When have the RiNOs not tended to blow Presidential elections?

There is this common myth that a “moderate” Republican — a big government interventionist — is the best choice for a general election. They are called the most “electable”…by the Big Government advocates in the media.

As proof of this, we can look to how well Bob Dole and John McCain did. Conservatives compromised their principles, and nominated a Liberal Republican, and then won the general election…

Oh…wait…they lost. In fact, “moderates” almost always do.

Yes, as FDR once pointed out, “me-too Republicans” like Dole, McCain, and Romney almost always lose, because you might as well vote for a Democrat as for someone who is imitating one. He used this argument against John Dewey, with great success.

In fact, the last three decisive turnouts for Republicans were all for “extremist Conservative” positions: 2010 with the TEA Party, 1994 for the Contract with America, and 1980 with the “unelectable” Ronald Reagan.

In fact, in 1980, the “moderate” Republicans ran a spoiler Republican in the general election, as an “Independent”. John Anderson, whom they would have preferred be nominated because he was an “electable moderate”, was supposed to split the vote, giving Carter the win.

Yes, the RiNOs actually preferred Carter over Reagan.

But what actually happened, of course, is that Reagan won in a landslide, even with a “moderate” Republican trying to steal his votes in the general election.

That shows just how much more electable a real Conservative is, than a “moderate”.

Americans still believe in the American principles that a Reagan/Goldwater sort of Conservative espouses, and will turn out in record numbers to support that, when it’s actually available in our false dichotomy of a two-party system.

And the only major candidate running for President today who has that form of American Conservatism — conserving the principles of liberty of the Founding Fathers — is Ron Paul. As Reagan put it:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" ~Barry Goldwater

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories.

The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
— Ronald Reagan, interview with Reason Magazine (1975)

The claim is that Romney would win with independents (who are a plurality of the population, more numerous than Republicans or Democrats) and Democrats. But in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Ron Paul won among independents, and beat Romney among Democrats who crossed over to vote.

Paul would win a in landslide akin to the TEA Party, the Contract with America, and Ronald Reagan.

Romney will lose in a landslide akin to John McCain, and Bob Dole.

“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” -- SCOTUS

We’ve had two major rounds of  ”campaign finance reform” violating the first amendment in the past forty years. Each one has turned out to INCREASE the very bribery and corruption they were supposed to end, becoming the very means of filtering money to candidates or officials, and promoting causes out of proportion with their real support.

This is because:

• The Law of Unintended Consequences. Imposing simplistic “order”, by force, on a complex system always produces unexpected results, usually the opposite of what you intended.
• Each one increased the power of government, making bribery of government that much more profitable
• As long as government has power that is profitable, the private sector will pay WHATEVER it takes to obtain it. If the “reforms” made bribery more difficult, then it simply raised the cost, which made accepting bribes more profitable to the GOVERNMENT, increasing the incentive for officials to be corrupt.
• By “organizing” the thing in question, through imposing a government bureaucracy on it, the “reforms” just create an orderly, static way of bribing government officials and calling it “legal”.

Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is the definition of…stupidity.

It is stupid to expect future, censorship-oriented “Campaign finance reform” to do anything but increase corruption and abuse, the way all previous ones did…even if it targets the speech of people who are associated with corporations.

Any job created for the sake of employment is as bad as having some people dig holes, while others fill those holes back in...no matter how pretty the description given.

Neither the government, nor any business in the private sector, should be specifically trying to “create jobs”.

That is like noticing that a healthy, fit man’s heartbeat is slower than a fat, sick man’s heartbeat, and therefore going around giving people drugs to slow their hearts: You are treating the symptom, but aggravating the problem.

Job creation must always be a natural symptom of a healthy economy.  Anyone trying to create a job for the sake of employing someone is only increasing inefficiency, leading to more lost jobs in the long run.

That is the sort of “stimulus” that got us into this mess in 2008, and exactly what is keeping us in it.

Makework jobs kill the economy the same way drugging fat, infected people to slow their hearts would kill human beings.

You don't see this kind of mayhem at TEA Party rallies, because they want to protect your property rights and liberty, not violate them.

To “Occupy”, in the sense intended by the current hipster protest movement, means “to enter and take something, and refuse to stop”.

If one of these tantrum-throwing brats were to do the same thing to a date’s body, it’d be called rape.

The Occupiers are specifically trying, as they said they would, to interfere in the rights of other people, keeping them from being able to go where they want, to do what they choose, to use public or their own private property. To violate the choices of you and the rest of your community.

Hell, they object to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan…yet they want to occupy the community where you want to go about your daily life.

And that’s the most obvious problem with the Occupy Wall Street movement: They are, unlike the TEA Party, aggressors, in their methods and solutions.

They move into a neighborhood and try to violate your right to go about your business there.

It’s no wonder that actual rape is so much more common in the Occupied areas than elsewhere…it’s consistent with their overall philosophy.

The last war unarguably fought in defense of American Freedom was the War of 1812

I am sympathetic with “support the troops”, and am adamantly in support of a Memorial Day to honor veterans who’ve actually defended the US from aggression.

But I have never, ever found anyone who can explain to me how the veterans of ANY foreign war but WWII ever “defended our freedom”.

Even if I believed in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, I would like to know exactly how our freedoms are being defended by the troops there. Or were in the Vietnam, Korea, WWI, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, or the Civil War.

As far as I can see, these were all nothing more than foreign adventures for the esoteric agendas of politicians who valued their own power and advantage more than the lives of brave, loyal, but mortally exploited American boys. And the wars they drag us into are almost always used as an Appeal to Cowardice to actually abridge our liberty, back here in the States.

That’s not Defending American Freedom.

Our national debt, financed by treasury notes, bills, and bonds, depresses the economy by destroying private investment

The political class insists that we can’t cut our massive, $1,600,000,000,000 Federal deficit, because it would depress the economy and cost jobs. Their excuse is that the private economy is not creating jobs and wealth, so the government must take up the slack.

But what mysterious burden, on our economy, is preventing the basic private investment that creates wealth, allowing the economy to grow, jobs to be naturally created, all of us to prosper?

Ironically, it’s that very deficit.

How?

It’s because of the way the deficit must be financed:

The government has to raise every penny of the deficit it spends, by issuing treasury notes, bonds, and so on. Private people buy these, imagining they are “investing” by doing so. But real investment creates wealth, while government securities just finance deficit spending, as a debt that will be paid back by your grandchildren, as gigantic tax burdens.

This year, the Federal government will have to convince people to “invest” 1.6 trillion dollars in government notes and bonds, to pay for its deficit. Every single penny of that would, otherwise, have been invested in private enterprise, to create wealth.

Imagine if the private economy got an “extra” trillion-plus dollars of investment, next year. The massive growth in wealth and jobs is almost unimaginable.

Now imagine if, instead, the private economy had a trillion-plus in investment REMOVED from it by government. The massive loss in growth and jobs is entirely imaginable, because it’s what we’ve been suffering since the deficit increased almost one trillion dollars in 2009.

Every dollar the government spends steals one dollar from the private economy…either directly, by taking it through taxes, or indirectly, by financing it through a bond or note that steals that dollar from private investment.

If they're so interested in balancing the budget, why are they increasing spending and calling it a cut?

The Federal government has not had an actual, official budget for many months.

When it was time for a new budget last year, the one proposed had so much pork and needless spending hikes in it that even the Democrats who controlled both houses could not get it passed.

And neither they nor the Republicans have succeeded in passing a budget, to this day. They have instead, kept the government funded with “Continuing Resolutions”, temporary agreements to “continue” spending at current rates while the budget is debated.

In 1995, such continuing resolutions actually helped reduce the National Debt, because they held to current levels of spending for months, instead of the next year’s increases.

And people assumed that this is what was going on this year…but they underestimated just how corrupt the Congress has become. Last year the Democrats controlling Congress did not agree to traditional Continuing Resolutions, maintaining current spending…their “resolutions” were actually based on the proposed budget that most members of Congress were rejecting.

Flash forward to the last few weeks:

The Republican leadership has made a big deal about having made two billion dollars in “cuts” from the Continuing Resolution…and when that one ended, six more billion from the next CR.

They have been claiming credit for “ten billion dollars in cuts”. This would, if it were true, be the first time in something like 60 years that the budget was actually cut, instead of the rate of increase simply being adjusted.

Even the 1995 Republican Revolution only cut the amount spending was increased. This was called “cuts” by the most ridiculous Liberals of the time, because they seriously think that increasing spending the “planned” amount is not an increase, at all. So if you plan to increase spending 3%, and then increase it 2%, that is a “cut”.

This is what I had feared the “cuts” in the Continuing Resolution actually were; just reductions in the increase.

But it’s worse…as I noted above, the CRs were actually based on the rejected, larger budget. And the Republican leadership is corrupt enough to reduce only those proposed super-increases, leaving the temporary budget still higher than last year, then claim credit as if they’d actually cut spending.

This explains more clearly, to me, why 54 Republicans, mostly TEA Party types, refused to vote for the CR.

Uther would have been right on board with the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, as long as you told him that Hussein was developing chemical, nuclear, and magical WMD

There’s this show on BBC called Merlin. It covers the story of Camelot, of Arthur and Merlin, when they’re teenagers.

Prince Arthur’s father is, of course, King Uther Pendragon. In this version, Uther’s son is learning to become the good ruler his father is not.

In watching the show, Uther is presented ambiguously, as one of the protagonists, but I find myself force to take a stance (in my head, or to friends) against him, because he is constantly doing things that, were he not one of the “good guys”, would be instantly recognized as evil.

In fact, I’ve come to the conclusion that he is actually the most evil part of the show, the actual antagonist without whom none of the greatest wrongs or conflict would occur.

What’s most interesting, though, is that every single aspect of his role in the show is identical to that of the violent, authoritarian interventionists in the American and British political class (sadly, this turns out to include Obama), in real life.

Although it’s a specific movement of Trotskyites, I’m using the term “neocon” for this movement, because it’s familiar and its evils are widely recognized across most of the political spectrum.

Uther Pendragon / A Neocon:

• Claims to defend the people’s rights, but governs as an authoritarian, using safety as their excuse
• Once quietly supported a movement for their own gain, but then decided it was their enemy
• Has since imposed a police state, along with supportING violence, war, and tyranny elsewhere, in the name of stamping out that movement
• Will unhesitatingly torture, imprison, or kill in pursuit of the war against the movement, including using proxies in order to be able to claim clean hands for themselves
• Will threaten, imprison, and worse anyone who might reveal their involvement in some of these evils
• With their brutality and wrongdoing in the name of crushing the movement and any other opposition, has created their own enemies
• Those enemies included good people, driven bad by desperation under the evils of the abusive government
• And actual evil men, criminals, et cetera, who would have been nothing more than part of a fringe underworld end up able to ally with and manipulate the desperate good people, gaining far more power and influence than they would without the evil of the abusive government
• The people of the nation end up being subjected to retribution and violence driven purely as blowback against the previous evils of their government
• That government lacks credibility in the struggles for justice of many other lands, despite a long-past history of being a beacon of justice

Frankly, I could have written an article about either the violent interventionists of the American political class, or Uther Pendragon, and then just did a search and replace for words like Bush/Uther, Camelot/America, and magic/Muslims, Gaius/Assange, and published the new version credibly, without any other modification.

Whose evils does this article really reveal most clearly…the fictional Uther or the real Neocons? Sadly, I think it’s hard to say.

If only the political class of the Federal government felt the same.

This dictator is same one in the five photographs at the right…one of each president since 1980.

The one that the US has helped keep in power for over thirty years, handing out $2,000,000,000 to their tyrant each year. If you adjust for inflation, this feeble country’s tiny economy has benefited from over one hundred billion dollars in American taxpayer dollars, plus military aid, technology, et cetera. How much interest in the National Debt has accumulated because of this?

Each time I’m listing the evil tyrannies the Federal government has supported in our name abroad, I mention Hosni Mubarak. And the neocon types carefully ignore it. But now we see why.

When Mubarak is, hopefully, overthrown by the people of Egypt, will they forget that we’re one of the main reasons they suffered under this evil regime for all these years?

The Iranians didn’t forget. They were forced to turn to the Soviet-funded Islamic Revolution, because we supported the Shah of Iran, their own tyrant. They then, rightfully, saw the US government as having made itself their enemy, by having supported their dictator.

Now the Egyptians may well turn to Islamic Fundamentalist movements of their own, against their own US Government-supported tyrant.  Should the next Egyptian government feel any different than the Iranians?

Sure, real Americans have never actually supported this kind of promotion of tyranny…but we’ve stood by and allowed our government to do it in our name, in violation of everything American.

How long are corrupt Federal bureaucrats going to keep supporting evil around the world, while we real Americans reap the blowback when people finally find a way to strike back against it?

We just gave more military aid to the tyrants ruling Saudi Arabia, for example. They are hated not only by their own people, but by almost all Muslims around the world, who see them (correctly) as a foreign-supported monstrosity, occupying their holiest city. How long before this chain reaction of revolution against American-supported dictators reaches Saudi Arabia? If their next regime hates us, who could blame them?

We need, as an increasing number of Americans are beginning to say aloud, to stop violating other countries in ways that we would not want other countries to do to us, like supporting tyranny abroad.

We here at Pithy Pontifications are fairly certain that World of Warcraft AND Ozzy are to blame for pretty much everything

Blaming anything for the Arizona shooting is insane, because the shooter, Jared Loughner, is insane.

What the control-freak prudes of each generation forget is that when someone’s that kind of crazy, it’s not that some specific thing sets them off, it’s that they’ll find something to set them off, no matter what.

I remember when Dungeons and Dragons was causing an outbreak of mayhem and badness around the country. And when it was heavy metal. And then it was video games. At one point it was the Ouija board. Oh, and television. And comic books. Movies. At one point, of course the madness was caused by reefer, and teen sex by Rock & Roll. Oh, let’s not forget science fiction…pure evil.

And kids did play with all of those things, then hurt themselves or others…because if they hadn’t fixated on one thing, it would have been another. The problem is in those specific, screwed-up kids, not the object of their fixation. Should we blame John Lennon for the lunacy of Mark David Chapman? Jodie Foster for John Hinkley Junior?

Now, Dungeons and Dragons is considered something that encourages learning and creativity in kids. Heavy metal music is used in educational cartoon themes. Comic books are considered the gateway to literacy. The objections were all nonsense, people being alarmed by “different”, more than any actual threat. Some of the “outbreaks of violence”, examined later, were actually all-time lows in violence, but specifically covered by a sensationalist, politically motivated media.

Let’s not forget the most laughable example:

When Ozzy Osbourne caused an outbreak in teen suicide.

Some crackpot group of ninnies actually took him to court, claiming his songs, like Suicide Solution and Paranoid caused kids to kill themselves.

“I tell you to end your life, I wish I could but it’s too late” from Paranoid was specifically mentioned. And a song called “Suicide Solution”, well…case closed!

Apparently, the incompetent lawyers and guilty parents involved didn’t even bother to actually check out the details of their accusation: In court, while suing Ozzy for the suicide of especially dimwitted teen John McCollum, it came out that the lyric in Paranoid was actually “I tell you to enjoy life, I wish I could but it’s too late”. And that Suicide Solution was a song warning against the dangers of alcohol abuse. That pretty much ended their case.

What we have, right now, are corrupt political thugs on both sides trying to doubly victimize Gabrielle Giffords and 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green by exploiting Arizona massacre, claiming it’s caused by freedom of speech (and we need to censor that with the Fairness Doctrine), or legal guns (and we need to reinstate the Brady prohibition, itself an exploitation of another shooting it never would have prevented anyway), or too much freedom for the dangerously common folk (whom we should ban from carrying guns within 1000 feet of any public official), et cetera.

Like Rahm Emanuel said:

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

But, really, you might as well blame Ozzy Osborne.

There are few more wasteful, socially irresponsible things the wealthy can do than give away money

Warren Buffet, and other goofy, out of touch, guilt-ridden socialists have been pushing other billionaires to give away half of their money to charity.

But this would not be philanthropy. This would not be altruism. It would be a destructive blow against our society.

Why?

Because they would mostly be throwing that money down a black hole.

When, precisely, are Jerry’s Kids going to be cured? Jerry was panhandling for them halfway through the LAST century.

How about Red Cross? Why is it perennially struggling to make ends meat, when it managed to steal a billion dollars just from people giving to Katrina, Haitian Earthquake, and 9-11 victims?

Even the small percentage actually spent by a charity on the cause at hand just feeds existing needs. They spend the money and it’s gone. The problems remain. No charity has ever shut down because it solved its cause.

Those billionaires, on the other hand, have ALREADY given more to society than any, or in some cases, every charity combined.

Is Bill Gates worth sixty billion dollars? Then this reflects sixty billion other people voluntarily gave him, in return for software they must have valued at MORE than its asking price, otherwise they wouldn’t have bought it. Bill Gates, apparently, knows how to create wealth that benefits society…and every penny traded to him reflects that.

If he keeps the money and invests it in other wealth-creating ideas, he will do just that:

Create more wealth.

And THAT benefits society, more than all of the panhandling, anti-profit organizations ever do.

If he, or any other billionaire, wants to “give away” the money, then they should give it to ENTREPRENEURS.

The fool on Stossel right now, who says he’s giving away 75% of his six billion dollars, could simply hand out 4,500 one million dollar grants to the wildest, most unlikely, but serious and possible business plans and ideas they can find.

If just one percent of those ideas becomes a billion dollar company, he’s increased the benefit of his money to our society by TEN THOUSAND percent.

So he can toss it down the State-Mandated Non-Profit pit of poverty-enablement to be consumed by professional mendicants and vanish…or he can create a hundred times more wealth for our society, thereby permanently reducing poverty.

People complained, of both Obama and Palin, that they lacked experience.

Now if that meant actual experience of being a manager or executive, a leader, it’s a reasonable discussion to have.

But when they mean lack of political experience, they are mistakenly attacking the BEST qualification of any candidate.

“All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely“, as Lord Acton pointed out. And he noted that this includes power through influence, and “corruption by authority”, meaning the way that an institution corrupts its members.

And there is no more corrupting institution than government, which is set apart from all the rest of human society by the ability to legally initiate force…aka “power”.

There are few things more harmful in our society than career politicians. They know less about the real world, and find the evils of government coercion more normal. They are generally against responsibility, anywhere it should be expected.

They, and government employees, including government contractors, and their ilk, form what is now recognized as a separate class of people, the Political Class, that has the most harmful views of any segment of society.

They come to office and are indoctrinated in a culture that devours society and the economy for its own dubious benefit, becoming less aware of the real world every year they are there.

What we need is for our politicians to have less political experience, not more.

Even if we simply replaced every single politician, each year, with someone chosen from the general populace by random lottery, America would be far better off.

This is an apt beginning to the political coup the opponents of Obama have feared...the convening of an unelected Congress. It should be stopped, its actions are not valid, including anything it passes.

You’d think it’s pretty obvious that if we had a Congress that was unelected, people be outraged. We are a constitutional republic, and our legislators should be elected.

And yet, that is what we have right now.

This “lame duck Congress” is not our elected set of legislators. In fact, not only are they not the ones we elected, they are the ones we specifically un-elected.

And that is outrageous.

You there, in the back, who just yelled out “But it’s always been that way”…yes, I saw who you were. Don’t worry, dissent is imperative to learning the truth.

And the truth is that lame duck Congresses are rare, because they are so obviously bad.

A Congress that is unelected, with members whose ideas have already been voted against, rushing those evils through a back door to lock them into place.

We specifically elected DIFFERENT politicians. The guys passing bills they know we oppose right now are, in effect, usurpers.

And, although there have rarely been lame duck Congresses before, this may be the first one that is specifically intended to violate the will of the people. Up until now, lame duck sessions are usually held NOT to pass laws the People are known to have just disapproved, but for a unique emergency, like impeachment, or the McCarthy hearings ostensibly to root out Communists.

But this political coup…and it is a coup, same as if the Army showed up in Congress with tanks one day and “temporarily” ousted the government…is unusual, because it’s all about passing new expansions of government that could not possibly get through next session:

• A massive expansion of the FDA’s powers
• Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
• Gays in the Military
• An unpopular arms treaty
• A massive expansion in the already-overextended unemployment subsidy

All of these are important issues, that should be considered by our elected representatives, if by the Federal government at all.

Yet they’re being railroaded through by the corrupt Establishment on both sides. The Political Class have been carefully quiet about this, but we should not be. They think they can violate our will, for their own good…but it is intolerable.

As with the TEA Party backlash against the past three years of massive government expansion, we need to “rise up” and organize an objection to this coup, and stop it from continuing to seize power unconstitutionally.

The American taxpayer suffers under the massive cost of complying with the tax code, as well as having to pay the taxes, themselves...and the Bush tax "cuts" only made this worse

Republicans, Conservatives, libertarians, independents, and even Democrats who aren’t rabidly Liberal are all defending the Bush tax cuts, insisting that some or all of them must be extended…but it’s not because any of us like them.

In reality, even Conservatives and Republicans never really liked the cuts, except as a lesser evil versus no cuts at all…and the same is even more true, today.

Why aren’t the Bush “cuts” likable? Because they’re ridiculously bloated with rules, exceptions, special favors for special interests, bureaucracy, government winner-picking and other distortion of the economy, and therefore are insanely expensive to implement.

In other words, Americans have to PAY billions of dollars, in time and actual cash, to deal with the complexity it adds to the tax code.

Unlike the Reagan tax cuts, that may actually have saved taxpayers even more in compliance cost than in taxes reduced, the Bush tax cuts were estimated to add up to $114 billion per year in compliance cost, with its maze of tax credits, exemptions, and other economy-distorting favoritism and punishments. This nearly cancelled out the actual “cuts”.

It is estimated that simply complying with the overall income tax costs about $350,000,000,000 every year. That is a little less than ten times as much as the “tax cuts for the rich” that the Liberals are trying to block being extended right now. It is far more than the ENTIRE set of Bush tax cuts being debated now. It is over several times as much as ALL of the cuts, including the Stimulus welfare disguised as “tax cuts” that Obama is demanding be extended as well.

We could let the ENTIRE tax cut package expire…all of the Bush cuts for the “wealthy” AND “middle class”, all of the Obama stimulus “cut” handouts, including in both cases all of the tax credits that give free money to people who don’t pay real income taxes at all…and yet leave the taxpayer with MORE money in their own hands, if:

We simplify the tax code.

We could flatten it, while letting the overall revenue estimate INCREASE to eliminate all of those “cuts”, and people would still save so much that the economy would prosper.

This could be done by eliminating most exemptions, credits, and other economy-distorting favoritism, and reducing the number of tiers of taxpayers.

We should, as any real economist has insisted for at least two decades, implement a flat tax…everyone pay the same tax rate…whatever it takes to match the current income tax revenue. Exempt everyone’s income up to the poverty level, so nobody in poverty has to pay, but leave everyone else paying the EXACT same amount.

This would reduce tax compliance to less than one tenth of its current cost. But let’s imagine it leaves compliance as high as $100 billion dollars per year.

That means we’d save $250 billion next year. Inflating this over ten years the way tax cut estimates usually are, this would “inject” between three and four TRILLION dollars into the economy in the next decade.

We don’t need Bush/Obama “cuts” that cost us more in compliance than they actually save us per year. What we need is a simpler, fairer tax system that we can pay and then get on with our job of creating wealth for ourselves, and therefore the economy.

But, shortly after the Obamacare plan set up conditions that are likely to cause rationing, we have an example of how government health care is forced to decide who lives and dies, because of rationing.

In order to stay within their budget, Arizona has been forced to limit who is allowed to get organ transplants…literally picking who lives and dies. Already, 98 people have been identified who will not be allowed to get these transplants on Medicaid. This is what government health care must, inherently, do. It’s not the fault of Arizona, but part of Medicaid’s very nature.

In the 1980s, the Federal government imposed a ban on paid organ transplants, creating such a shortage that panels had to be set up to decide who got the rationed transplants, while a majority of transplant patients die while waiting, with lists up to ten years long.

Now, they are being forced by a socialized health care program to cut off even the few who might get transplants, dooming them to die.

We need real health care reform, not more of the very same government intervention that has caused the problem in the first place.

Secrecy in government, on the other hand, is one of the worst forms of tyranny.

So when politicos like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum call for people fighting against government secrecy to be falsely classified as “enemy combatants”, “a terrorist organization”, or even to be assassinated or publicly executed, it’s pretty clear who the real enemy of America is.

What Wikileaks, and its founder Julian Assange, have vowed to do…and done, far more than most of us ever expected…is to bring the openness to American politics that politicians like Obama, McCain, and Bush promised but ended up opposing in almost all things.

They exposed Hillary Clinton ordering DNA samples and credit card information stolen from top UN officials.

They revealed a source of the bizarre push to attack Iran; it’s being ordered by the world’s top sponsor of terrorism, Saudi Arabia.

They showed that the US is secretly using its missiles and drones to slaughter people in foreign countries, while the tyrannical, abusive governments of those countries claimed credit.

The response to the whistle-blowing of these inexcusable coverups?

• Newt Gingrich wants to declare the heroic Julain Assange an “enemy combatant“.
• Rich Santorum wants Wikileaks declared a “terrorist organization.
• Joe Lieberman called for outright censorship, for the Wikileaks website that has brought so much light to government to be forcibly shut down.
• Peter King wants Wikileaks and Assange charged with espionage and executed, saying that “by doing so we can seize their assets“…opportunistic robber-baron thievery.
• Pete Hoekstra wants to INCREASE the secrecy of the American government against its own voters.
• Mike Rogers wants the man accused of being the only guy brave enough to salvage this information and blow the whistle, Private First Class Bradley Manning, to be executed.

Above, we have a list of crimes against the American Constitution…but the criminals are named in the first half of each sentence, not the second.