redblueamerica.com

This observation by Franklin D. Roosevelt comes to mind as various agencies of the federal government move in force against reported design defects in automobiles made by Toyota Motor Company.

When Abraham Lincoln, born 201 years ago today, delivered his immortal Gettysburg Address, he called for a “new birth of freedom.” He had issued the Emancipation Proclamation more than a year before, which gave a wartime justification that he knew would ultimately be a peacetime bounty: the end of slavery in America. This “new birth” entailed shedding the remnants of old world conditions in the new by removing the massive contradiction between a free, republican constitution and the bondage of millions of human beings.

Guest column by Robert F. Sasseen

Is affordable healthcare for all a question of individual rights, or a requirement of the common good? The public debate in the US seems to assume that it is both. It is not my purpose here to examine what reforms are necessary or wise, but to identify some of the issues of justice implicit in the debate.

Is There a Natural and Individual Right to Health Care?

In our easy-money world of low-interest loans, many draw the conclusion that we should be able to borrow money just because we want it. Whether it is conventional loans for the purchase of homes or automobiles, or credit cards for buying practically everything else, terms are easy and cheap–or so it appears.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, asked this question in a 1792 article in the National Gazette, a Republican newspaper critical of the ruling Federalist party. The question is always relevant.

Last week was truly remarkable. Republicans swept three state elections; then an Islamic extremist holding the position of an Army psychiatrist murdered 13 persons and wounded 31 others at Fort Hood, Texas; the House of Representatives defied the will of the American people by passing a comprehensive health insurance bill; and free people celebrated the 20th anniversary of the demise of the Berlin Wall back in 1989.

The western world has been warned with increasing frequency, most recently by Parliamentarian Geert Wilder of the Netherlands, that radical Islam is making such great strides that Europe will become "Eurabia" in a few decades and that the United States is not far behind.

Among the remarks by spokesmen for the Obama Administration in its war against Fox News Corporation was the observation by David Axelrod that Fox was not a news organization because it had a "perspective" on the news. That deserves analysis on more than one level.

First, there is the political angle. Obviously, Obama’s quarrel with Fox has everything to do with its "perspective." Unlike CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and NPR, Fox is not in the tank for the current occupant of the White House. Nothing like Chris Matthew’s "tingling sensation" up his leg excites Fox journalists.

In their public statements on health insurance reform, Democratic spokesmen have consistently dismissed those with objections to government health care as liars. In emails from the Democratic National Committee (which I have been receiving regularly ever since I asked a question) Republicans such as Reps. John Boehner of Ohio and Michelle Bachman of Minnesota and others have been singled out for this charge.

Many of us are still stunned that President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize even though he has no accomplishments to this credit beyond his major difference of opinion with his predecessor, if not practically every American president. He is determined to make amends for our nation’s sins by apologizing for them in speeches given abroad, as well as changing public policies to bring the nation in alignment with his thinking.