Of Miranda And The First Amendment

I find it curious how those in society today make such an effort to silence their critics, or adversaries. Anyone who has spent any meaningful time in law enforcement will tell you just how counterproductive that is. As always, truth is the great liberator. That is why our founders were so adamant about protecting the freedom of expression up until the point where it infringes upon the life, liberty or property of another. Miranda v. Arizona provided an extra level of protection for those too dimwitted to avoid violating their own Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination through the free exercise of their First Amendment rights.

As is often the case, Hollywood's depictions of suspect questioning are far from reality. Commonly the best information is derived not through the tenacious inquiries and rambling threats from the interrogator, but from the patience to allow the suspect to freely speak and fully answer questions. As individuals feel increasingly comfortable they allow their inhibitions to leave and will themselves provide a more clear picture of who they are. You see, the longer you allow someone to speak, inevitably more bits of truth appear. Those with patience and attentiveness to detail are able to see through all the irrelevant information to hear those few words that paint a clear picture of the character of the individual to whom they speak. The words used in situations are very important and must not be disregarded.

If truth of content and character is found through allowing your adversary to freely express themselves, then why do so many people try to silence their critics through dismissal, name calling and other techniques of distraction. History shows that those who try to silence critics, are at best fearful of facts and driven by emotion or at worst fearful of a larger conceptual truth and devoid of reason. If a critic is not being truthful, present facts on the topic and watch how quickly the reasoned debate devolves into name calling. Allow them to speak and simply point out there inconsistencies. In the arena of public debate it is always those true to their conceptual beliefs and philosophy that are able to remain consistent.

Evidence of reactions described above:
Nancy Pelosi's can beat'em join'em, try to beat'em again when they realize you are a fraud strategy

Rob Reiner's pseudo-intellectual name calling strategy that perfectly depicts how the progressives reached their current majority

Then candidate Obama's candid moment that he would like everyone to forget.

Maxine Waters accidentally letting truth escape Progressivism, Socialism, tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to.

David Axelrod's criteria for justifying slander

What Joe Barton Should Have Said

Where the hell is the rule of law? In the past the one thing that made us different, and yes better, than the rest of the world is 1) the rule of law not man and 2) our economic system. BP is going to pay what I am sure will be a very high price for this, that may indeed bankrupt your company. However that is for the civil courts to determine, should BP not make amicable restitution for the damage caused. If law enforcement investigations find criminal neglect, then individually criminal courts will address those issues. What we as a Congressional Committee want to know is what has been, is being and will be done in to stop the ongoing issue of the oil spill? Have your people stop the spill, while you and your Board Of Directors prepare for making reparations that might save your company. Remember the Board of Directors? They are the supposed to be the overseers representing your investors, we seem to have forgotten this in the U.S. and made this the authority of the Federal Government. In that way, I would like to remind every Representative here what their role is as a member of the legislative branch of our government. We write and pass laws. Our focus should be on whether the laws in place on this matter are adequate and whether changes need to be made through different legislation. The executive branch, should be pursuing whether laws were violated and/or whether poor enforcement of existing law occurred. The judicial branch will deal with the civil remedies. Now YOU, as CEO of BP, need to get off of your ass and 1) have your people stop the continued damage. I don't really care how. Just get it done. and 2) While your people are doing that, get with your Board and figure out how you will make everything and everyone whole and hopefully save your company in the process. As for anything else, your sitting here is wasting time.

Fruit From The Poisonous Tree

There is a doctrine in law that states that if the source of evidence is fraudulent or illegitimate, then anything derived from that evidence is by its very nature illegitimate.

This doctrine stems from a U.S. Supreme Court Case from 1920 called Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. In this case, the defendant was charged with tax evasion. In an illegal search, Siverthorne's books were copied and used as evidence. The case raised the argument that admission of evidence, regardless of its veracity, should be denied because of the manner by which it was obtained. The Supreme Court ruled that admission of such evidence despite the improper method by which it was obtained only serves to encourage circumventing the rule of law and The Constitution (specifically the Fourth Amendment). Paraphrasing biblical text, a tainted tree can not yield untainted fruit.

Consistency and universal applicability of law are foundations of our current system and critical to any Constitutional Republic. That is why litigators reference prior case law when presenting their arguments. We are supposed to have a rule of law in this country, not the rule of man. This is because man has the complexity of emotion that clouds judgment and creates inconsistency.

Why then do we abandon this legal precedent when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration? When an illegal alien violates immigration law by entering this country without documentation, they become the poisonous tree. Currently we accept any children they may have while living in this country as citizens, despite the parents being here is in itself a violation of law. Hence the "anchor baby" strategy of circumventing U.S. immigration law.

If we are to remain consistent in legal doctrine, then something has to give. I would hope that the deterioration of The Constitution would not be a price the citizenry is willing to pay for the allowing circumventing of law simply to make us feel better about a problem that is in no way made better by such amnesty.

A Nation Of Children

Watching the C-SPAN vote on the Democrats Health Care Reform Bills, the paternalistic philosophy of governance that drives the liberal mindset became increasingly apparent for public consumption. As recent public comments by the likes of House Speaker Pelosi and President Obama himself have shown, their continued push to socialize the health care industry and our country would continue despite the will of the people. That is because of their sincere belief that the American people are not capable of self determination but must be cared and provided for, as a child of the paternalistic government. Provisions by government create dependency on government and a self perpetuating deterioration into socialism.

Mrs. Pelosi repeatedly and proudly referred to Social Security and Medicare in her giddy excitement over the socialization of yet another aspect of American life. Americans are not capable of educating themselves and their family and must consequently be educated by a failing government school system (Benjamin Franklin, Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln must not have ever existed). Americans are not capable of planning for their own retirement and must consequently be forced through taxation into a financially bankrupt Social Security System despite its pathetic return on investment. Americans are not capable of purchasing health insurance due to perverted circumstances created by the government and must consequently be forced into a more bureaucratic government controlled system. All of this is necessary in the liberal mindset because the common people just are not capable of self determination. The arrogance and audacity of the liberal mindset belies the "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" that Mrs. Pelosi attempted to quote, as if socialism is in some way a part of the American fabric. Liberals do not like to be reminded that it was originally "life, liberty and property", because they have not respect for any of the three. In the liberal mind set life, liberty and property of the individual must be second to the proper distribution of said factors as they deem "fair".

Indeed we as a society have been moving away from self determination for decades. In American life, and now in the Health Care Reform Bill, adolescence has been extended into the mid to late 20's. Previously people of this age were supporting themselves and their families. Now these able young Americans are encouraged, indeed subsidized, to remain dependent. Where young family members used to aid and support the elders of their family, they are now encouraged, indeed subsidized to turn both children and elders over to the paternalistic government. Once multi-generational dependency is solidified, we will indeed be children of the liberals. We will be seeking to please them for whatever provisions they deem us worthy of receiving.

If you think this is an exaggeration, then I refer to Mrs. Pelosi's "great unfinished business of our society" comment. She was obviously referring to a stepped up version of the recognized failure of "The Great Society". She referred to health care coverage as a right. According to the dictionary, a right is that which is due to anyone by just claim. If health care is a right then one has a right to a portion of a doctor's life without expectation of compensation. Either that or a right to someone's property that will be used to compensate a doctor for their service. You see a right is something that does not require anything of another. It is due to the holder by its very nature. With health care being a right this will by definition take from another as determined by the government.

The liberal government aristocracy has taken another step to total paternalistic control. At what point will the American people regain the fortitude to accept responsibility and demand that which are truly their inalienable rights.

Government (Public) School Systems A Forecast Of Health Care Coverage

As government school systems nationwide are drowning in deficits, many are responding in typical top-heavy bureaucratic fashion. Education is being rationed through proposals to shorten the school week to four days rather than five, or decreasing the number of school days in a year. Personnel that actually provide the supposedly highly valued services are being cut from the bottom. This is all despite the fact that public school systems generally spend more than twice the amount of money per student than private schools. In fact, those systems that spend the most often produce the least. As I read of the struggles of government school systems, I can't help but foresee the same issues occurring when the health care system is socialized.

The fundamental problem arises from the fact that middle class Americans virtually have all liberty taken from them and are saddled with a tremendous burden of subsidizing a system of epidemic waste. You see all net taxpayers have to pay for the costs associated with the government school system through taxation. If a household is of low income, they enjoy the fruits of the system while shouldering little to no cost of services rendered. If a household is affluent, despite having to pay for government school system services through their taxes, they shoulder the costs of paying for a better service through a private school (secular or otherwise). It is the middle class that shoulders an even greater burden, because if it were not for their mandated funding of the government system, paying for the better private school education could be more feasible. Health Care Reform is heading down the same path. Net taxpayers will subsidize the government run system. Those of sufficient affluence will be able to pay for better health care despite being forced to subsidize the government system. The middle class taxpayer will also subsidize the system, but will under go a struggle to pay for the better private system, or subject themselves to the government system. This system will operate without fear of competition due to the forced subsidizing of the government system by those who drive the private system that would compete with it. This inevitably fosters a culture of complacency and entitlement to the tax dollars that fund it. As we have seen, this has led to the bureaucratic waste that causes the plodding systems to be slow to respond to the pressures of operating a non-profit or not-for-profit business until a crisis is on the doorstep. Without fear of competition, complacency and entitlement almost always leads to an inferior product or service. We see it today with the our government schools, the postal system and we will inevitably see it in our new government health care system.

A Better Approach

In the State of the Union Address, the President stated, "But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I'm eager to see it." Well, here is a start.

Let's begin with the premise that all insurance in operated in the same fashion. Actuaries (ultra numbers crunchers) determine premium rates by the propensity for the company to incur a loss on the account. It doesn't matter if they are insuring a car, boat, life or health of an individual or group.

1) How do you bring down health insurance premiums?

Do you have difficulty finding affordable auto insurance? No? Neither do I. Neither to any of the untold number people with the pr-existing condition of being a truly horrible driver. Companies are in fact clamoring in competition for the privilege of insuring them and offering "accident forgiveness".

Do you have difficulty finding affordable life insurance? No? Neither do I. There are many A+ rated insurance companies offering the lowest term life insurance rates in decades.

Is it necessary to purchase either one of these forms of insurance through your employer? No. A larger group plan may offer lower premiums because the insurance companies risk is dispersed over more account holders, but it is not necessary because those who provide this insurance must compete for the business. Why do we continue to hinder the competition that will bring down premiums by remaining committed to employer sponsored health care? It is a good question to ask both parties.

2) How can we bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors?

It merely takes a rudimentary knowledge of how insurance works. Using auto insurance as a metaphor, drivers with the pre-existing condition of being a really, really bad driver can't get affordable insurance on their own. In some states the Insurance Commissioner establishes a Joint Underwriters Association that insures these poor driving challenged individuals. It is a "pay to play" system where if the insurance companies want to do business in that state, then they will pool together to insure those that are otherwise un-insurable. For doing this, they are permitted to conduct business in the state. However, in health care, the un-insurable are relegated to the Medicare and Medicaid roles. Simply stated, the insurance companies will cover these costs for the right to make money on the millions of other policies they can write. Let's see:
This will reduce government spending on health care and hence lower the deficit. (Check)
This will help the uninsured become able to be insured. (Check)
With less money spent, this will free funds for seniors on the Medicare roles. (check)

Does the implementation of this get a little more complicated? Yes, but not nearly as complicated as our current system of coverage. See these links for further explanation of JUA's and their applicability.

Ebb and Flow

The special election, and subsequent misreading of the vote, reinforces my theory that the greatest failure of the educational system in this country is the lack of emphasis on the subject of economics. Even a rudimentary knowledge of markets and the ability to identify how these concepts apply in areas not often seen as having market characteristics would serve our electorate, and apparently our elected officials, greatly. Whether recognized or not, markets are in a constant state of correction. like a pendulum swinging back and forth, the political climate will correct itself when the body politic strays too far to the left or right. Any drastic movement is sure to be followed by an equally drastic correction.

What happened in Massachusetts was that the silent majority of independents had finally been awakened to the relatively recent and hard shift to the left in American politics. Prior to the election, my concern was that the Republicans would misread a victory in Massachusetts as an affirmation of their body of work rather than a correction, or rebuke, of the aggressive progressive movement. To my surprise, it appears that the Democrats are, at least publicly, misreading and excusing the results as an anomaly. The day after the election, someone on NPR stated that the electorate was simply having anxiety about the current economic situation rather than ideologically opposed to progressive ideology and socialization. When the independents feel that the left is moving too close to socialization, or the right is moving too close to legislating individual morality, the electorate will issue an electoral spanking much like the one we saw in Massachusetts.

Remember, Massachusetts is at most 15% registered Republican and at the federal level the majority of both legislative houses of Congress and the Presidency are firmly held by the Democrats. It is patently obvious where the backlash is coming from and it is related to an opposing ideology.

Health Care Reform: Making Madoff Look Like An Amateur

This thought occurred to me some weeks back when the left in this country was making the case that the failure to socialize the health care industry is bankrupting this country. My immediate thought was that the current state of Social Security, and its unfunded liabilities, is doing much more to damage this country's financial position. It was then it occurred to me that they view these two issues as one and the same, inextricably joined at the hip (or wallet as the case may be).

By now nearly everyone is familiar with the name Bernie Madoff. He was the architect behind a Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors out of an estimated $65 billion dollars. By definition, a Ponzi scheme refers to an investment that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering, or guaranteeing, returns that are either abnormally high or the security of unusually consistent payments. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going. Although the intention of the Social Security System is for the most part altruistic, it is unfortunately structured and has been operated no different than any other Ponzi scheme. The only difference being the size of the scheme, as Social Security had unfunded obligations in excess of $41 Trillion in 2008 according to the Government Accountability Office.

There are those who claim that Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme simply because it:
1) Social Security does not propose high returns
As stated, Social Security does offer the security of unusually consistent payments because it is backed by the full taxing power of the United States Government.
2) Social Security is not destined to end.
Ponzi schemes end when there is a population bubble where the influx of new investors’ money exceeds the population of those drawing benefits or returns. With the Baby Boomer Generation drawing benefits, we are experiencing that right now.
3) Social Security is altruistic in its intent.
Touche’. However, if it is structured and operated like any other fraudulent scheme, does it really matter whether or not a fraud is intended to be so?

This is where the current Health Care Reform comes into play. Without admitting yet another government program failure, Social Security is cash negative and can only be salvaged by:
1) reducing promised payments and/or increasing the tax withholding of those paying into the system
Reducing payments, or increasing the tax withholding, would be a de facto admission that the program is fatally flawed.

or,

2) increasing the number of people paying into the system.
With unemployment currently over 9%, encouraging further immigration of working age people is not an option.

The only realistic option to perpetuate this program without admitting it is no different than any other Ponzi scheme, is to legislate additional dollars from another source. With health care making up between 15% and 20% of the US economy, this is the magic elixir for those who seek to expand the role of government. What Health Care Reform amounts to is an ass-backwards attempt to float the Social Security System through the life expectancy of the Baby Boomers in the hopes that it will once again reach a point where those paying into the system outnumber those drawing benefits.

Of course this comes at the price of liberty. Unfortunately this is a price that about 50% of the US population appears willing to pay. With that ratio, as with the Ponzi scheme, it is doomed to failure. The salvation will be the natural ebb and flow of ideology between government and individual responsibility, and government dependence and liberty.