I was shocked last week at legislative events on Capitol Hill, especially the predominant attitude of the Democratic majority in the United States Senate regarding the controversial Senate Healthcare Bill, which seems much less aimed at pleasing the majority. of the American electorate (the American citizens these politicians allegedly represent) than the questionable Barack H. Obama, the only president of the United States in the nation’s history whose constitutional eligibility to be president has been successfully challenged by a lawsuit in a United States district court, but later dismissed by a federal judge who obviously cared more about his political future than seeing basic justice served.

Does Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his cronies really believe that the vast majority of American voters (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) want a health care program passed that will create, in their wake, 111 new executive branch bureaucracies, expanding the federal government by 30 percent of its current size by the scribble of Obama’s pen? One might wonder who, among the Democrats who control the Senate and House of Representatives, really cares about the constitutional way that the Makers of the American republic intended the nation to perpetuate itself in accordance with limited government. You don’t really need to be a bombastic Republican fanatic, but rather a reasonable person, to spot the obvious economic flaws in the Democratic Party’s wasteful approach to healthcare.

Historically, it’s kind of like how the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution was imposed on the nation. You know, the one that allowed for the creation of the federal income tax and all other subsequent state income taxes? By all valid historical accounts and simple common sense, I think it is correct to say that the infamous amendment was ratified without the genuine approval of a majority of the American electorate. For what citizen, in their right mind, would have favored a non-prorated federal tax on a citizen’s income?

Well, until 1913, there was no federal income tax, and the American nation had done quite well up to that point in funding the federal government with a consistently balanced budget using tax taxes. Unprorated federal and state taxes on the personal income of American citizens were considered a flagrant heresy and were prohibited by the Founding Fathers in the United States Constitution. That is why an illicit amendment had to be subtly crafted and imposed on the republic during the second decade of the 20th century by a few powerful federal politicians and private bankers, through sheer Machiavellian ruse, to make it, supposedly, legal for the government. federal. government to tax the American people by whatever means available. This was basically a pragmatic methodology to implement an agenda secretly devised for the American republic to have an unlimited but flawed credit system, in order to provide financial resources to assume an imperialist Romanesque position in world affairs.

It took money, money and more money, and a skyrocketing national debt, to gradually erect over the next several decades the world’s most feared nuclear / conventional military offensive. This involved the bribery and intimidation of nations reluctant to abide by the foreign policy of the United States through covert intelligence operations (carried out by the paramilitaries CIA and DIA), and the launching of complex domestic computer surveillance operations / satellite in partnership with the private sector telecommunications industry. , which has been going on since 1948.

The Federal Reserve System and the 16th Amendment were imposed on the American republic in 1913 and were legislatively linked to form the dire foundations for eventual control of the American economy by an elite combination of powerful bankers and corporate capitalists. The origins of both gruesome entities are comprehensively presented with immaculate documentation in G. Edward Griffin’s volume, “The Creature from Jekyll Island,” which every American should read and study. According to the history of Western civilization, the expanded knowledge of historical facts among any electorate produces an empowerment of the people to change things for the better.

If a health care system is to be established for the welfare of all needy and uninsured American citizens, it should be done legally at the will of the fifty states and territories of the United States in accordance with the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. United. The federal government has no real power to supplant the authority of several states by establishing a health care system administered by the federal government, with powers not expressly delegated to the federal government by the United States Constitution. On the other hand, an already operational medical system, which, by necessity, has been approved by multiple states (such as the U.S. Veterans Health System) could easily expand in scope, state-by-state, to provide all uninsured US citizens in all 50 states, territories and possessions with good health care based on funds provided by the states and the federal government. This in no way would prohibit the prosperity of private health plans. In fact, competition among states to establish the best-managed public health care would create jobs for doctors, pharmacists, medical technicians, engineers, architects, and construction workers.

Currently, only less than 30 percent of the more than 20 million eligible US veterans use the 250 existing VA medical centers nationwide. Expanding the VA system through the construction of new medical centers in the various states would allow all veteran and non-veteran US citizens to have access to good medical care. If, by chance, employed non-veteran Americans, able to pay for private health care, chose to use such a public facility, they would be required to pay a share of the cost of services and medications provided to them. Working and taxing US citizens who cannot afford private health care would automatically be eligible for public health care, free of charge. What should be publicly regulated, state by state, is the pharmaceutical industry so that all drugs and prescription drugs are easily accessible to the general public, and that no one gets rich from the development of life-saving drugs. As such, state-supported university labs must be adequately funded to research new drugs.

In summary, I believe that it is much better to suffer in freedom the consequences of human choice within a republic, the lifestyle being derived from personal will, adverse or pleasant, than to have good health served on a silver platter at the expense and burden of a decadent dictatorial government. The sage Henry David Thoreau wisely wrote in his “Essay on Civil Disobedience”, “that the best government governs the least,” and while the citizen not educated in constitutional law might think that the federal government has legitimate power to impose dictatorially to the people what The editors reserved only to the States, such exercise of power is deceptive and totally without law or merit.