Originally published January 20 2015
Jonathan Emord and Robert Scott Bell: Obamacare court decision
by Natural News Editors
(NaturalNews) Jonathan Emord joins RSB to rekindle the sacred fire of liberty with breaking news on a major court decision that could cripple Obamacare. (Originally aired on October 5, 2014 on the TheRobertScottBellShow)
Robert Scott Bell: What? It's so exciting! The FDA Dragon Slayer joins the family of The Robert Scott Bell Show officially, and we've got an opening like you have never heard, that courtesy Super Don, reaching into the heavens for a voice you haven't heard in a while, and that's going to bring on Jonathan Emord. We're going to talk about Obamacare, the concept of the Sacred Fire of Liberty; how to rekindle it, is there a possibility we can restore constitutionally-limited government? We'll let you know, but in the mean time, the power to heal is still yours, yes, yours.
Don LaFontaine: In a world where freedom is threatened, where individual rights are eroding, one man stands poised to counteract the rise of tyranny by rekindling the Sacred Fire of Liberty. That man is Jonathan Emord.
The Robert Scott Bell Show: Liberty was the patriotic purpose of our written constitution. Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government. Give me liberty or give me death!
Don LaFontaine: Ladies and gentlemen, here he is, the FDA Dragon Slayer, Jonathan Emord.
Robert Scott Bell: Oh, my gosh, Jonathan, you're here.
Jonathan Emord: I'm here. I'm here, Robert, in the flesh.
Robert Scott Bell: I'm so glad you're my friend, after hearing that. If I was the FDA, I'd be running for cover.
Jonathan Emord: Well, I was even intimidated by that introduction, Robert; it's about me.
Robert Scott Bell: I'm thinking, "Super Don, you've outdone yourself with that." Everybody, we're welcoming the FDA Dragon Slayer, our good friend, he's been on many years over the years and had his own show on GCN and, when we were together at the Sacred Fire of Liberty, realized the important work that Jonathan is doing is not getting less important, nor is it slowing down, and I know what it takes to put on a show, I've been doing this since 1999. Jonathan, how are you going to get back into your show after this Sacred Fire of Liberty? And we were just chatting while we were in the pool with the kids, and it's amazing how this evolves.
Jonathan Emord: Well, Robert, there's no one who does radio better than you do, my friend, and so it's a real honor to be part of your show. And the fact of the matter is that, with my litigation schedule, without your help, I don't think I could continue to do this, but you created the bridge, and so we'll remain on the air.
Robert Scott Bell: Yeah, my feeling is your voice is so very important, not only as my friend -- I just love to hang out with you and talk with you for days, we'd never get tired or bored -- but the reality is out there in the larger world through broadcast medium and we've got a global audience, and those that love liberty around the world really dig this and, of course, will appreciate so much if they don't know you yet, the things that you do and, of course, our family here at GCN now expanding, of course, through this show, through NaturalNewsRadio.com. Mike Adams, who you also gave a nice award to at the Sacred Fire of Liberty Gala, which was amazing, and I think it's just the perfect connection and I'm so glad that we could serve as that extension. I feel like you're part of the family.
Jonathan Emord: Well, it's great to be here and it's also wonderful to be able to give you a Washington connection to get inside the belly of the beast and to wreak havoc there. So, we'll be able to expose a lot of corruption together, and I'll bring to you a number of things that are going on here that, really, it's so overwhelming, the amount of corruption, the amount of unlawful activity in the nation's capital. We've reached a zenith of corruption; there's really no more corrupt regime in American history than exists right now in Washington, and it's pervasive; it infects all the administrative agencies, it infects the entire Executive Branch, of course -- that's where it originates -- and it's also through Congress. So, we have no part of the government, actually, with the exception of the Judiciary that is largely free of corruption. And the sad thing about the Judiciary is that, by and large, it has not fulfilled its roll of keeping a check on the abuses and striking down actions that are abusive, violation of the law, or intent of Congress underlying law, and when it comes to the media, but for a few programs, this one included, there really isn't an effective media check on these government abuses. You'll see modest or superficial coverage of some of these scandals, but nothing in depth and nothing that exposes those who are ultimately responsible for the wrongdoing.
Robert Scott Bell: Yeah, and when you talked about the Judiciary, Jonathan, they've served, in some ways, much like a protector of the executive overreach in many ways, particularly when it comes to the freedom to heal, the freedom to choose supplements, freedom to know about them as well. And even in Obamacare, the protection of something that became known as Obamacare, and we've seen some court rulings come down by the Federal Judiciary to say, "Well, you're right about this thing called the subsidy," right? State exchange subsidies. Well, the states failed in the exchanges, or just outright didn't want to do it, and suddenly, the executive branch just re-wrote, without writing it, and said, "Well, we meant the Federal, the Congress really meant the Federal." And they went to court and the courts say, "Well, we know that the language isn't in there to support subsidies when the Federal Exchange has to take over where no state has stepped up," and yet if we rule in that way, it would be a disaster. And so, they haven't, except there's a ruling out of Oklahoma I just mentioned last week, and I sent it to you -- you might have already been aware of it -- that may be another step in reversing this thing, inevitably, but I know it's going to go to appeal, but maybe you can let everybody know about what's up.
Jonathan Emord: Well, you know, since the 1930s, the Federal Government has engaged in a massive expansion, and since the 1950s and '60s, the administrative state has grown by leaps and bounds, and the courts, you've mentioned at the start of what you said, have largely condoned that practice by adopting standards that are so liberal in their allowance of the growth of the administrative state that the administrative state has become the United States of America. Our nation is ruled by a bureaucratic oligarchy, not by a limited Federal Republic as the constitution prescribes. Instead, it is a government that's alien to what our founding fathers knew and thought should be our government. And when it comes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the initial decision, written by Chief Justice Roberts, was another disaster in that it condoned a vast expansion of Federal power to dictate for the first time in American history what individual consumers may choose to buy in the free market, forcing them to purchase health insurance against their will. But when it comes to these latter decisions, which are trying to pick apart elements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we find, in this case, a huge overreach by the Obama Administration in that, under the Act, only in instances where a state participates in the exchanges are the Federal subsidies, or tax credits, through the IRS, supposed to be available to individuals in those exchanges. But what they did through an IRS rule, without the benefit of any statutory support, indeed contrary to the statutory language, the IRS regulation extended the tax credits to anyone enrolled, even in states where the states did not participate, and Oklahoma was one of these states that didn't participate. Well, in a similar decision to this Oklahoma decision, but at a higher, Federal level, in Halbig v. Burwell, the D.C. circuit held that the IRS rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was contrary to law, contrary to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and was arbitrary and capricious.
And, in another decision, the fourth circuit held the opposite in a really tortured type of decision where they rationalized away the plain statutory conflict. But in this decision, in Oklahoma v. Burwell, Judge Ronald White, in the eastern district of Oklahoma, followed the D.C. circuit's decision in Halbig and again held that, no, it's clear based on the language, that the statute does not allow the Federal Government to compel states to involuntarily participate when they say they don't want to participate. This is consistent with an earlier Supreme Court decision in 1997 called Prince v. United States, where the court held that Congress cannot compel states to implement Federal regulatory programs. Under our system of Federalism, the states can refuse to be a party to implementation of a Federal regulatory program, and this IRS rule forces the states, even when they said they don't want to participate, to participate. So, it violates this basic constitutional protection for Federalism as well. And so, it's a good decision, and, of course, ultimately, it's going to be decided by the Supreme Court; we'll find out what direction they want to take on this. But if they go the direction of allowing the Federal Government to proceed without any statutory basis, even in direct violation of the statute that exists, then the rule of law is dead.
Robert Scott Bell: It's gone. It becomes more obvious, perhaps, to more people. We've been acknowledging this for many years and you've been in that so-called belly, beastly belly, fighting to limit this and yet, the language, even of Congress, as bad off as they've been, they didn't include this provision that would allow for a Federal exchange to include this so-called subsidy -- IRS rewrote the rule. But is this a violation, I'm going to simple language because we've got a lay audience out there as well, this concept of separation of powers. The IRS is part of the Executive Branch, I believe, in this way, and they just rewrote the rules of Congress even though Congress never said that the Feds could participate. It's so confusing, is my point; I'm trying to boil it down to something simple for the folks to understand.
Jonathan Emord: Well, that's right. It's a power grab by the Obama Administration through the IRS. The IRS is an Executive Branch agency, it is a lackey for President Obama in the area of tax law it controls, it's supposed to be independent and autonomous, but in point of fact, as we see with this whole scandal with the non-profits and with the tax-exempt organization division of the IRS and how they were fulfilling political ambitions of the President by going after conservative rivals, we see that, in point of fact, wherever the President gets to appoint a person to be a head of an agency, and that agency is a dictatorship, like it is at the FDA where there's only one person appointed by the President who rules absolutely, and the same is true at the IRS with the IRS director, there really is one call that need be made from the President or from his top people to that director, and then off you go; the policy is set. And in this case, it's just a straight power grab. They realize that they would have a disaster on their hands with so many states not participating if they couldn't cause those people who are in the exchanges, through Federal exchanges in those states, to receive the same subsidies as people in other states. So, in order to keep propping up this already disastrously broken system, they just leapfrogged past the statute, actually violating it, and said, "Alright, let's make it happen." Well, this year, an IRS rule will force those states to participate under threat of penalty, and we will get those subsidies to those people and that's what they did; they just muscled it through.
Robert Scott Bell: Did they really, Jonathan, do you think they realized, and we're almost on our first break, here, but do you think they realized that, without this subsidy coming through the Federal Exchange, since, really, the states have not taken this up, that inevitably, Obamacare would fail because no one could afford to participate?
Jonathan Emord: Sure.
Robert Scott Bell: That's the question I'll ask. Jonathan, when we come back, we'll talk about that and a whole host of other things. Jonathan Emord is now here with us on The Robert Scott Bell Show. We'll tell you more about where that's going. Of course, his latest articles always there at News With Views; we'll see if we can get them published as well at RobertScottBell.com. We do have the link; in fact, you can watch the George Washington Address from the Sacred Fire of Liberty -- incredible. We'll be back.
Alright, brand new to The Robert Scott Bell Show, Jonathan Emord part of the family now, and he's going to be here regularly. We're going to talk details about that out to the world, but just so you know, we've opened up today, and just talking about some of the latest going on and we opened with Jonathan, here, on an Obamacare ruling from a Federal court in Oklahoma. I just wanted to get the ramifications of a ruling. I know they've still got to appeal; this will probably go to Supreme Court. They're saying the Federal exchanges are not inclusive within the subsidy language that Congress had originally written for state exchanges. But my sense of the desperation on this, to not have this go all the way up and succeed, is that they realize that the law cannot be maintained unless how many people, what percentage, is subsidized? This could be the death knell for Obamacare, could it not?
Jonathan Emord: Well, it certainly could significantly hamper it, but as you see with the many heads of the Obama Administration constantly producing a new animal one way or another, they'll find some way to buttress this system one way or another. But this will certainly cause a significant problem for them, because a good number of states have refused to participate, and those states are watching eagerly how this turns out, and if this turns out in favor of the Halbig decision by the D.C. circuit, or this decision, Oklahoma v. Burwell, by Judge White in the eastern district of Oklahoma, this will really wreak havoc for them with their system. The finances of it are already botched, and it's not capable of sustaining itself, it really isn't. And, as a result, they have to heavily rely on these subsidies. If they can't rely on the subsidies, what are they going to do? They'll have to coerce and cajole the insurance companies to lower premium rates for select individuals, which will make it unaffordable for the insurance companies.
Right now, it's difficult enough for them to sustain it even though they were promised monopoly protection, they were promised that this system would be a guaranteed shoe-in for them to make vast sums of money over 50 million Americans who would suddenly pour into the system. But that's not working out, and the people who're coming in are sick, and the young people are still not coming into this thing, so the people they look to to finance it, not take out money for payment for medical services, are still, by and large, not coming into the system. Why should they? Why should they pay that amount of money that time of their lives when they can depend upon going into the hospital anyway in an emergency situation that's covered anyway? So, there's no incentive for them, and even a tax penalty is insufficient, and the court held it not to be a penalty, and instead to be an optional payment. So, even though it's written into the law as a penalty, it cannot be treated as such by the government without, again, violating the law. They may do that as they go along, and they may feel compelled to do that, but none of this is happening with any passage of any law by Congress; it's all by fiat, by direct intervention by the executive beyond the scope of the powers of the executive invading the province of legislature. And that's the most egregious, long-lasting adverse presidential effect, is that again and again, this president, without any authority from Congress, creates law, changes existing law, or refuses to enforce existing law, and just does it his own way, as if he's an emperor.
Robert Scott Bell: Right. So, the only way that Obamacare survives is a strengthening of a preexisting police state, if we will, a medical police state; maybe it's not traditional in the same way you've looked in the history of police states, but a medical police state is a police state nonetheless because this is all through force.
Jonathan Emord: It's all through force. Look at the non-participation by physicians in this whole thing: 70 percent of physicians in California refuse to participate in Obamacare. That's absolutely remarkable. The most liberal state in the Union, and 70 percent of the physicians are saying, "I'm not going to do this, I can't afford to do this, I'm not going to be subjected to these restraints." And it is destined to fail one way or another. Either we're going to see a huge shortage in physicians who are willing to be a part of this thing so that those who have insurance under it won't be able to get covered. You know, 13 of the top hospitals in the United States will not participate in this, will not take patients who are insured through an exchange in Obamacare. It's destined to fail; it's just a question of how, where do we put everybody? We have mass mediocre medicine where people, the majority is given substandard care in order for them to say that we have some system operating. It doesn't work. Why are we spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do that?
Robert Scott Bell: And Jonathan, you know what's destined to succeed? The Sacred Fire of Liberty. It's rekindled with you every time we're together, my friend, and we're going to continue this discussion. If you have a question or comment, 866-939-BELL, 866-939-2355. Links are up in the show notes at RobertScottBell.com -- also, links out right to Jonathan Emord at Emord.com. Check it out. We'll be right back.
Barry Goldwater: I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Robert Scott Bell: One of my favorite quotes, and Jonathan's as well. I talk about the way they take the language and use it against you if you're an extremist for the cause of liberty; they like to say you're something akin to a terrorist, which is extraordinary. But, again, at the dawn of this American Republic, our founders and ultimately framers were considered terrorists to the crown of England, and if you don't know history, again, you're in danger of succumbing to some things like tyranny. And, of course, Jonathan Emord is with us now, and will be with us each and every week. We're working on some things behind the scenes to make official announcements, as well. Talking about that, his book, The Rise of Tyranny, and many others, we have linked up. He writes for News With Views, as well, and that's also linked up, but I also want to say that the video we have of George Washington's speech -- George Washington delivered an extraordinary, the guy that actually, officially plays him on that level -- Jonathan, still, I'm amazed. My son's class, he's got a middle school group with the Montessori program, and they're actually studying that speech in his class now because of what he did.
Jonathan Emord: Tremendous. Dean Malissa is a great actor, he's a great epic period actor, and plays Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette, and he is so superb, and his production of that event, his speech, at our Sacred Fire of Liberty Gala, you really couldn't ask for a better delivery. I put that speech together based on Washington's own words, and edited it for a modern audience, but it really, I think, describes, fundamentally, Washington's predictive requests for future generations that they abide by the principles of liberty and maintain the limited Federal Republic that he defended and created. So, it was wonderful to see Dean Malissa deliver it so brilliantly, and it has affected many people. There're quite a few views, now, on YouTube showing up, and I just hope everyone can take a little bit of time, only 15 minutes, to listen to that thing and then send it to others because it's an extraordinary thing.
Robert Scott Bell: It's very worthwhile.
Jonathan Emord: It is poignant for today's politics; it's a brilliant reminder of where we should have gone and how far afield we have come.
Robert Scott Bell: Yeah. Well, I thank you so much for writing it and inviting me up there, and the event was amazing. We'll talk more about it as we are together, now, each and every week, perhaps even twice a week; we're getting there. But, we've got a phone call, 866-939-BELL, 866-939-2355. You're on with Jonathan Emord on the Robert Scott Bell Show. Is this Joni?
Joni Abbott Yes, it is. My two favorite guys; how are you? I'm so happy to have you both on the air, always, and listening today, it's such wonderful and freeing, freedom-giving information.
Robert Scott Bell: Well, Joni, we love you, Joni Abbot; she also is the host of Homegrown Health on NaturalNews Radio. Occasionally, she'll fill in for me, here, on The Robert Scott Bell Show. Maybe one day, if I'm out of town, and Jonathan's here, you can host with Jonathan, but so nice to hear your voice.
Joni Abbott Thank you. I would love to host with Jonathan; he's one of my health heroes, and has been for a long time, and I love everything that he's doing with bringing this information forward for everybody. But I was calling, Robert, to tell you a happy belated 1,000th episode. I can't believe I missed it, but I wanted to call and say congratulations because you work so hard and it's so well deserved, and I can't wait for the next 1,000.
Robert Scott Bell: Oh, well, Joni, that's so kind. Yeah, Jonathan, we just, on Thursday's broadcast, we hit the number 1,000th episode since we went six days a week, here, with GCN and NaturalNewsRadio.com. It took me about 10 years to hit 500 shows; it took me less than three years, or about three years, to hit 1,000 additional ones since I started going six days a week. So, it's only going to get better now that Jonathan's here.
Jonathan Emord: Oh, you're too kind, Robert, and Joni's too kind, and I think you're richly deserving of that thousand anniversary. You really are an incredible broadcaster, and we're all fortunate to have you on the air.
Robert Scott Bell: Oh, man, I'm just surrounded by kindness, and the vitamin L is just going overtime, here. So, thank you guys, and Joni, hey, thanks for calling in. I appreciate you so much.
Joni Abbott You are so welcome. I will talk to you guys soon. I can't wait to host again.
Robert Scott Bell: Alright, take care. That's Joni Abbot from Homegrown Health. Again, has had Jonathan on, I'm sure, over the years, as well. And, it's funny when I think of the people that have this love of liberty that share this kind of vision with us, and everybody's got a unique talent and take on it, and that's the nature of liberty, is that we're not all identical, but we can appreciate the differences as long as they don't violate our rights to be different, and that's that smile that comes up from within. That deep, I guess, soul connection, if you can call it that, that was the driving force with what made America the place where people wanted to be, wanted to emulate and be like, and we acknowledge, as well, we can't put our heads in the pharmaceutical sand and not, that there has been a decline in liberty, there's been a movement away from liberty in our nation's capital and around the country, but there's a yearning to rekindle that Sacred Fire, as you do so well, Jonathan.
Jonathan Emord: Well, liberty is what defines us as Americans. When the rest of the world looks to America and asks, "Well, what is an American?" the typical response for someone who has some knowledge of who we are is that they differ from the rest of the world in that they really do live in a free society, they are a free people, they have a laissez-faire economy, they are rich because there's no limit, either in excessive taxation or in government regulation, that denies them the freedom for the individual to express who he or she is through achievements in the marketplace by establishing a foothold designing something, inventing something that others need, and making it a way for themselves, that it's possible to succeed here. And that very notion of what it is to be an American is under assault, and it is under an extreme assault where the opportunity society that was the envy of the world, that caused the rest of the world to say, "If you want to make it, go to America; if you want your next generation to live in a society where there's an abundance of protection for freedom and there's a great opportunity to achieve your life's dreams, send your children to America, make it in America."
That's no longer the rallying cry of the world. It's still there, but it's nowhere near as pronounced as it once was, and people are skeptical around the world, and they're skeptical because we've abandoned the protections for property and for liberty that define us, that are the quintessential reason for our existence. This Administration has radically moved in the direction of making us indistinguishable from Europe, making us a crony capitalist state in which the government chooses winners and losers, and in which taxation is heavy, and corporations labor under great, terrible constraints, both from over-taxation and over-regulation, particularly harming the small businesses and the medium-sized businesses, and denying people a chance to get into the market and to innovate, and to employ people.
The workforce participation rate, today, is as low as it was in 1978; it hasn't been that low since 1978. There are 38.2 percent of the adult population that is not institutionalized and not in the military that could work that is out of work; 92 million Americans who could be in the workforce are not. 92 million Americans -- that's an enormous number of people -- and that's because it is a sign, a very, very clear sign, of the death of the opportunity society, of the death of the ability of small business and medium-sized businesses to grow the economic pie and employ more people. And unless that changes, we're going to see a collapse of the economy, and we're going to see the government, too, collapse because it's nothing more than a parasite.
The great lie in all of this, Robert, is that the government can continue to make these promises of entitlements and never-ending growth, and promises to provide for every aspect of human life, when the source for the maintenance of those things, the tax base, is a private sector that simply cannot afford to exist to satisfy this unquenchable thirst and desire for more, for more, for more, from the Federal government and from politicians who will promise anything to get elected. And that is going to become, and is increasingly becoming, something that the electorate is attuned to; they're realizing that a promised government service that costs so very much and provides so very little but does have ramifications that mean no employment, or that mean that opportunity is extinguished, is not worth it. Slavery is not worth it, even if your master gives you three meals a day; slavery is not worth it.
Robert Scott Bell: Jonathan, I was talking with another homeopathic doctor friend of mine, recently, and she's able to bring healing to people for pennies on the dollar compared to what is mandated by the Federal Government, as we talk about Obamacare, note that, and we've discussed this as well, that prior to Obamacare, we didn't have a free society in healing, either. There were restrictions, there's the monopoly that existed prior; the only difference was you weren't required to participate in it, necessarily, the way Obamacare, in theory or in actuality, tries to force you into it. And yet, I see, as I said, ultimately, freedom will succeed; liberty will break out again because you can't sustain what has happened. It's unsustainable, and to your point, with all of these people unemployed, it's interesting when you go into the D.C. area how much property costs, how much it costs to live there, because everybody's employed, but they're all employed by government, and that's unsustainable. So, if you're not employed by government, you're on the government dole; it's inevitable, the failure that happens, but I don't want you to be there when that happens. That's not a safe place to be.
Jonathan Emord: Well, we certainly hope that people will appreciate the lie that is the promise of Federal handouts, rather sooner than later, and if they don't appreciate it in time, of course, they will suffer, as we all will, the consequence of a collapse. In the provision of these services that people have become dependent upon, and the corresponding absence of a thriving private sector that can pick up the losses that fall out of the Federal tree, and when it comes to those changes, well, it's going to come, I agree with you, sooner or later. Freedom is inevitable; it's the natural yearning of mankind to be free, and it can't be extinguished.
Robert Scott Bell: Well, and it's like that in my own life; I had to suffer diseases, diseased states in my body before I was hungry enough to find out how to get well, and then I was just hungry enough to say, "Hey, I recognize that hunger in other people," and that's what we're trying to do, get that word out and bring the power to heal back to each and every one of you out there, and that love of liberty that we share with Jonathan Emord, the FDA Dragon Slayer, continues. We're going to wrap it up after this break.
Alright, the Sacred Fire of Liberty continues here on The Robert Scott Bell Show with Jonathan Emord. We are going to be publishing, also, his articles as News With Views does, so you can take a look. We've got right now, at RobertScottBell.com, I think, the most extraordinary presentation of George Washington coming back to life, based on what's gone on today in that language, encourage you all to, in fact, share it with your kids because I said my son's middle school class are studying the speech right now because of what it says, and the voice, and the way it comes out. And, Jonathan, just to let everybody know, we, with the basis of liberty as our starting point, as we do here, when I talk about healing, we talk about, obviously, physiological, emotional, mental, but we also do economic healing, political healing. We'll talk spiritual stuff because healing is about everything, and also liberty is about everything. I don't want to disintegrate and say, "Liberty -- no, that's only for that little area of life." Right? That's kind of strange, but I think we've accepted a lesser form of liberty that's not truly liberty.
Jonathan Emord: Well, people have exchanged an assurance; in exchange for an assurance of Federal protection or money, they have relinquished a degree of liberty, and this has happened since the 1930s in the United States, so much so now that we've reached the point, as we were talking about in the first segment, that you have relinquished your right of choice over healthcare in exchange for a vapid government assurance that you're going to be protected in the provision of medical care. But, of course, that's always a lie; it's always a lie when the government guarantees some service. It's impossible to guarantee a service that's dependent upon a free market when the market changes daily, predicated upon demand. And when you institutionalize through government a provision of private care, you have to monopolize it, as they're trying to do with the insurance industry, and you destroy innovation, which leads, inevitably, to mediocrity. It's not possible to have the best healthcare system in the world and have it be provided by the Federal Government. It's just not possible.
Robert Scott Bell: No, no, and if we talk about foreign policy, and I always like to couch it in terms of healthcare or healing, genuine healing -- if we can prevent something from occurring, that's a hell of a lot easier and better and efficient, but if you have a cancer growing, overwhelming and overrunning a body, sometimes you have to excise and remove it, and then restore integrity to the terrain. The problem I have with our foreign policy, and it hasn't been exclusive to Obama, although he's taken it to new levels, is the inability to understand cause and effect in our interaction with the world. And now, we've got this thing called ISIS. We only have a couple of minutes, but would you equate this ISIS as something that's so threatening that we've got to excise it and remove it as opposed to thinking we can dance around the edges of it?
Jonathan Emord: Well, there's no question about it. When you sacrifice the lives of Americans, you've declared war on our country. Congress, if it would respond in a constitutional manner, would have a declaration of war against ISIS, and if the President were truly a Commander-in-Chief, which he's not, he would not destroy the element of surprise and tell everyone that he's just going to use air power, but he would use every force available to completely obliterate ISIS, and would end the matter as rapidly as possible with the least lives lost of Americans. And the point is our direct national interests are always at stake when you execute an American citizen. We owe it to Americans to defend every American life that is taken, every innocent American life that is taken, by eliminating those who are responsible for that attack on this country, and to do otherwise, to say that you're going to have a limited engagement, that you're only going to use air power, just invites your enemy to take steps that will avoid the consequences of those measures. That's not a Commander-in-Chief, that's a politician, and it's a really dire situation, it's very disrespectful of the American lives lost, it's disrespectful of this great nation to have a Commander-in-Chief who refuses to use all power available to the military, allow the military to use whatever powers necessary to obliterate this scourge upon humanity, this threat to civilization.
Robert Scott Bell: And aren't we also lacking a statesman, in that context, in that area, to say, "Listen, not only do we need to eliminate it, but now that we've eliminated it, should that be the case, let's establish a different kind of terrain where this stuff doesn't keep popping up," and I think we're lacking that kind of thing in Washington, D.C., as well.
Jonathan Emord: That's right. The ultimate solution to this is a free market. The ultimate solution to this is to reestablish free enterprise in the United States and make us a bastion of free enterprise for the world, an opportunity society again. People who are disaffected can come to this country and find a way to make a living, and they don't have to think that their cause is hopeless and that they can join some terrorist group and come after this great country.
Robert Scott Bell: Exactly. Freedom is the answer, no matter what the question is. Jonathan Emord, the Sacred Fire of Liberty, with us now on The Robert Scott Bell Show. Thank you, my friend.
Jonathan Emord: Great to be with you Robert.
Robert Scott Bell: Oh, it's so amazing. Remember, folks, this is the God's honest truth. The power to heal is yours.
Listen to the entire interview at Radio.NaturalNews.com.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml