Michael Jackson and Sen. Ted Kennedy
Sep 04, 2009
Many of you probably noticed the fact that Senator Ted Kenned died on August 25, two months after Michael Jackson died (June 25). In the old revelation, "July is like September," its corollary is that June is like August. This year the correlations began on August 25. These correlations will probably continue at least until October 3, perhaps later.
Michael Jackson represented Pan, the god of music. Senator Kennedy represented the political side of Pan.
Because of the autopsy, Michael Jackson could not be buried until last night, Sept. 3, but originally they had wanted to hold his funeral on August 29, which was Michael's birthday. Instead, Senator Kennedy was buried then. So the interconnection between the two men is striking.
Kennedy, of course, had been carrying around the Universal Health Care bill for many years and exchanged his endorsement for a commitment to push this bill through Congress. News reports say that this is why he endorsed Obama in last year's election rather than Mrs. Clinton.
The problem with many bills like this one is NOT that it would provide health care for those who cannot afford it, but rather that it gives the government the power to control WHO gets the health care. It is said to promote "universal" health care, but its universality is conditional. It will be provided for all those who conform to the government regulations that come with it.
For example, there are millions of people who prefer alternative health care. They believe in health, rather than in "medicine." All of these will be expected to help pay for all the medicine/drugs through their taxes, but it is not likely that their alternative methods will be paid for by the government. In other words, alternative health care practitioners and patients will find that they are saddled with paying their own bills, as well as for the drugs prescribed to others.
That is not "universal" health care.
This is not so different from the educational program. Many people prefer to home school, or perhaps they send their children to a private school. They want their children to receive an education that does not deny the existence of God and that does not promote homosexuality and other forms of immoral behavior that teachers are forced to teach these days. Does the government pay for this alternate education? Of course not. The universal right to education does not apply to anyone who steps out of line from that which the federal government wishes to promote. So people have to pay for their own alternate education, as well as paying taxes for the mainstream, immoral education of all others.
Each time the government is empowered in another area, they discriminate against the minority views of all who disagree. This erodes freedom. Freedom is not the right to do the right thing. Freedom is the right to be wrong or to do stupid things. When the government determines what is right and wrong and then forces its view upon all others, it is freedom only for those who agree with the government policy.
Years ago, President Nixon started a new program to help all the states by giving them federal money. He called it "revenue sharing." Sounds great, doesn't it? For every dollar the government took in taxes, it might give back 30 cents to the states. Why not just lower the tax rate by 30% and save all those administrative costs? Because that would defeat the whole purpose of "revenue sharing." Its purpose was to give more power to the federal government. The money they gave to the states was conditional upon the states conforming to federal policies.
For example, the federal government gives money to the states for various highway projects or for building bridges. But they are quick to withhold that money if the states do not pass seat belt laws. Back in the late 1970's, during the first oil embargo, the federal government insisted that all the states lower their speed limits to 55 mph. They could not FORCE the states to comply, but they could--and did--threaten to withhold their share of "revenue sharing" if any state refused to comply with the speed limit policy.
Thus, the people had to pay the full tax to the federal government, so that the feds could blackmail the states into submission by threatening to withhold the "revenue sharing." This is how the government gains more power, and we the people lose more freedom to decide our own course.
The current "Universal" Health Care bill is just another area in which the federal government desires to gain more power over the people. The pharmaceutical companies are pushing it because they know it will put many alternative health care practitioners out of business. It's purely a matter of destroying the competition and increasing one's own sales of drugs and vaccines. It sounds good to all who want to go the allopathic route, but can't afford it. It destroys the freedom to use an alternative route, because to do so will NOT be paid for by the government.
It's the old problem that Peter refers to in the New Testament. Promising them freedom, they bring them into bondage. Every new benefit is used as bait in order to hook more people and put them into the frying pan.
Or, to put it in religious terms, the Pied Piper attracts children with his music, but leads them into "the gates of hell." Read the story. It is a modern allegory. The ancient Greeks knew this, but they worshipped Pan anyway.
Dr. Stephen Jones