THE FLAG - 5/12





A         The Preamble to our Constitution says, “We the people”,  “secure the Blessings of liberty”, “ordain … this Constitution”

B         The 14th Amendment says,” No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”,  “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

C         Family law in most states and in some cases have mention in their constitution a defined “marriage” as a contract between two parties of the opposite sex.

D          Because of the 14th amendments equality statements, the Family Laws not allowing a same sex contract are unconstitutional.

E          If sex is not a required condition of marriage, the number should also not be a barrier to the contract for one condition has no more merit than the other. See the latest court judgement on polygamy.

F          Therefore all marriage contracts may be entered into by any sex or number of persons.

G           There need be no conditions set by the government for marriage

H           Government should not be a party to any marriage contract

I.           All laws which attach to the word “marriage” are not needed and are null and void.

The statements A.through I. follow as night follows day.

In counter-argument another logic train is posited.

!. In upholding certain laws, which seem to be infringements of liberty, various parts of government at various times and for various reasons  have used the phrase, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact”. And rightly so.

2. The same concept can be applied to the marriage laws, in that, over-turning the proven efficacy of human relationships and development constructed through the millennia, which is promoted by the two person, opposite sex marriage, is anathema to our society.

3. Variations from that standard, which can be many and varied if absolute equality is to be obtained, are deleterious to a well-ordered society, notwithstanding the application of the equality promised by our Constitution.

4. Then any laws which are seemingly anti-liberty or anti-equality which are of such longstanding both in tradition and written law and have proven to be useful in sustaining a well-ordered and prosperous society must stand even if thought to be deleterious to the idea of equality embraced by our Constitution.

5. As noted in 3. above, the plethora of possibilities when no one standard is set, can result in an anarchic situation. Not a good result when aiming for a well-ordered and prosperous society.

6. In a free society any association desired by individuals is acceptable as long as that association does not prove injurious to others and does not require the legal imprimatur of society.

In conclusion: Those who feel that same sex marriage is appropriate will state that they are not asking for multiple partner marriage and are not asking for the government to abolish its role in marriage, but, I insist you cannot discard the logic train posited. One thing leads to another.

Our judges must think ahead of the immediate.

The parts of the first logic train that are derided as impossible will come to pass.

The law is logical and will be served no matter the momentary ideas we espouse.

Love is not a legal argument in contract law nor is it a defined legal concept..

 CONGRATULATIONS DEMOCRATS, progressives and those now called liberals.

So-called Liberals in our society are far from the true meaning of the word. They espouse some of the most controlling, illiberal ways of political ideologies which have been constructed by man. 

·              From Wikipedia -According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."

You have destroyed a basic function of our society, one which was built over the last ten generations. In your zeal to be “compassionate, helpful, and domineering “,  you have crumbled the structure of the medical community and it is now in shambles.

You took the worst ideas of the 19th and 20th century fascist and socialist ideologies and tried to build a new society. It was destined to failure as the preceding attempts proved. You didn’t heed the warnings of history or human nature.

Now, somehow, this great experiment in freedom and liberty must find a way to overcome the grievous wound you have inflicted. If we are not successful in finding a solution, the end of the experiment is foretold by history. We shall descend into some form of vassalage or dictatorial system which has controlled man-kinds societies since the tribes were formed.

You do not know what is best for your neighbor. Your decisions all have unintended consequences for the neighbor. Unless he asks for your help keep your nose out of his business. If he makes “bad” decisions that is his problem, not yours. Yes, you will have to contend with some of the results of his “bad” decisions. That’s called life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

For all the apologists for this disaster,  “ Read history – Read the Proverbs of the Judeo/Christian Bible – Pay attention to the lessons of human nature”.  And I don’t want you making my life decisions!

DEC 2013


It is a shame.

Our present Federal government is based on lies.

The executive department has lied, obfuscated, delayed and dissimulated for the past 5 years. Why?: Because they couldn’t get their political agenda through the Congress or be re-elected without lying and the bureaucracy is out of control.

The Congress has lied. How?: By being complicit in the lies of the Executive in not knowing what they voted for or against or worse knowing and still following the administration wishes..

Our Representative Hoyer has a staff, funded by us to the tune of at least one million dollars, to inform him of what is in the legislation he proposes, supports or opposes. He obviously doesn’t use them or lies by commission and omission.

Our Senators Mikulski and Cardin have over two million dollars each for the same reason. They too lie by commission and omission in the same manner.

Must I state the lies? Or do we all know them by rote? I defer to your knowledge and instinct. You all know them, the lies and who lies.

This must stop. We, the people, must insist these politicians become submissive, apologetic and change their ways.

Your political affiliation must not become the reason for supporting any individual. You must stop this terrible sham.

In 1924, my father wrote in a letter to my mother, then his fiancée :“ Anyway, always do your voting to help the country for the generations to come, if it does happen to go against your own interests and present idea of things."

A most salutary concept.




Many pundits have commented recently on certain qualities or lack thereof displayed by President Obama.

A good leader picks outstanding individuals to implement the laws extant and proposed. A good leader makes his priorities clear and follows up on the progress of the people he has selected to implement them. A good leader relieves those who do not perform to a high standard. A good leader does not allow obfuscation, lying or malfeasance by his staff.

The lack of character and truthfulness of those who President Obama has selected to be his staff is in some cases appalling. Blatant lies in public utterances and documents bring no censure. One can excuse some political posturing, but, public lying is anathema to good government.

In addition, President Obama has been shown to be a bald-faced prevaricator in his statements about the health care law. His statements about what the individual could or could not keep as their insurance and/or doctor have proved to be totally in opposition to the law. He knew it was false at the time because his staffers wrote the law.

His constant position that he “only knew it from news reports” is either a lie or complete incompetence by the President or those he picked as staff.

His statements that he would “get to the bottom” of various scandalous incidents are lies. He has not, nor has he allowed other entities to access the information to clear up the scandals.

This administration has been and continues to be the most incompetent and untruthful group of politicians and staff ever to inhabit the Federal Government. That includes President Warren Harding’s Teapot Dome bunch and I believe it even exceeds the graft of President Grant’s two terms.

It is not the fault of the bureaucracy but of the political people who have been selected by this administration that such failure is apparent. The Legislative branch of this government needs another exposition of facts to show its leaders incompetence.

Sadly, we must wait for our elective process to correct the situation, and then the high-flown rhetoric and low-ball politics will win the day. Pogo was right.

October 26, 2013



Now, it can be told.

Too craft laws which are good and equitable is difficult. Too change those laws by executive fiat is unconscionable.

If a law can be changed by executive fiat, then an executive may reward their friend and punish their enemy by fiat. That is not why this republic was established. It is in direct contravention to the ideas on which our society was founded. The monarchical fiat was destroying freedoms and liberties and we had a revolution to rectify that problem.

It now poses the question: What kind of revolution is required to reverse the dictatorial policies of our present administration? Civil disobedience? Lawsuits? Or will it end our society of law?

We, the people, are being disenfranchised by executive fiat. Our representatives are not being allowed to govern us.

The President of the land is supposed to administer the law as presented to him by the Congress, not avoid or change the law by fiat (executive order). Today the President changed the PP&ACA the 15th time by executive order. Anathema is our President to our Constitution and system of law.

He has lied for political gain both in legislation and in the election process. The legislation he is changing by fiat is what he wanted to begin with. Was it not properly vetted and thought through before its passage?

November 2013
This is an open letter to my Federal Congressional delegation; Senator Barbara Mikulski, Senator Benjamin Cardin and Representative Steny Hoyer, and my fellow citizens.

The subject is the President’s proposal to take military action against the Syrian government.

The reason the President wants to take such action is the purported use by that government of poison gas in its war against a rebel force within Syria, which use is in contravention to the extant international norms and treaties prohibiting such use.

While I have no direct knowledge of the facts about the prohibited use, I still must ask the prime question: Why must the citizens of the United States bear the burden and have the responsibility to enforce international norms and laws when the remainder of the world’s governments and citizenry do nothing?

Because one government acts in contravention to international norms and treaties does not require another government to respond to that act unless it is directly affected, especially if the response is an act of war.
There is no rule or international law which compels us to act when a country, which has a viable and recognized government, no matter how reprehensible, chastises its own citizenry even unto death. That we should speak out and ask for a consortium of the world’s citizens to condemn and even take action against such heinous acts is right and proper, but, to act unilaterally is not within the purview of one country.

But, even further I stand with what was written a hundred years ago by In a story by Rudyard Kipling,  “The Man Who Was”.  Though expressed about the situation in the Far Eastern landmass it bears consideration when considering the Middle Eastern area also.

A Russian officer, Dirkovitch, explains plans for the Asian cultures and is contradicted by Mr. Kipling as follows. Italics by me.
“But he remained distressingly European through it all. The White Hussars were --- ‘Fellow-soldiers glorious’, and ‘Brothers inseparable’.  He would  unburden himself by the hour on the glorious future that awaited the combined arms of England and Russia when their hearts and territories should run side by side, and the great mission of civilizing Asia should begin. That was unsatisfactory, because Asia is not going to be civilized after the methods of the West. There is too much Asia, and she is too old. You cannot reform a lady of many lovers, and Asia has been insatiable in her flirtations aforetime. She will never attend Sunday school, or learn to vote save with swords for tickets.”
Some say they need a strategic plan and desired outcomes for the action and its aftermath. That is not enough nor required until the questions above are satisfactorily answered with more than moral platitudes and propaganda like rhetoric.
The President is not a faultless ruler given his authority by God. He does not have the authority, which we citizens can give, to make war without our approval except in extremis, no matter how righteous his cause. Because we are a representative democracy, you, my representatives must give such authority.

Please consider the positions stated above when making your decision. “Never again” is not a strong enough reason.

September 2, 2013


What is one to do?

Being only one in this milieu of 310,000,000 polyglot, ethnically diverse, politically divided nation, how can this one voice make a difference?

By pointing out the last years failings of societal leadership.

A high government official sends a letter to the Congress of the United States with blatant lies incorporated within. The lie is acknowledged some months latter with a “corrective” letter. No apology, no resignation, no firing of that official takes place.


A high government official in  sworn testimony before a Congressional committee lies and is caught in that lie. He later says the lie was the LEAST untruth he could proffer to the question asked. In other words he intended to lie in answer to the question. His only mistake was in the DEGREE of prevarication he would use. No apology, no resignation, no firing.


Multiple high government officials lie about the same happening for weeks. The happening includes the murders of other government officials. The lie is exposed. No apology, no resignations, no firings.


A high government official, in sworn testimony,  lies to a Congressional committee and is caught in that lie by his own documents.   No apology, no resignations, no firings.


Multiple facts are kept from the citizenry by multiple government officials about multiple happenings which have a possibility of besmirching reputations and nothing is done about these happenings in a so-called “free society’. No apology, no resignations, no firings.


A report is issued by what was thought to be people of impeccable reputation about one of the happenings described above. The report named no one as responsible for making any decision which was faulty.


A high government official promises to bring the miscreants to justice in many of the happenings above. Nothing happens.


What has happened with the old saw, “Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice. Shame on me.”?

Fool me constantly. Shame on ???.

A woman is sentenced to five years in prison for lying in a criminal proceeding.


Aug. 21, 2013


In the first century and three-quarters after forming this unique societal experiment, we were described as a great melting pot of humanity. Each culture and ethnicity came, bringing their individualities to this land. For a generation or two those traits were kept separate in communities and families, but, as the need for a common bond became needed they slowly faded or amalgamated with others and there became an American culture with its own standards.

The only groups which have retained some of their previous cultures are those who can be easily, physically identified and these have had more difficulty in melding into the majority..

Slowly in the last 75 years we have begun to be bifurcated and separated by seemingly immutable differences. The melting pot stew - hobo, mulligatawny or bouillabaisse - has changed to a dinner plate with separate sections. We now have, (Your favorite ethnicity-Americans), or just the ethnicity without the hyphenation. American only is no longer a standard to which all aspire.

Our language, a wonderful and constantly changing structure, is about the only “melting-pot” left in our society. Polyglot though we began and dialect riven to a fault, the language of commerce, sports, music and love are about all that holds us together.

Our politics are no longer driven by what we know to be choices between directions our society must strive to follow for the good of all, but, are more and more, “What’s in it for me!”.

We have the history of liberty and freedom on which to build, but, we are being asked to give away those precious treasures and be more communal and safe. Liberty and freedom are mere rhetoric too be bandied about in speeches and editorials, not practiced.

We are being asked to be one with the rest of the world, when what we are, is what they are striving for.

I proudly declare my ethnicities, Swedish, Scotch (&water), German maybe a little French, but those peoples don’t define me. I am an American with access to the freedoms and liberties which accrue from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

No matter how venal some actions of our governmental bodies have been in individual circumstances, we stand at the pinnacle of states in our ethical dealings with the rest of the world.  We have contributed more blood and treasure to other societies for their betterment, without demanding reparations,  than any other culture in history. Sometimes we have been a bit ham-handed, but always the spirit behind the action was in giving, not taking.

We are now descending into a dark period of our societies history. These years from 2000 on will be a nadir of our heritage. Hopefully someone or some group will again find the way to bring us back to a semblance of what was so shiningly promised 247 years ago when it was declared:

 “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed ”

                                                                                                            May 7, 2013


There was a land in the far and distant past where all of the people were free to do as they pleased as long as the did no harm to the others and the land. Most helped any of their group who had problems that one person could not solve. The people were prosperous most of the time.

A great speaker arose in their midst and began saying that certain processes of their governance should be changed for there was a part of the society which was not being treated fairly by the majority. He didn’t say exactly what must change other than the society needed to treat everyone “fairly” and with “justice”.

Soon he had sufficient adherence to his message that he was installed as the leader of all.

He began to promulgate and put in practice what he said were “fair and just” policies.  By doing so he bypassed the previous practice of neighbor helping neighbor and amassed the goods of all to give back to all. Evenly divided between all except for that needed to administer the program, which reduced that given to all by 20 or 30 percent. By this manner he reduced the amount  given to each to a mere subsistence level and no one had extra to help their neighbor.

He began to make no decisions on real policies of governance but started to put off things because of some opposition which developed to his ideas. He began to study each policy or decision for long periods, saying it was unclear or very difficult to find the right answer.

He distrusted the people and began to have his minions investigate them to find what could be used to denigrate them and their opposition to his ideas.

His policies of communication with the stated enemies of this society showed him to be weak and undecided in upholding the ideas which had served this society for many generations.

It was not a provable thesis, though some believed this person was a mere spokesman for others and the others were controlling his policies and telling him what to say and do.

No matter the reason he was found to be a speaker and not a thinker and doer and the whole society began to collapse around him.

The stories end has not been verified for it is behind the mists of time and disguised by multiple tellings.

 There are some who say this speaker realized his failings and began telling the truth instead of his previous parsing of the language-that is the happy ending. The other is his constant inability to realize his own fallibility and he lead the society to a destructive end.

All we have left is hope - the past story is not ours today.
JULY 2013
These are my predictions for the future of this bold experiment in the organization of society begun in 1776.

I give no differing policies, for that is for others and another time. As the Supreme Court justice said about pornography, “I know it when I see it.”

  •  The change in our society’s direction, begun by the strikingly socialistic and euphemistically named “Affordable Care Act,” is a major actor in a series of decisions promulgated by the Obama administration in the first four years of his reign.

With the concomitant regulations required by this act, there will be a room full of contradictions and unintended consequences, which will stymie the citizens and businesses in their search for freedom of action.

Additional attempted and realized decisions by regulatory agencies and presidential decree are beginning to be more pernicious threats to individual liberty and freedom.

  • The dichotomy in the application of tax rates and pandering in the tax code to the populist attitudes of redistribution are separating class from class. This separation will finally cause more dissension than good.

Within a few years, this problem of today will become the norm and further degenerate our society to levels of pandering and taxation, which will destroy the original concept of free people making decisions for themselves and having to accept the consequences of those decisions.

  • The military, which even today is not as egalitarian as it once was, will become much as the Praetorian Guard was to the Roman society and lose its connection with the overall citizenry. This is not the fault of the military, but the civilian control will be lost should we not reduce our constant use of them for useless foreign policy objectives that cannot be accomplished.
  • The oratory of politicians and their celebrity status will continue to be the factors that determine the election results with little regard for the true philosophical issues at hand.
  • Truth and accuracy in government information will continue to deteriorate so the novel “1984” will no longer be a model of prevarication, but a mere bump on the road to perdition.
  • The bifurcation of our society into ethnic, economic, have and have-not or what you will, shall split us asunder.
  • For two centuries, a common language and belief in a constitution and the precepts of the Declaration of Independence created a melting pot of dissimilar cultures into one. This is being torn apart by multiculturalism theories and will destroy our “E Pluribus Unum” motto.
  • The slicing away of the rights enumerated in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights will continue to diminish our freedoms and liberty by a Supreme Court that will be stocked with the most progressive and left-leaning group possible by the end of the second term of President Obama.
How long it will take for all this to come to pass is, of course, unknown, but the path is wide and the tendencies are present.
December 2012
What are we to do with our citizens? They vote with their interests and many of those interests are not good for the whole of the society.
Immigration: It has been and remains the salient good of populating and energizing this society since its first beginning in the 15th century. Yes, six centuries years ago.
The first, in the majority, were Mediterranean peoples, Spaniards, Italians some French, for these peoples had the ships and money too support them.
Soon the English and other Northern Europeans became more numerous in the search for new wealth, land and a free society. The indigenous peoples of this “New World” were displaced by disease and force of arms for they, the “Indians”, as they became, had not the technologies displayed by the European intruders.
As the centuries turned, the Northern Europeans immigrated to the Northern climes and the Mediterraneans to the warmer latitudes. This was both natural and resource driven.
Now in this sixth century the immigration in the northern latitudes has turned to a worldwide source. Many languages and many cultures.
The European is becoming a minority of the North American population. The strict culture of law as the primary controlling factor of society and individual freedom as an adjunct is being undermined by a culture of individual mores and personality.
This country, the United States of America, has been a culture of law. Today, we are told, because of our inability to act and some cupidity, the allowance of peoples who have immigrated to our land in violation of our laws must be accommodated for it is the, “Right Thing to Do. Laws are not immutable. Compassion is the most important quality. Those who have broken our laws must be rewarded for their bravery and ability to avoid detection for many years.”
But why have they been successful in their deception, disguises and deceit? Because, we, the society which they have deceived has based our reaction on a different value system. We believe in the rule of law not individuals.
We have not based our society on the avoidance and disdain of law. The bribe is not the universal road to our desires. Have we broken our laws? Most assuredly. All humans will avoid the right path sometime in their life. Even so, the vast majority have abided by the laws and produced a vibrant, enviable society.
The vote of the last presidential election is a case study in the sad bifurcation of our society between the rule of law and the desires of individuals and their cohorts.
Gone are the great philosophical divides about Federalism or States Rights. Gone are the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Now we we are told we must allow over ten million people who have broken the law to skate freely past those who haven’t.
 Now we have the “rights” of someone to take my earnings for their mis-steps or occasional desires.
Now we have the cult of personality overcoming the facts of arithmetic.
Sadly my children and their’s will have to contend with the mis-steps of our electorate. 
There are no other choices now. The path is set. The concepts are realized. The society is no longer that of the freedom loving, liberty of soul, but, a bureaucratically controlled existence with a plethora of inscrutable rules which have replaced basic conceptual ideas and laws. And occasional dispensations to the well connected

              A group of terrorists invade United States territory (a consulate grounds and buildings). They murder four of our citizens. One of those murdered was the U.S. ambassador to the country where the consulate is located.

    Some three weeks later our government has done nothing in retaliation. That same government has claimed for weeks that the terrorists were part of a larger group of local citizens remonstrating over a religious slight to their founder.            

    A large segment of the population in the country in which this happened determined in a few days that the terrorists who perpetrated this invasion and murders should be removed from their country. There was, in fact, no demonstration from which the attack could spring.

    The attack was supported by heavy infantry weapons seldom if ever used by demonstrators in the streets.

    The attack occurred on the anniversary of a previous horrendous attack by an international terrorist organization which is most likely the perpetrator of this latest attack. And whose leader had been found and killed by the USA.

    The slight to the religious group had been available in public forums for weeks before this attack.

    With these facts what are we, the citizens of the offended country, to believe?

    Other situations of note.

    Some time before this, the same government noted above released sensitive and previously classified information about a military operation which included names of personnel. The released information included means and other data which could be of use to the enemy which had been the focus of the operation.

    This same government released data of another secret and sensitive computer operation which exposed another country’s support of our country.

    Again a person assisting us in discovering a terrorist groups methods was exposed by this previously named government, subjecting the person to grave danger and stopping him from helping us in the future.

    What are we to believe about this government.  Does it have us, the citizens, best interest at heart or is it a danger to future security?

    Please, someone set me straight about this situation.


What do we want as citizens of the most prosperous and freest country the world has ever seen?

“We the People of the United States, in Order to
  • form a more perfect Union,
  • establish Justice,
  • insure domestic Tranquility,
  • provide for the common defence,
  • promote the general Welfare, and
  • secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

We keep arguing among ourselves on just how those stated principles can and must be effectuated. That is what all the fuss and feathers is in our present public discourse.

Since those words were accepted as our goals as a society we have killed well over 600,000 of our fellow citizens to perpetuate them.

Sometimes we have made laws or policies which are anathema to the precepts and concepts embodied in the achieving those goals.

Too form a more perfect union has required us to accommodate some ideas which had not been considered as societal goals at the time of its first writing. Probably most evident by the acceptance by some states of same sex marriage and the difficulty of other states to accept that as legal .

We establish justice in many ways, primarily through our legal system. It is a beacon of stability in this troubled world.

Because we citizens believe the society and its governance is basically fair and just, we have established a domestic tranquility which the rest of the world can but admire.

Our common defense is acknowledged to be the most formidable of any in the world and we only need argue too what level we intend to maintain it.

The general welfare has become a most contentious and pervasive point of political discussion. Much of the discourse is aimed at defining just how much of my brothers keeper I must be. And if the government can force me to support my brother.

We are constantly failing in securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Much of that liberty has been or is being whittled away in the name of communitarianism and security.

So what too do to perpetuate the goals as set forth in our Constitution?
  • First: Vote. Vote your conscience not your pocketbook or your associations.
  • Second: Make your voice heard in promoting your beliefs about good governance.
  • Third: Be aware of the attempts to slice away parts of your freedoms and speak loudly in your opposition to those attempts.

What does July Fourth mean to me?

For my formative years there were no extravagant celebrations or memories. Maybe a picnic at Chandler Park with my father’s fellow Lake Countians who were in Detroit to better there lives.

After joining the Air Force in 1952 I was trained as an Air Traffic Controller and went on to work shift work with rotating days off, so, I was either working on the 4th of July or it was just another regular day off between work-weeks.

Leaving the Air Force for the Federal Aviation Agency in 1960 merely changed the name of my employer and my mode of dress. Still the shift work and regular days off for the next 19 years until I secured a different position which gave me a “normal” work-week and holidays were extra days off.

I then began attending fireworks displays and making special plans for celebrating the 4th of July.

Since retiring from regular employment I have begun to be more contemplative and interested in the real background of why we commemorate this day and why we should use it as spring-board to a deeper understanding of freedom and liberty.
The decision, that to buy healthcare from a private, non-governmental business is required or the government can tax you by a sliding scale on the basis of your income is anathema to the ideas of freedom and liberty on which our government contract was established.
The individual right to be left alone from governmental interference in one's personal life has been abrogated in favor of the communitarian philosophy of our absolute dependence on the crowd.
The law has been changed in its form by judicial fiat from a mandated purchase with penalty for non-compliance to a tax imposable by constitutional Congressional action. Because the Internal Revenue Service is the collector of the penalty and monitor of the mandated purchase appertaining thereto the bureaucratic rèason d'etre is to call the penalty a tax. A specious argument based on proximity not fact.
How the leap from a mandate with penalty to a tax has been made is somewhat incomprehensible.
If the "tax" imposed for not buying healthcare is appropriate then ALL costs attendant to healthcare are a tax, even those costs pertaining to purchase in the "free" market relating to healthcare. If this "tax" is appropriate then all costs relating to individual healthcare are payable by the government, ME and YOU.
Only those persons who do not desire to purchase insurance are taxed. If you comply with the governments mandate as a pusillanimous servile peasant you are exempt from the tax.
How nice. What’s next?
This is in response to the column of a local gentleman I greatly respect treating to the subject of the flag.
                     His title "Is Nothing Sacred".

    He has expounded upon the need for laws to protect the flag of these United States from the depredations of those who would protest some part of our societies policies, laws or culture by doing something to a flag. That something might be as disgusting as defecating upon it or burning it in a public display.

    I am one who has defended the society and culture the flag represents and am proud of both my actions and the society created by those great minds of the 18th and 19th centuries who placed this, the most wonderful of societies within this land. I still would happily defend this society and style of government with the best I can offer. Which may not be much at this late date in my existence.

    The above being said, I must protest. His position that a symbol of our society is so important in its physical form that criminal sanctions must be used to keep it from desecration, is wrong. Why?

     The flag is a piece of cloth. The manifestation of the society embodied in the flag is that which the beholder imbues it. Therefor, the flag is an idea or ideas. But it still is merely a symbol. To follow the logic of imbuing the piece of cloth with "rights" one must then do the same for such things as the Great Seal or its representation.

    Each of us has a different perspective from which we develop our beliefs. This is not an exercise in relative ethics, but a  statement of obvious fact. Only one belief is constant within our society which makes us as great as we are: the right to dissent publicly without the law being used against us. Surely, all the caveats of "not crying fire in a crowded theater when no fire exists" or "your rights end where my nose begins" apply, but, as long as your rights aren't diminished when I dissent, then my right is immutable.

    I once read an opinion piece in the Washington Post, written by an officer, flyer of the U.S. Navy. He was a captive of the north Vietnamese during that late lamentable war. His captors, while trying to break his spirit, brought him news articles of the protesters and their public desecration of the U.S. flag to show him that even his countrymen didn't agree with the governments course and that he had no support for his actions.
He noted the facts presented but then said to his captors,(This is a paraphrase for I lost the clipping I had.) Yes, they do protest but that is the greatness of OUR system- they can, with yours they can't! He knew the real meaning of our flag.

    When we want to make the desecration of our flag a criminal act, we then are on the road to suppressing political speech, which takes us further and further away from that liberty of mind and spirit which created and sustains our system.

    There is nothing so stirring to my emotions as the parading of the flag or attending a retreat ceremony or merely remembering that wonderful poem:

                THE FLAG GOES BY
                         By Henry Holcomb Bennett

                    Hats off!
                Along the street there comes
                A blare of bugle, a ruffle of drums,
                A flash of color beneath the sky:
                  Hats off!
                               The flag is passing by!
                Blue and crimson and white it shines,
                Over the steel tipped, ordered lines.

                   Hats off!
                The colors before us fly;
                But more than the flag is passing by:
                Sea-fights and land-fights, grim and great,
                Fought to make and to save the State;
                Weary marches and sinking ships;
                Cheers of victory on dying lips;
                Days of plenty and years of peace;
                March of a strong land's swift increase;
                Equal justice, right and law,
                Stately honor and reverend awe;

                Sign of a nation great and strong
                To ward her people from foreign wrong;
                Pride and glory and honor-all
                Live in the colors to stand or fall.

                   Hats off!
                Along the street there comes
                A blare of bugles , a ruffle of drums;
                And loyal hearts are beating high:
                   Hats off!
                The flag is passing by!

copyright 1957 Helen Ferris Tibbets
Book: Favorite Poems old and new,Doubleday & Co.,Inc.

    Without the sentiments expressed in the poem and the dissent of those we think misguided, we are not that bastion of liberty which we must sustain for future generations. Both must be protected.

    Make no law which protects a symbol.
March 25, 2012

Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States

Dear Sir,

My subject is the mandate of purchase of health insurance and the legislation which accompanies it.

I write as one who is not deeply conversant with law. Who is not a graduate with college degree. Who is not to be with this society for but a few more years and hopeful only.

My one claim to a moment of fame is that I was born in the first full day of F.D. Roosevelt’s first term as President of the United States, purportedly because my staunchly Michigan Republican mother became distraught at his inauguration the day before.

Beginning in the 1930’s the Supreme court has made some decisions which I find destructive of our Constitutional republic.

1.     A farmer cannot grow wheat for his family on his own land in contravention of a bureaucrats edict.

2.     American citizens may be herded into concentration camps on the fact of their ethnicity.

3.     A city government may take land for beautification purposes and give it to  


4.     A city government may take land and give it to another to improve tax  


The previously stated laws were passed and affirmed because of fear and/or political philosophy, but, none in my opinion should have stood the test of constitutionality.

You are now faced with affirming or striking down a law which, with its concomitant regulations  yet to be written, will force a citizen to purchase a product in the commercial world or face a legal penalty. That penalty is today stated as a fine, but, if affirmed who knows what penalty might be assessed in the future. Is jail time unreasonable?

As noted the implementing regulations have not yet been promulgated.

I have read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, but, I must say I’ve failed to read all the Federalist Papers which I understand elucidate the real meaning of the Constitution.

I believe the human has not changed in all of recorded history and is still motivated by the same forces. Maslow has defined them in his hierarchy of needs. Religious and ethical writings have defined them for centuries.

My reading of the founding documents are as a simple man with simple wants and needs. Freedom and liberty mean something to me. I have seen other society’s attempts at government and I find that which I experienced in my 79 years in this country to be the best man can do for those two words. It appears to be slipping away.

Please do not allow the social contract to be changed and the governing authority be able, by law, to instruct my inheritors on every aspect of their life and punish them for disrespect of the government.

With great respect for law and the institution of the Supreme Court I remain ,

Your respectful servant,

James M. Blass

P.S. I note with some curiosity that all the Justices were born and raised in coastal states, which may sway their opinions of life and ethics to a more liberal (old sense of the word) philosophical position. The middle of the country is not represented at all. I find this a difficult proposition.



What we as individuals believe and think of any individual subject was usually formed during our childhood. This means the religious beliefs or lack thereof which was held by our families still has great affect on any of our present positions. Yes, life experience may have taught us to hold a countervailing position, but, still we will give those early teachings great weight in our final positions.

Why is this important today? Because we have forced our political leaders to explain their political positions relative to religious teachings and beliefs.

The men who are vying for election to our countries leadership have been formed by those selfsame positions described.

We have as President one who had various exposures during his childhood from no formal set of values to Roman Catholic, Muslim, agnostic and atheist. Which set of values predominates can only be surmised from his present professed Christianity and his actions relative to social and community issues.


 Barack Obama has said of Ann Dunham, "My mother was a Christian from Kansas."[14][15] Earlier he had said, "I was not raised in a religious household... My mother's own experiences... only reinforced this inherited skepticism. Her memories of the Christians who populated her youth were not fond ones... And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known."[16]

And his half-sister, Maya said, when asked if their mother was an atheist, "I wouldn't have called her an atheist," she said. "She was an agnostic. She basically gave us all the good books—the Bible, the Hindu Upanishads and the Buddhist scripture, the Tao Te Ching—and wanted us to recognize that everyone has something beautiful to contribute."[17]

And, from another source, "She touted herself as an atheist, and it was something she'd read about and could argue," said Maxine Box, who was Dunham's best friend."[18]

One of her friends said of her “She always felt that marriage as an institution was not particularly essential or important,”[8

The Republicans are: Two from Roman Catholic (one of whom is a recent convert).

Richard Santorum: I found no explicit paragraphs on religion in the Wikipedia monograph. I would surmise from all I’ve read and heard of his views that the published views of the Roman Catholic Church are his.

Newt Gingrich:

FROM WIKIEDIA: Gingrich was raised a Lutheran.[171] In graduate school he was a Southern Baptist.

He converted to Catholicism, … , on March 29, 2009.[172][173] He said "over the course of several years, I gradually became Catholic and then decided one day to accept the faith I had already come to embrace." The moment when he decided to officially become a Catholic was when he saw Pope Benedict XVI on his visit to the United States in 2008: "Catching a glimpse of Pope Benedict that day, I was struck by the happiness and peacefulness he exuded. The joyful and radiating presence of the Holy Father was a moment of confirmation about the many things I had been thinking and experiencing for several years."[174]

Gingrich has stated that he has developed a greater appreciation for the role of faith in public life following his conversion, and believes that the United States has become too secular. At a 2011 appearance in Columbus, Ohio, he said, "In America, religious belief is being challenged by a cultural elite trying to create a secularized America, in which God is driven out of public life."[

One from Mormonism, W. Mitt Romney:

FROM WIKIPEDIA: Romney has always tithed to the LDS Church, over time donating millions of dollars to it, including stock from Bain Capital holdings[10][78][79] (by 2010 and 2011, annual donations to the church from Romney and his wife were about $2 million a year).[76]

During his years in business, Romney also served in the local lay clergy.[10] Around 1977 he became a counselor to an area leader, an unusual post for someone of his age.[57]

He then served as ward bishop for Belmont, Massachusetts from 1981 to 1986, acting as the ecclesiastical and administrative head of his congregation.[80][81]

As such he formulated Sunday services and classes, using the Bible and the Book of Mormon to guide the congregation, and also did home teaching.[82]

He forged bonds with other religious institutions in the area when the Belmont Meeting House was hit by a fire of suspicious origins in 1984; the congregation rotated its meetings at other churches while theirs was rebuilt.[78][81]

From 1986 to 1994, Romney presided over the Boston Stake, which included more than a dozen congregations in eastern Massachusetts with a total of about 4,000 church members.[10][57][80][82][83] He organized a team to handle financial and management issues, sought to counter anti-Mormon sentiments, and tried to solve social problems among poor Southeast Asian converts.[78][81]

An unpaid position, Romney's local church leadership often took 30 or more hours a week of his time,[82] and he became known for his unflagging energy in the role.[57] Due to his responsibilities, he generally refrained from overnight business travel.[82]

Romney took a hands-on role in general matters, helping in maintenance efforts in- and outside homes, visiting the sick, and counseling troubled or burdened church members.[80][81][82] A number of local church members later credited Romney with turning their lives around or helping them through difficult times.[78][80][81][82]

Some others were rankled by his leadership style and desired a more consensus-based approach.[81] Romney tried to balance the conservative dogma insisted upon by the church leadership in Utah with the desire by some Massachusetts members to have a more flexible application of doctrine.[57]

He agreed with some modest requests from the liberal women's group Exponent II for changes in the way the church dealt with women, but clashed with women who he felt were departing too much from doctrine.[57] In particular, he counseled women not to have abortions except in the rare cases allowed by LDS doctrine, and also in accordance with doctrine encouraged prospective mothers to give up children for adoption when a successful marriage was not present.[57]

Romney later said that the years spent as pastor gave him direct exposure to people struggling in economically difficult circumstances different from his own affluent upbringing, and empathy for those going through problematic family situations.[84]

One from Lutheran-Episcopal-Baptist modified by a political libertarianism though still strongly based in Biblical Christianity and the youthful experience was in the Lutheran faith.

Rep. Ron Paul: FROM WIKIPEDIA:Paul has been married to Carol Wells since 1957.[254] They have five children, who were baptized Episcopalian:[7]  …  Raised a Lutheran, Paul later became a Baptist.[255]

The two Roman Catholics are fairly vehement in their defense of religious values being their basis of thought. Each has expressed in political speeches their belief that the present administration is “at war” with the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings.

The Mormon has not been very active in his espousing his faith other than stating his adherence to Christian teachings.

The Protestant has a general dislike of discussing religion in a political debate, however, when asked in a religious setting he espouses his belief in the Biblical moralism of the protestant Christian ethics.

I believe we must all make a judgement about which worldview is best and will advance our countries interests. This is individual to us all and I would not presume to advance my core beliefs on anyone except to remind them of the one rule promulgated by all reasonable cultures, “Do nothing to others which you would not do to yourself.”

February 2012



Here we are again.

A group of people decrying the actions of another in relation to religious belief. We must concentrate on that word , belief. It is the key to all our troubles when combining it with physical actions based on, belief.

We all have our prophets, Elisha, St. Paul, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Confucius, Joseph Smith, et al. They have defined how we associate with the world and what spiritual tenets are important. They have attempted to define our relationship with a Supreme Being, a Primary Force, and a reason for our existence. In these explanations they have used the wisdom of ages of human thought to show us the best way to relate to the other humans who abide with us. Thus have grown our laws and ethics.

I began this screed with the thought of how we can explain the killing of people in response to the burning of paper and ink. There is also the present controversy about the intrusion of government regulation in the belief system of our religions which can come under the same rubric.

Both problems occur when one people or person tries to enforce its belief into another’s system. Such as: My holy writings are supreme and any use of them other than for religious purposes is a crime. My belief in the provision of all types of medical practices are supreme over your concepts of what is the will of God. And if you disagree I will use force to make you comply with my belief.

This is the problem with belief. Mine and yours may not be the same and there is no way either can prove their’s is the best or only correct belief. Thereby we come to disparate religions and political thought. What is the solution?

The solution is to not attempt to coerce any belief system on one who will not have it. The fact that your book is a gift from God and should be protected as such does not give you the right to kill me because I don’t hold to your belief.  Your belief that we must provide a service to anyone does not mean that you can punish me for not wanting to participate in that service if it is against my previously well expressed belief system.

Belief is that mental decision which one has as a personal ethic and cannot be changed by anyone but the individual who holds to it. Force has never done anything in this regard except compromise liberty and cause untold misery.

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

March 1, 2012



Who would have thought that when a prime measurable metric is a major part of the evaluation of ones job performance that there would not be some fudging or cheating in that area?

Show me an area of measurable effectiveness in any work or profession and I will show you a percentage of fraud.
For example: Before computers measured everything in air traffic control there was always a fudge factor built into traffic counts of operations handled. I know, I was there and my hands still taste of fudge.

To find and report the facts is good. To assume that students outcomes as measurable only by test is a fair way to evaluate teachers, is foolish.

Whenever one sees a failure of any workforce the first place one should look is to the managers and that means second and third levels, not just the first-line.

January 2012

SECTION 1. The annual budget, appropriation and  tax laws shall be made law no later than sixty days before the beginning of the fiscal year.

 SECTION 2. Any other budget, appropriation or tax law which has a period in excess of one year shall be made law at least sixty days prior to its fiscal beginning, except in case of declared war under Article 1, Section 8 or natural disaster.

SECTION 3. Should the Congress and the Executive not complete those actions of Sections 1 and 2 above by the date specified in Sections 1 and 2, none in those elected offices shall be allowed to be elected to a Federal office for twelve years succeeding the end of the term of office in which they are serving.

SECTION 4. The beginning of the fiscal year may not be adjusted within ten months prior to its next beginning.

 SECTION 5. No changes in tax law may be made except in those years not evenly divided by a factor of two, nor be made retroactive.

 SECTION 6. The budget of the United States shall be in balance in each year the enumeration of the citizens is accomplished as required by Article I, Section 2 and modified by Amendment 14, Section 2, of the Constitution, beginning with the year 2010 or the enumeration after the ratification of this amendment, whichever is later.

 SECTION 7. Should the requirements of Section 6 not be complied with, all Federal elected officials incumbent at the time shall not be allowed to be elected to any Federal office for fifteen years after said non-compliance.


 To Whom it May Concern:

 I have been contemplating on this amendment for some years. It becomes highly important when a situation such as that which occurred in too many years to note comes to pass. I was a Federal employee for 37 years and my father was a Postal employee for some 40 years before that. We both experienced the lack of common sense of elected officials when it comes to passing the budget and appropriations to keep essential governmental functions in operation.

 I am against the line-item veto.

 I am against the constant use of a continuing resolution law.

 The possibility of balancing the budget in this era of single issue politics is problematical. However, the timeliness of the budget process itself must be enforced. The cost of governmental shutdowns and near-shutdowns is too much to bear.

 Of course I don't think for a minute that my suggestion doesn't need vetting and correction. I do hope it will stimulate thought and possibly help someone create a usable, passable document.

Forgive them for they know not what they do!
The bureaucrats now have control of the loans for higher education. Just how long do you think it will take before someone in the political hierarchy says to the bureaucrat, “Don’t give that loan to that family, they aren’t of the correct party, club or philosophy!” Yes sir, we sure can trust the government to do the right thing.
The bureaucrats now control the dispensing of health care and have all the medical information on everybody. No more doctor - patient confidentiality for they (the bureaucrats) must know everything about your condition to properly dispense, or not, money for your treatment. Could a bureaucrat actually deny coverage because of some quirk of their character rather than the rules? Yep, that government is sure a great provider. 
The bureaucrats now control what you can buy and from whom you can buy it and instruct you that you must buy it or face a penalty. Yes, they know best. You must accede to their greater intellect and the greater good of society. Happy, happy, I no longer need make decisions. It’s all done for me.
The bureaucrats now control a large portion of the financial industry and can now: Control the salaries in the industry; Have access to all your financial dealings with the controlled industry. How nice to have someone in control.
The bureaucrats control a major portion of our automobile manufacturing. They gave us a large benefit if we would buy their autos, but, it happened that our taxes will pay for that benefit. Oh, happy day, again we have a great largesse provided by the government.
The bureaucrats will control what fuel you can use, how you use and how much you can use when the energy bills are passed and signed. We will save the planet with this. Trust and obey for there’s no other way.
And who controls the bureaucrats? .
“Not me“, said the lying politician.
Oh, it must be the theoreticians who gave us all this wonderful stuff. 
Be happy, have another beer - oops can’t have that, your driving, if the bureaucrats will allow you to have a license, fuel, education, money, an automobile, eyeglasses, a truss, medication, ad infinitum. Something isn’t good for you among those. We know!

I’ve read many letters from believers in the religious experience. Many explain why I should do or not do something because the “Word of God” has rules about the subject. I don’t believe they are wrong in all cases, but, I would like to express an opinion which may be disturbing to some and thought provoking for others. 
First some caveats. I am not a learned man. I have not studied deeply the texts defining the faiths of the believers. I may sometimes use the wrong word or expression to describe a fact or belief. With that said, I have thought about these things for many years.
The believers I speak of are diverse and call their belief systems by many names, primarily Christian, Jewish and Muslim. Because of our local culture most all of the writers are of the Christian persuasion. All these believe there is but one God. Silly, but they kill or hate each other because of or instead of this similar belief, I can‘t figure out which. It seems to me to be a totally ridiculous response to a belief in the same one God who has inspired the writing of  books which are similar in content . Yes, this God has only stated his wants and requirements in certain Books which some humans have written down. According to them, under the inspiration of God. All the destruction is caused by individuals who purport to have the ability to discern what God wants either through direct contact or by interpreting the contents of these Books.
The perpetuators of these first two named beliefs are called by many names from Rabbi to Reverend to Pastor to Pope. These people receive instruction in the beliefs and are declared by their teachers to be ready to propagate the that belief. To be sure, there are some people who declare themselves to be one of the propagators without benefit of being instructed. Any of these named people, instructed or not,  may interpret the written word on which the beliefs are discerned in his own way.
Let us take the two groups called Christian and Jews and ask some questions. 
First we must explain that these two groups base their beliefs on a group of writings called the “Bible”. Though both groups use the older portion, i.e., the Old Testament or Torah, only the Christians use the New Testament which includes the “Gospel”. Though men had to actually write the books, they are considered the Word of God. It should be noted that there are or were many writings considered to be included in this canon, but, it had to be decided, amongst men, which were to be excluded. This choice was not just done once but many times over the history of these writings.
Why is it believed that the God of the universe would select a small insignificant tribe of desert nomads to be the ONLY humans to understand what he wanted in the way of obedience, societal behavior and worship? And why would He manifest Himself in the guise of a poor itinerant preacher of that tribe and say that He would sacrifice the human form He had acquired as expiation of the sins against Himself of all those who would believe that He in fact had done this? And why does this God require us to worship him? Is he of such low self-esteem that he requires his creations to acknowledge him, constantly? Isn’t this just all a human mind game trying to understand, with our logic, our place in the vast universe? 
How many humans existed when this God made this initial selection? Remember, the world had reached its first billion of living humans in about 1800 of the ‘Common Era’, or ‘Anno Domino’. Why didn’t he offer the same circumstances to ALL the humans then in existence? Are we to believe that God had offered this system to other tribes and ALL of them had turned him down? Nobody understood the significance of the offer except this one tribe?  Are there no people in existence since this initial choice who merit the same treatment?
This one tribe had the termerity and ego to suppose they were a “Chosen People”,  which is probably understandable considering their leaders spoke to God. Many other tribes and people seem to have accepted this because this tribe was a successful group. This selected tribe developed a system of human behavior and society which followed reasonable, successful basic rules that became codified in various forms. The morality of these rules is the basis of our western laws and morals. Other parts of the world  and its citizens developed  similar codes of societal behavior.
Now we find another group, the Muslims, followers of the faith of Islam. A group who believe that one man from the Arabian peninsula was privy to the revealed thoughts of Allah. He wrote them down some 500 hundred years after the God of the Christians sacrificed Himself and about 2500 years after the tribe mentioned above began their history with God and now a portion of the earths population believe that what this Arabian man wrote is the word of Allah (God ?). It is interesting that this man considered his families and religious beginnings to be descended from the above mentioned, “Chosen People”. Whether God and Allah are the same entity is in dispute.
Each generation of Muslims have perpetuators of the belief whom they call Imam. For some reason, any Imam can interpret the writings of the words of Allah in any fashion he desires. Apparently, anyone who desires may call himself an Imam, there being no central authority on who has the knowledge and faith to be an Imam. Sounds eerily similar – what? Oh, these Imams may declare a fact or action to be the will of Allah and even though that action is against the basic rules of the religion the perpetrator acting under cover of that declaration will be treated as a hero not a criminal, at least by Allah, according to the Imams.
Now some more questions.
What explains the remains of humans and their endeavors found in various parts of the world which obviously predate the stories this small tribe ascribes to itself and its history? Is all the found evidence false or falsified? Is the science which dates these artifacts a sham or totally mistaken?
How does one explain the fossil remains of obviously extinct forms of life? Did a creator make mistakes and those mistaken entities died because they could not compete for resources? How would an all knowing creator come to make a mistake? Does the previous existence of extinct forms of life fit into a great plan of this creator?
How does one explain the differences in the human form? Are they merely different tribes created by God/Allah or are they mutations of genetic matter? Science says the genetic differences are miniscule but because they affect the outer appearance they are perceived to be wide differentiations of the human form by many. If they are genetic mutations then that proves that part of the “Theory of Evolution’, does it not?
Many of the above questions presuppose one or another philosophical thought on the type of creator we are thinking of: One who creates and lets the accidents of nature and the free will of the created follow their own ways or a creator who plans all things and everything is predetermined. Even so, the other questions remain.
Is the story of creation just that? A story to explain the world and its people to a relatively naive people. It is known that various tribes over the worlds surface have various creation stories and because the human mind is not very different in any of its manifestations the stories can be similar or different depending on the mindset of the proponents and their life experience.  One who has never seen a mountain may believe the whole earth is very smooth while the mountaineer might believe there are no deserts or great plains where mountains cannot be seen.
It is requested that all who claim that the word of God as explicated in the Bible or Koran, or explained by any one man be viewed as merely one opinion among many and not be used as the controlling, absolute law of the world. To use the general rules and common sense of these books is a good idea for they are, in many cases, the distilled wisdom of many people and their experiences. But, to condemn, kill or force any person to do anything because of the interpretations of these books or the pronouncements of a perpetuator of their belief systems is to avoid the greatest truth shining from it all:         Do unto others as you would have them do unto you! 
And how do we explain the remaining people of the earth? In the Asiatic and African regions a population of about 3 to 4 billion people have many religious beliefs which do not comport with the three mentioned above which require a written book to define the relationship between God and human. What are they – condemned to have no contact with the God of creation? 
Because there is no answer to most of the questions posed why can’t we just admit that there probably was or is some force or being which started this universe and we don’t know what it is or was. Accept that as fact and apply the Golden Rule stated in the previous paragraph because it has proved to be the one constant of human relationships which produces the greatest good.

Health care is a right. That is the cry of many. 
Is it a right? What is a right?
By dictionary definition, right is, as a noun: what is just, lawful, morally good, proper, correct or that which a person has a just claim to; Power, privilege, etc. that belongs to a person by law, nature or tradition. 
That which is lawful, just, morally good, proper, correct, etc. cannot be something which another must administer. It must be what the individual can assert and claim.
The right to life is proper.
The right to liberty is inherent.
The right to pursue happiness can be asserted.
The right to speak politically is allowed.
The right to own a gun for personal protection is a guarantee.
And many more.
None of these require another to give of themselves for the individual to have that right.
A right that is claimed is something inherently belonging to the human. It attaches to the mere existence of the organism. Therefore no other must give the person that right, it just is. As soon as I must do something to produce your right it is no longer a right but an entitlement or allowance.
So, if no other person can give that right to one then it must be something which exists without other peoples effort. How can “Health CARE” be a right. Care implies an active application to that person by some other than the one who has the “right to care” ?  If the “CARE” is only applied by someone other than the one who has the “right” then what of that other persons “right” to deny to provide that “CARE”. What can the person who has the “right” do to insure that that “right” is exercised?
The fact that others, doctors, nurses, etc. must provide “health care” shows that no one has an implicit, natural “right to health care”. One cannot have a right to someone else’s product in a free society.
As long as your “right to health care” requires me to provide the “care” it is no longer a right. It becomes an entitlement GIVEN by society and forces me to provide for you. My right to refuse can only be overcome by coercion to insure your “right” is fulfilled. And what then becomes of my rights.
Healthcare is not a right. It may be the “right” thing to do, by a society, but, it is not an inherent right of the individual. If there are no facilities for healthcare provision then what does one do with their “right” to healthcare.
If all the healthcare workers decided to take the same month off for vacation; Where would the “right to health care” be? You guessed it. Your right would be your responsibility and the consequences would fall to you, not me.
If all the institutions and workers in the healthcare business said, “Pay me with your own funds and get whatever you can from the insurance industry, we don‘t truck with the insurance companies.“  Where would we be?
In 1800 A.D. (C.E.) there were an estimated one billion humans on the face of the earth. Now, two centuries later, there are about six and one-half billion and increasing exponentially. In 1800 there were no petroleum powered vehicles on or above the earth, no oil, gas or coal fired power plants producing electricity, no highways of macadam or concrete, no useable electric batteries and no nuclear power or bombs. Probably less than ½ of one percent (50,000,000) had more food, shelter, water and heat than required for existence.
As an example of the profligacy of the human one merely need look at the lands bounding the Mediterranean Sea. The forests have been cut down and desertification had begun on all its shores. There is still a lack of vegetation in the land surrounding that sea. This scenario is repeating itself around the world.
We will proceed as all biological organisms on earth. We will propagate and use the resources to keep our species alive until the resources will no longer sustain our numbers and then a catastrophe of viral, bacterial or mental origin will kill off most of us and we will begin again under slightly changed circumstances and proceed to the next debacle.
As long as we espouse freedom and liberty we are totally vulnerable to the scenario described. If we, collectively, decide to place ourselves under the rule of a leader or group of leaders who force us to conserve, we may last another few generations. But, the disastrous scenario will still play out.
Hurrah, for the Isaiah’s and Jeremiah’s of global warming. They prophecy the enormous ill effects of human profligacy. Terrible catastrophes are in store unless we change our ways. All probably true, but, who among us will stop our excessive use of resources? Who will, as a society, say, “We will.! We want others to follow us but we can’t force them”?
What will the 1.5 billion of China do? What will the 1 billion of India do? What will the 1 billion of Africa do? What will the 1 billion of South America do?  Even if the remaining 1.5 billion make every effort. The disastrous scenario will happen. Yes, I know, “The Tremendous Effect of the One”.
Sadly, due to the avarice and thoughtlessness of the many, in this case it will not happen. History has prophesied it. History has shown it. History will define it. The human has not changed in all of history. 
Pogo was right!
Have a nice day.

We have tried to be diplomatic. We have tried to be nice. We have extended our hand in peace and hoped for friendship. All have been smacked away by foul rhetoric and worse. 
We have tried to understand, but, have seen our trying to be thought as weakness. 
We are at the end of all these fair-minded, humanitarian impulses.
If all some people understand is strength, we must use what we have and terminate their grandstanding with a show of strength and continued physical pressure until they shut down their war-making, terroristic and piratical actions.
ONE: Never start a pre-emptive conflict or pre-emptive action. Always act upon an act not a belief.
TWO: State as our policy that any country which is the first to attack another by nuclear force will have its capital and military bases obliterated forthwith by our nuclear power. No excuses or mitigating circumstances. Expect immediate action.
THREE: Any state, town or village which allows, supports or encourages by action the building of a terrorist, anti-civilization group which kills, kidnaps or incarcerates anyone in the world will be destroyed forthwith by the most efficient means available short of nuclear force.
The Al-Queada and their ilk are the first to be suspect. The Somali pirates are the next. If the Barbary Pirates could be suppressed by a company of Marines, these groups can be suppressed by judicious use of a few cruise missiles and smart bombs. No need to send in our ground troops. 
What of the other countries and their possible dislike of our methods? Ask them for a better one. Which will work! 
What of the possibility of a general world war breaking out? Very unlikely if these positions are promulgated and adhered to in all cases. The self-interest of all thinking countries will dissuade them from entering into conflict with the knowledge that they will be destroyed in short order. 
Sounds draconian but, it might establish a Pax Americanus much as the strength and obdurate justice of Rome did 21 centuries ago. The human has not changed its response to strength in all its known history.
My God, you say. That returns us to the Middle Ages or worse. Yes, but, can you show me an alternative? The forces we are fighting today are from the Middle Ages and before. All they understand is force and power. No gentle giants these.
Stop asking our citizens to police the world and shed their blood and limbs on foreign soil for nothing.
If we must name this as a struggle against the attempt by some to assert their superiority over the rest of the world let us do so. 
Name it: - LEAVE US ALONE -