Sunday, November 8, 2009

Resist the Intolerable Act -- "By Any Means Necessary"

Dedicated Dad commented on my post "The Hand Grenade Within Pelosi's Intolerable Act." It is so good, I want to highlight it on its own.

Though I find much in the life, philosophy and words of Malcolm X with which I disagree, there is one phrase of which I am perhaps more fond than he:

By Any Means Necessary.

This great Republic is filled with men who - like me - will not submit to tyranny.

Though I have maintained medical insurance throughout my adult life - at great expense, especially during periods of unemployment - This I vow:
if this disgusting travesty is signed into law I will immediately and permanently drop my coverage.

Further, I will take any and all possible steps to avoid paying any taxes or penalties associated with this ridiculous abuse of power.

Let me be plain: I hereby announce my intention to do everything within my power to willfully violate the so-called "coverage mandate" - for no other reason than the fact that I am a free man and will not be subjugated by this or any other regime.

Let this statement serve as my declaration and confession of guilt - if I am without coverage it is due to a deliberate and willful act on my part.

Further, let this serve as a warning that I will resist any and all attempts to use physical force to compel my compliance (or punish my non-compliance) by any and all means which are or may come to my disposal.

By Any Means Necessary.

Let me be clear: I have always maintained health insurance and will continue to do so - but an out-of-control government's demand that I do is probably the only thing which could PREVENT me from doing so.

I am a citizen, not a subject.

I will not submit.

I will resist.

By Any Means Necessary.


Concerned American said...

DD and MBV: On your right flank.


Anonymous said...

I'll take the left.


John Paulding said...

The wife and I have talked about this at length and had pretty much come to the same conclusion. But here's the problem which has put me back to square 1:

Do you really think you're teaching them a lesson by not getting health insurance? If you don't get health insurance they're getting the luxury of you dying.

So you get two types of Americans: dead free men and an enlarged dependant class. They're inside our OODA loop here and we need a better solution than simply not buying insurance. This needs to be more about us winning and less about us feeling good about ourselves.

You may be able to stroke your ego and talk about how you're a free man, but is that worth putting your children in chains over?

I'm short on solutions at the moment, but am only suggesting that we put more thought into a solution rather than simply beating my chest to show the world I'm a free man. I've been guilty of it on more than a few occasions myself.

Anonymous said...

This letter needs to be mass-mailed to every single Senator.

Redleg said...

That was absolutely OUTSTANDING!!!

Anonymous said...

Jury Nullification will come in handy in warding off this form of tyranny....

Anonymous said...

"we need a better solution than simply not buying insurance"

Find some doctors who are threepers and will accept cash. Find some insurance executives that are threepers and offer them cash to design an honest major medical insurance policy. Find a thousand threepers and all of you buy into this honest policy.

Matt said...

I think there are only two ways this would be effective. One would be that millions of Americans take the same "By Any Means Necessary" stance. This is possible, but I still do not have enough faith in the fortitude of many of my brothers and sisters to follow that to it's logical end.
However, option two is that with those who do it, it creates, essentially, a network of potential gambits for the coming mistake from the government, which would draw enough attention to the cause.
I do not, in any way, desire war. However, know the enemy and know thyself, and you will win every battle (paraphrased from Sun Tzu). He who desires peace must prepare for war. (no idea who said it, but bears much truth)
I stand for freedom, by any means necessary.

chris horton said...

"With reasonable men I will reason, with humane men I will plead, with tyrants I will show no mercy." - Thomas Jefferson

Dedicated_Dad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Happy D said...

May I suggest instead a sabotage campaign of all fed medical systems.

Atlas Shrug said...

Folks - think about the acronym:
By Any Means Necessary -- BAMN

Rhymes with "damn" and sounds like a gunshot. I like that!

Just a nugget that might be useful as we out slogan the Evil ones.

Resist - BAMN!

(Or eight consecutive BAMN! sounds for Garand adherents)

Keep your powder dry,

Atlas Shrug

Anonymous said...

It was said long ago,,,but still stands the test today,,,\
"They tell us we are weak - unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week, or the next year?
Will it be when we are totally disarmed? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope,
until our enemies have bound us hand and foot?
We are not weak if we make proper use of the means which the God of nature has placed in our power. Millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty,
and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible.
Besides, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.
The battle is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.
Many cry 'Peace, peace' - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me,
Give me Liberty ... or give me death."

Anonymous said...

IF this passes through the Senate, and is signed by El Presidente, how long before the first legal & Constitutional challange comes to court?
And are there any lawyers (as opposed to shysters) who would take this up "pro bono"?

TJP said...

John Paulding said...
"Do you really think you're teaching them a lesson by not getting health insurance? If you don't get health insurance they're getting the luxury of you dying."

Speaking on my own behalf, the tax on this thing would sink me anyway, so I really don't care what they think. They don't actually think--that's the problem.

What do you mean by "dead free men"? And how does one pay for an enlarged dependent class? There is a certain base cost of living created by the invasion of numerous government restrictions. When people are pushed beneath it, this country will experience something like the lender's collapse, but a lot less mild.

Dedicated_Dad said...

I deleted my comment above because I couldn't stand to let a glaring mathematical error stand uncorrected. I said "$104/week" when I meant "$104/MONTH. I've changed nothing else in my post.

Well heck - if I wasn't on their list before, I sure as hell am now!

It's actually sort of liberating... ;o)

Enough is enough.

The fact is that Article 1/Section 8 lists the grand total of what the Federal government is allowed to do. The 10th Amendment - which was only added to be sure the slow-kids got the point - said "if it ain't on that list, you federal-types can't do it. All other powers belong to the states or the people - PERIOD."

I've looked. Nowhere can I find justification for their involvement in health-care at all, much LESS any right to force me to buy insurance at the point of a government gun.


One of the most insanely stupid facts of the bill they just passed is that it prohibits any ins. co. *AND* the so-called "government option" from banning "pre-existing conditions" -- therefore there's no longer any real down-side to not having it until you NEED it.

If you get in a horrific accident or come down with some expensive illness, well THEN you can go sign up and ... Bob's yer' Uncle!

Which is - in a nutshell - why the whole thing is... well... Nuts.

In order to reduce the cost of insurance for everyone, they need to widen the pool and bring in a lot of young, healthy folk to pay much more in premiums than they take out in benefits - hence the "individual mandate." But, like good ol' big-government geniuses they are, they fail the comprehension test about this most basic reality.

Don't have insurance? Pay 2.5% of your salary in a penalty "tax" -- $1250 a year (or $104/month) for a person making $50k. Since even young-folk can't buy insurance for less than 10x that amount, they ensure that even more of them will avoid buying it and take the "cheaper" road by paying the penalty.

The .gov keeps all the "penalty" cash but the insurers are the ones who have to eat all your bills when you sign up for insurance in the days AFTER you learn you need very expensive life-saving care.

All that said, the fact is that noone is dying TODAY for lack of health insurance. Our system treats everyone REGARDLESS of your ability to pay, so you never need worry about being denied care.

The bus-sized "loophole" in *THIS* insanity is...

Concerned American said...

What's very nice about 'Resist - BAMN' is that it addresses the issue raised by John Paulding above.

Refusing to obey illegitimate laws is only the first step.

The subsequent, and more important, steps come when Leviathan attempts to compel your submission.

Qi Ji Guang said...

On your right flank too.


Chris said...

"You may be able to stroke your ego and talk about how you're a free man, but is that worth putting your children in chains over?"

This bill puts my children in financial chains for most of their lives and probably their children as well.

Dedicated_Dad said...

Since my declaration has become so widespread, here's my thoughts on WHY I feel so strongly about this.

Mister said...

Interesting stance.

We are already mandated to have car insurance. If you own a business you need liability insurance. If you practice medicine you must carry malpractice insurance. It makes sense.

Why should my health bills be higher because people refuse to get insurance, then can't pay their health bills, and subsequently have the cost shifted over to those that do have insurance?

While it's romantic to think we exist in complete and total independence of each other, the reality is that health issues affect everyone.

Don't want to wear a helmet when you ride your motor bike? Fine. But you should be required to carry coverage for injury that results in you being in a long term care facility so that my health coverage and expenses are not affected when you go bankrupt and can't pay the hospital that has to cost shift over to me by raising fees for services.

It's all interconnected despite what you'd like to believe.

Dedicated_Dad said...

"Mister" is the perfect example of sheep who swallow the marxist talking points without conscious thought.

He says "We are already mandated to have car insurance."

Perhaps in your STATE, but (1) NOT by the Federal Government and (2) NOT by EVERY state. It's called "No fault" -- look it up. Surprisingly, states with no-fault laws have much lower insurance rates - and much fewer lawyers -- go figure...

If a STATE wants to run "universal health care" then there's no (US) Constitutional prohibition against their doing so. The powers of a state are (other than US Constitutional mandates) limited only by THEIR Constitutions.

If you don't like what your state is doing, if its government is out of control, you have the right to move to another state more to your liking.

Where can we go to escape the out of control FEDERAL Government?

THIS is why the Constitution matters.

As to the rest of your drivel, the ONLY reason these problems exist is because of idiotic Government mandates such as EMTALA.

Rather than allow people to suffer the natural consequences of their decisions, we instead force everyone else to pay for them.

Here's a question: Why should I not be allowed to buy a basic "catastrophic" policy, which normally never costs more than a couple of dollars a day?

Why doesn't the Federal government repeal its ban on selling insurance across state lines?

When you actually STUDY THE TRUTH, you'll see that a vast majority of the reasons for our ever-increasing health-care costs are a direct result of Unconstitutional Federal meddling -- which they (naturally) plan to fix by even more onerous and unconstitutional meddling.

Government is NOT the solution - GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.

If the Federal government would just GET OUT OF THE WAY, the states and The Market would solve every one of these problems in fairly short order.

Sadly, this is the one thing they'll never do.

May your chains rest lightly upon you - as for me, I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

Carl Bussjaeger said...

(Mike, if you don't mind, I'm going to pontificate a little. "Mister" hit a hot button. Danke.)

Mister: "We are already mandated to have car insurance."

Auto insurance isn't required where I live. And where it is, generally there's no felony prison sentence for merely not having it. Usually penalties only apply when you cause an accident and can't meet the incurred financial obligation.

If you can show where my lack of health insurance over the past 18 years (since I got out of USAF) cost you anything, I'll send you a check. I try to stay healthy, treat myself to the extent I can, and pay my own bills when someone else's expertise is needed (very rarely, it turns out, when you realize that going to the ER for a case of winter sniffles is coming out of your own pocket). Truthfully, I'd prefer to have insurance, but I can't afford it right now, and I am too principled to steal the money, especially via government proxy. Of course, for those who lack principles...

Mister: "the reality is that health issues affect everyone."

Only because people who sound like you demand control over everyone's lives. Don't offer the irresponsible uninsured free care and then complain that it's coming out of your pocket. Stop stealing taxpayers' money to hand out unconstitutional "freebies".

A huge part of the problem is that a couple of generations have been taught that privilege=rights=entitlement. In fact, real rights (i.e.- "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...") are not entitlements, but one side of a coin inherent in sapient beings (the religiously inclined often explain these as characteristics placed by a Creator that distinguish us from animals lacking the intelligence to recognize and act on rights/responsibilities). You have a right to life. The flip side is that you also have a responsibility to protect your life, whether it be by providing for your own self defense (instead of relying on government police who aren' there) or providing for your own healthcare (instead of demanding everyone else do it for you). And, just as you are the only person who can decide for you how much gun you need for defense, only you can decide for you how much health care you need.

But if you insist on this, I suggest that you personally got to the doors of the self-reliant, responsible, people who aren't going to go along with your medically-rationalized police state to take them into custody yourself. Be brave, and do the dirty work yourself; don't hide and send goons out to do it for your.

Anonymous said...

Lots of folks refuse to even own a car because of the mandatory rules you mention. This attack against our freedom is quite different in that we would not have the option to not drive or own a car. We would be considered felons. Get it now?

The bike and helmet example is erroneous too. Health insurance is not a right. I have the right NOT to have insurance at all and I don't. I have the right to not let people tell me to wear a seatbelt or helmet and I don't. I get hurt or die, so what?? That's my problem. Families dealt with injury, illness and death since the beginning of time. But healthnazis don't like that because they can't control your every bowel movement. Worse than that they will help you kill yourself rather than cover your cancer treatments anyway. That is a sad fact.

I pay as I go and am way ahead of the game even with a family of four. No matter what we ain't getting out of this alive. Better to be free while you live.

Chris said...

"We are already mandated to have car insurance."

Not if you don't own a car or if you do, you never drive it on public roads. Further you are only required in most cases to hold insurance to cover your damage to the OTHER person or vehicle.

"If you own a business you need liability insurance."

You might need it but it isn't federally mandated under the threat of criminal penalty. You might get your ass sued to oblivion if you choose not to have it, but that is your choice.

"If you practice medicine you must carry malpractice insurance."

Wrong again. My uncle does not carry any on his practice because he cannot afford the costs. Instead all of his property is in his wife's name. There is no requirement to carry the insurance and damn sure no criminal penalties for refusing it.

"It makes sense."

It might, if you believe that the government is the proper entity to enforce things like this at gun point. By making criminal penalties for refusing, they are using their police powers to intimidate the populace into compliance. You can bet your ass that the people that show up at doors to enforce this newly created crime will be carrying guns.

Mister said...

"As to the rest of your drivel, the ONLY reason these problems exist is because of idiotic Government mandates such as EMTALA.

Rather than allow people to suffer the natural consequences of their decisions, we instead force everyone else to pay for them."

Not everyone lands in the ER because of their decisions. In fact, many of them end up there because of the decisions of others; like the drunk who just ran a red light and t-boned a mini van with a family in it.

Should that family not have insurance, you would suggest the ambulance leave them on the side of the road to die?

The government may have enacted EMTALA but it is an extension of our societies values that no one should be denied emergency care.

You apparently believe otherwise, which is your opinion, but it is shared with an infinitesimally small portion of the universe and will never become a reality.

nicolas said...

I would like to caution anyone saying "by any means necessary." The sentiment, I love. The target of our disdain, I equally loathe. But I am not willing to, in the words of 1984, "throw acid in the face of an innocent child" to further my cause.

If we do not keep the moral high ground, it is all for naught.