The Las Vegas Sun is a liberal rag along the lines of the New York Times and the Los Angeles times. It's circulation is somewhat less though. You see the Sun has such wide distribution, that it would be out of business if the editor of the Las Vegas Review Journal did not take pity and inlcude the Sun in it's distribution operations. The Sun is sort of like the parasitic sucker fish. Brian Greenspun is the leftist editor of the Sun whose editorial in today's paper finally promted me to write. The editorial in question can be found here: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/12/health-care-debate-goes-who-we-are/
The line that got my dander up is this: When it comes to nationalized health care, "This does not have to be a constitutional debate."
Here's my letter:
To the editor:
I don’t normally write letters to the editor of the Las Vegas Sun, or any liberal rag for that matter. I mean, after all, this “newspaper” can’t even support itself and has to be delivered to (forced on) the reader by tucking it into a real newspaper. But this Sunday, Brian Greenspun wrote something that I think is so representative of the liberal statist frame of mind that I simply must respond.
He wrote this about the health care issue: “This does not have to be a constitutional debate.” That’s like saying voter intimidation doesn’t need to be a criminal issue. Oh, wait, the Holder Justice Department has already decided that the Black Panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia last fall doesn’t need to be criminal issue. Despite video evidence and many eye witnesses, all charges dropped. Hmmm. But I digress.
Back to the constitutional debate. Let me remind (instruct?) Mr. Greenspun that the United States Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights is the document that controls our Federal government. It dictates what powers each branch has as well as the overall (limited) scope of the government. So, if the Federal government wants to enact new legislation regarding nationalized healthcare, IT’S A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE!
Mr. Greenspun goes on to project his own constitutional ignorance onto the reader with the following statement: “Besides, what makes some of our readers – or any other news organization’s readers for that matter – think they are experts on the US Constitution? Supreme courts and constitutional scholars have been grappling with the meaning of the constitution for two centuries and they still don’t have it right.” Bolding mine. That last line is very telling. You see the leftist statist believes only his interpretation of the constitution is correct. Those of us who believe that the constitution was meant to limit government are dead wrong. Because any other interpretation would not allow for the expansion of government that the statist desires.
The constitution is not difficult to interpret for those willing to try. The framers of the constitution left behind many additional writings that provide clues to the “real” meaning of the constitution. For example;
“The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys.”
To me this quote has two meanings, 1. Read the freaking bill before you vote on it! And 2. The voters should be fully informed before supporting a government program. As recent political events have shown, neither of the above is happening. Here’s another:
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
Bolding mine. What does this mean? You can’t take property or money from the industrious and give it those that are not as industrious. Why is that a dangerous practice?
“When people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
When the statist promises to solve all your problems, they will take all of your liberty.
Then, Mr. Greenspun trots out the straw man argument: “What kind of America do we want to live in?” and the token religious reference: “…our religious and moral upbringing that says we should treat our neighbors as ourselves, and that we will be judged by how we treat the least among us.”
If Mr Greenspun were truly versed in religion, he would understand that those two ideals apply to individuals, not governments. God has no influence over governments. Mr Greenspun further fails to point out that the majority of people opposed to a nanny state such as he proposes, are conservatives and/or Republicans. Studies show that conservatives give 30% to 50% more to charity than self-described liberals. So we’re giving, just not to the statists in government. And 2/3 of all charitable giving comes from those earning over $200,000 per year. Now why would Mr. Obama want to incentivize those rich people, through increased taxes, to quit giving to charities? Answer: He thinks he can spend their money better and more wisely than they can. Obama is a better judge of who is in need.
As to the “kind of America” I want to live in, I want to live in an America with strong families. I want to live in an America where people make prudent life decisions, like planning for retirement and providing adequate health care for their families. I want to live in an America where people take responsibility for bad decisions. I want to live in an America where people marry and have productive careers before they have children and then live within their means. I want to live in an America where people turn to their families and churches, not government in times of need. I want to live in an America where “times of need” means no food, clothing or shelter, not no big screen tv, IPOD, designer athletic shoes, cell phone, or fancy car.
In my America, we respect the constitution and the rule of law. In my America, the people have the power to succeed or fail based on their own efforts, knowledge and skills. In Mr Greenspuns America, a statist government has the power to ignore the constitution and the rule of law to take from the industrious and prudent to give to those who are not. It’s already happening. Look at the Chrysler, GM and bank takeovers. Look at Cap and Trade, Nationalized Healthcare, EFCA, and how many “czars”?
Yeah, it’s a constitutional debate.