#ThingsWeTrustMoreThanObama is trending on Twitter. Go there. It will lift your soul.
Politicos in Washington don’t care about process. To their mind, whatever it takes to achieve the goal is acceptable. To their mind, the only thing that matters is the political “win.”
To real Americans, average Americans, the process should and does matter. Our Republic, our Constitution, is what protects us from an abusive government. No matter how dumbed down and complacent too many of us have become, there is still something which stirs inside and says to us, “not good!” in response to Obama’s unconstitutional action.
There are three branches of government, designed to work in conflict with each other. The congress and the presidency, as well as the separate branches within congress, and the states and federal government are antagonistic by design. The framers felt that only through competing powers could the power of each individual branch be kept in check.
The legislative branch, the House in particular, is to represent the people. They are closest to the people, and most accountable. This is why they alone were given the power to appropriate funds.
When the president takes the functions of the legislative branch upon himself, where is our representation? When the president takes our tax dollars and uses them for purposes not appropriated by our congress, where is our representation?
Like it or not, pundits, the issue at hand is no different than that of King George the Third. Taxation without representation is what we are experiencing.
There is no place to escape to, so we must work within the system, and I hope and pray that our Supreme Court will involve itself and reinforce the limits of presidential power. If not, we have ceased to be citizens, and have returned to being subjects.
Should Americans be concerned about Ebola? Should we suspend visas from the hardest hit countries?
These are the questions we’re wrangling with as we face the first outbreak of Ebola in the US. The administration and his supporters in the Democrat party are attempting to portray the very question as foolish, and concerned Americans as “hysterical.” So let’s take a look at this from a rational risk assessment perspective.
Above is a standard risk assessment matrix, commonly used by businesses and organizations to assess risk. We have two attributes to assess our risk: severity, and probability, or likelihood. Clearly Ebola poses a catastrophic risk, not only because it “may cause death,” in fact a 50/50 chance of death on an individual level, but poses a systemic risk to society in many ways if a large outbreak were to occur. Last month, we could have postulated that Ebola was “unlikely” to occur in the United States as the President said, but since we have already had one case of Ebola come to the US and spread, we have to conclude that even if unlikely, it’s obviously possible, and move our probability to “seldom”. That puts us in the “high risk” category, right now, today.
It also demonstrates why, no matter how many times Democrats quote figures of the numbers flu deaths each year, it remains a low risk. The risk is “negligible,” even though it is “likely to occur in time.”
Now we need to look forward, which all reasonable and responsible people do. Is it more likely that the disease will grow and continue to spread, or is it more likely that it will be contained and subside?
On this, there is no question, the World Health Organization has been very clear. There is no containment of Ebola in sight. Right now it has an R-0 factor of slightly over 2, which means that every person who contracts the disease spreads it to two other people. Until that number is brought below 1, the disease will continue to spread. At close to 10,000 confirmed cases, the medical system has been overwhelmed. What happens at 100,000 cases, or as the in WHO’s worst case scenario, a million cases by January? It’s literally unfathomable. Does that make it more or less likely that the disease will spread outside of it’s current borders? And what does it do to our risk assessment matrix? It’s fair to propose that the chance of the Ebola infection entering the US and spreading would go from “seldom” to “quite likely to occur in time.” Which would mean we would move into the “extreme risk” category. Additional contributing risk factors would be the uncertainties over means of transmission, the difficulty of performing human trials on a disease so deadly, and the completely unprecedented nature of the current outbreak (currently 9,000 confirmed cases, the next largest outbreak was 425 cases, according to the CDC.)
It should be clear by using common risk assessment, that Ebola presents a “high risk” to our country. Our leaders should treat it as such, and take every possible precaution to mitigate that risk in every possible way. The stakes are too high not to.
Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor who voted for Obama, testifying before congress:
“It is an honor to speak with you, at what could be an historic moment. There’s a growing crisis in our system, a shifting of the balance of power, within the tri-partite system, in favor of a now dominant chief executive. While both congress and the courts have lost authority over the decades, it is this body, the congress, which has lost the most. We’re seeing the emergence of a different model of government, the model long ago rejected by the framers… the president’s pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming … when a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, it is precisely the danger the framers sought to avoid…”
“people misconstrue the separation of powers regularly, it is not there to protect the institutional rights of the branches, it is there to protect individual liberty, it was created by the framers to prevent any branch from aggregating enough power to be a danger to liberty. It is not about you, it is about the people that you represent.”
Ultimately what we’re debating here is something the framers were very much familiar with. Before we came together as a nation, we had history with our predecessors in England with King James who argued that he had a royal prerogative, as to how laws would be interpreted, how they would be executed. He insisted that he could use natural reason to change laws. That is precisely what our framers rejected”
“As much as I respect the President, the arguments he is making over presidential authority are extreme and they are devoid of the limiting principles that characterize our system.”