How about an individual firearm mandate?

There's much debate over the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate in the recently passed health care legislation. There shouldn't be, but there is. I believe the majority of Americans understand that the individual mandate, forcing every man, woman and child to purchase a government-prescribed health insurance policy essentially as a condition of their birth, violates the Constitution. In fact, the Declaration of Independence is quite clear: we are all "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of Happiness." The individual mandate automatically places constraints upon every citizen. There is no liberty in force. The federal government that was bound by the people has turned those shackles upon the governed.
One obvious argument posited by those favoring the mandate is that universal coverage only works when everyone is covered. It is therefore viewed as a benignly pragmatic solution to a general problem in regard to the general welfare clause of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to enact certain laws to provide for and promote, you guessed it, the general welfare of the people. In other words, the argument is that it works to the general well being of every citizen to mandate insurance coverage or levy fines. But this is a flawed argument based on too broad a premise, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. (Apologies to Mr. Spock) The history of this country celebrates the power and ingenuity of the individual, not the disordered weight of the collective. Individual decisions made freely unleash and unbind the individual from the impediments of an unwieldy, ponderous collective. Think of it this way -- a small knife does a much better job of opening the box your new 50 inch plasma TV came in than a chainsaw. Okay, not the best illustration, but it speaks to a better point. The individual, small as he or she may be, making individual decisions, is the basis for the monumental success of the American experiment, not some enormous, lumbering mass of a collective.
So if the insurance mandate is so vital to the general interest, it should follow that there are also some other instances in which a mandate would serve the general well being of the American people.
For example, perhaps it would serve the general interest to mandate that every American must buy a gun. It's a dangerous world out there. North Korea is ruled by a crazy man with nuclear weapons. Iran is ruled by some crazy clerics who want nuclear weapons. China is undoubtedly getting anxious to at some point get a return on their $7 trillion dollar loan to us. Is it that unreasonable to assume that, given the attacks of Pearl Harbor or September 11, there is not at least someone, somewhere in the world who has an axe to grind? Therefore, if every American citizen were armed, perhaps another terrorist attack could be thwarted and America would be safer. And what about domestic crime? Again, it’s a dangerous world. Perhaps if every American were mandated to own a gun to defend themselves, crime would be diminished. Perhaps if every American were required by law to own a gun it would provide for and promote the general welfare of the American people.
It's like those algebra problems that used to give me fits. If X equals Y, and Y equals Z, they X equals Z. If the federal government can mandate one thing, naturally it follows that they can mandate another, and then another, and then another. In the end, X equals American citizens as slaves to their government and a formerly representative republic now resembling a feudal fiefdom.
I kind of like the gun mandate idea. Good luck getting the Left to sign off on that one...

Better not get sick.

In a very sad ironic twist in the US House of Representatives, Democrats voting on a "health care" reform bill just killed America.  It was a vote of 219 to 212 to pull the plug on Freedom and Liberty.  Every Republican opposed, as well as 34 Democrats.
So tomorrow all of us will wake up in a different country.  We are no longer born free.  Thanks to the individual insurance mandate in the bill which just passed, all of us will be required to buy health insurance.  That's right, it's the birth penalty.  We are required to pay money to exist.  Call it the "Breath Tax." 
Tomorrow we all wake up subservient to Washington, slaves to the State.  Better not get sick...

Civil Disobedience

If the current health care legislation passes, perhaps the Obama Dictatorship and the ruling radical Left should prepare for the conservative Right to pick up the mantle of civil disobedience.
Long the intellectual property of the radical Left, the unfamiliar notion of protest may well become very familiar to conservatives, libertarians and independents who do not take kindly to being told what to do by an oppressive centralized government. In essence, the health care mandate is unconstitutional, and even more so, un-American. It defies the American ideal of individual choice.
Furthermore, unlike the Left, most Americans oppose the idea of federally funding abortion, which, despite the President's false claims, is part and parcel of the health care legislation. These are people who believe mankind has almost and nearly irrevocably damaged “Mother Earth.” These are people who have preached the gospel of fanatical environmentalism and calamitous overpopulation. That there are too many people using finite resources. These are people who have proposed population control via sex education in elementary schools at best, and forced sterilization at worst. Is it that much of a stretch to suggest that they would embrace the idea of killing your baby on the government's dime? But therein lies the problem. Therein lies the sick, twisted truth of the radical Left's atheistic humanist ideology. Life does have value, and that value is instilled by God when he gives life.
The crux of the issue is that health care is a good, a service, not a right. Rights are intangible. Rights are natural, or of nature. Therefore government providence cannot create nor provide rights. In fact, government of itself cannot provide anything. Not one thing. Everything government does is with someone else's money.
So when President Obama misleads, claiming the bill will not allow for federally funded abortion, he is lying. The reality is your tax money and mine will pay to abort helpless children. The federal mandate to buy insurance, or pay a fine, means your taxes and mine, your contribution to the operation of government and mine, will kill unborn children.
So perhaps in this new, Bizarro America in which citizens are utterly subservient to their government, average Americans, not just the fringe radical Left, will get used to the idea of civil disobedience. Perhaps millions of Americans will protest by not agreeing to the mandate. Perhaps millions will stop paying their taxes to stop the funding of abortions. Perhaps millions of Americans will stand up and say "Stop!"
How will the Leftists in charge react if they become the target of civil disobedience?

Is there such a thing as a good one-term President?

President Obama has stated that he would rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.  Is there such a thing as a good one-term president?
Last year the Chicago Bears signed potential franchise quarterback and supposed team savior Jay Cutler to much fanfare and great optimism and eventually even more criticism and greater disappointment as the team went on to an underwhelming 7-9 record and Cutler led the league in interceptions.
After trading away draft picks, incomprehensible personnel moves and questionable coaching decisions, Bears General Manager Jerry Angelo and Head Coach Lovie Smith are on the hot seat.  Conventional wisdom is they have a year to get it right. Make the playoffs next season or find new jobs.
But suppose that everything works out.  Suppose the sun shines everyday in Chicago and flowers bloom in the winter...
Suppose new offensive coordinator Mike Martz transforms the team from offensive pauper to powerhouse. Suppose Cutler performs as the Pro Bowl quarterback-of-the-future he was supposed to last year. Suppose the defense doesn't allow opposing offenses to carve them up like a Thanksgiving turkey.  Suppose the team makes the playoffs, or, perhaps, even returns to the Superbowl.  Which, then, is more likely?  That Angelo and Smith will be sent packing?  Or will there be much rejoicing among the formerly hostile fans and once again fawning media celebrating their brilliant job in turning the team around?  Contract extensions, perhaps?
So, again, is there such a thing as a good one-term President?  After all, a one-term President is a President who is not reelected.  The two most recent one-term Presidents, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, were both disappointments in that respect.  Carter's incompetence led to the Iran hostage crisis and economic stagflation.  Bush broke his promise not to raise taxes.
But what about President Obama?  Essentially what President Obama is saying is that he would rather achieve his wildly unpopular agenda and policy goals rather than win reelection.  That means he wants his healthcare reform, he wants his climate change legislation, he wants his immigration reform, he wants his financial reform.  It also means he understands his centralized authoritarian policies are disliked to such an extent that the American people will not want four more years of him in charge.  Yet he intends to push ahead with his agenda anyway despite the wishes of those who elected him.  It is obvious in his recent, even more accelerated and forceful push for his type of government run healthcare.
A one-term President doesn't get his contract extension.  A one-term President is told to take his playbook and take a hike so someone else can clean up his mess and return the team to glory.