in law school at the time and he said I had a good solid case to sue. No permanent damage had been done but apparently I could have got some free money. I did not. If we could better protect doctors from worthless and dumb cases such as what mine would have been we could lower costs. Next we have a myriad of companies that are confined by state borders. If congress used it’s constitutional interstate commerce power in a better way and allowed interstate competition prices would go down.

The Doctor may very well actually not believe in the system he has devised, but the fact that he has plotted out the whole thing and that he has the ear of the powers-that-be can be concerning. He has clearly thought about it quite thoroughly. He even made a chart to demonstrate who will be less inclined to receive treatment.

Dr. Emanuel’s material is well thought out and has a lot of practical points, but it ignores some key principles. To kick off this point these are the decision methods he compares:

Treating People Equally

  1. Lottery
  2. First-come, first served

Prioritarianism

  1. Sickest first
  2. Youngest first

Utilitarianism

  1. Saving the most lives
  2. Saving the most life-years
  3. Saving the most socially useful
  4. Reciprocity (paying back people who have ‘contributed’, such as organ donors)

Now the biggest principle that I feel applies is equality. The government must treat the lives of all citizens with equal concern. A system which places people at different priority levels based on characteristics like age or mental capacity devalues the lives of those at lower priority levels. We have already had far too much unequal treatment in this country and we know it is horrible.

The next principle I feel has been overlooked is power. When there are people who make these decisions with the aforementioned criteria in mind these people are susceptible to corruption either from themselves or from others above them. Let’s go fictional and say that we have a president named Deorge W. Bush and he doesn’t like someone named Malerie Plame. Malerie gets very sick and needs a transplant. Well now that we have the ‘Complete Lives’ board and they are under the control of the government, it is very easy to manipulate things for political reasons and Malerie’s life is suddenly worth less, whereas before she would have had an equal chance on a waiting list or in a lottery. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where a leader would have it in for someone and if you don’t think it could happen in America then you trust government too much. The less power the government has, the better, to a certain point which is marked by the concept of ‘natural law’.

Now of course, I do not believe that Dr. Emanuel wants to kill people, I disagree with the method of allocation that he devised that he also does not agree with even though he devised it. I cannot speak for Mr. Beck, but it may be safe to say that he doesn’t think the Doctor wants old people and handicaps to die. But there are people around that do and a big concern is raised when government has any power over ones health and life decisions. The reason things seem Orwellian is because the government is involved in socialism, that was Orwell’s forte. The principles of Ingsoc are coming to fruition more subtly than set forth in fiction and obviously on a longer time line. The government should not be concerned with social things. The constitution should be adhered to and let society worry about social issues like health care. The more government is in our lives the more power they have and it should be known as a well established fact that power corrupts. This generation may not abuse that power but it will happen at some point.

The government has no place in health care. The constitution was a document set up to limit government and does not give the government the power to control health care or any other industry. Since it is not set forth in the constitution it is left to States or individuals to decide what to do. “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington. We should not let the fire out of the fireplace.