An interesting analysis and something to think about.
Perhaps The Problem Is Identified…
This is very interesting! I never thought about it this way.
The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers’ Party.
- Barack Obama is a lawyer.
- Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
- Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.
- Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
- John Edwards is a lawyer.
- Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.
- Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).
- Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.
- Harry Reid is a lawyer.
- Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.
- President Bush is a businessman.
- Vice President Cheney is a businessman.
- Newt Gingrich was a history professor.
- Tom Delay was an exterminator.
- Dick Armey was an economist.
- House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.
- The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
- Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976.
The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers.
Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or those who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.
The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party, grow.
Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers.
Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people.
Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation.
When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming.
Some Americans become “adverse parties” of our very government.
We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit.
We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives.
America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked.
When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big.
When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great.
When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.
We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change or real hope in America
Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789.
Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders.
Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business.
Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work.
Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.
The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers!
Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as “spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you” and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits.
This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat (Lawyers) Party.
When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to the Democrat (Lawyers) Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!
What would a lawyers’s legislation look like? Maybe like this ...
The House health care bill unveiled Thursday clocks in at 1,990 pages and about 400,000 words. In contrast, the Jewish Torah has about 80,000 words. With an estimated 10-year Federal cost (which means the money comes out of our pockets in the form of taxes) of $894 billion, that comes out to about $2.24 million per word. Of course we know Congress always estimates things conservatively…cough, cough… so you might want to add a couple of hundred thousand per word just to be safe. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the actual adjusted cost at closer to $1.055 Trillion dollars (that’s $1,055,000,000,000.00), though everyone knows they’re just a bunch of party-poopers.
Here is a brief example of its content:
“(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II)”.
Translation - The section deals with “incorporating productivity improvements into market basket updates that do not already incorporate such improvements,” if that helps.
If you can understand what any of that means, please call your Senator and Representative and explain it to them; the honest ones admit that they don’t understand much, if any, of most bills coming out of this Congress.
Reality Check! Rep. Joe Barton, a Texan, said “the bill is about four reams of paper that add up to the American public getting reamed.” Not a nice description, but then it's not a very nice bill, either.
If this bothers you at all, copy it and share it. Or point them to this blog and let them decide for themselves if we've found the problem.
