This overarching goal is stated in the U.S. Constitution, Article I section 8, clause 8, “The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

High Country News, Rebecca Nagle reported that for every dollar the U.S. government spent on eradicating Native languages in past centuries, it has spent less than 7 cents on revitalizing them in the 21st century. 

The framers of the US Constitution, for example, were quiteexplicitly anti-democratic and made clear in their own publicstatements that they designed the Federal Government in largepart to head off the risk of ‘democracy’ breaking out in one ofthe former colonies (they were particularly worried aboutPennsylvania). Meanwhile, actual direct democratic decision-making had been practised regularly in various parts of Africaor Amazonia, or for that matter in Russian or French peasantassemblies, for thousands of years; see Graeber 2007b.

By September 17, 1787, delegates i n Philadelphia had extracted “slave” and “slavery” f rom the signed US Constitution to hide their racist e nslavement policies. These policies hardly fit with securing “the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Some large tech behemoths could hypothetically shoulder the enormous financial burden of handling hundreds of new lawsuits if they suddenly became responsible for the random things their users say, but it would not be possible for a small nonprofit like Signal to continue to operate within the United States. Tech companies and organizations may be forced to relocate, and new startups may choose to begin in other countries instead.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with his “Medicare for All” legislation—suggest Americans would enjoy a health care utopia if only the government took over.

third of Americans reported they didn’t go to the doctor

The United States is the wealthiest nation

by Blahous’s own estimates that single-payer would save Americans more than $2 trillion over a decade.

Funding for his plan is still being debated, but he has come up with multiple suggestions that could be passed.

Medicare eligibility age would be lowered to 55, second year to 45, third year to 35, and fourth year everyone would be covered.

You will not be able to keep the insurance you have

tudies show that costs would be between $25 Trillion and $32 Trillion over 10 years. YouGov/Economist Poll, April 2-4, 2017      $32 Trillion sounds like quite a high number.

Removing the current system would a gigantic task.

That is approximately $10,739 per person.

ObamaCare, is the product of a Conservative Think-Tank. 60% of citizens get private insurance from their employers, 15% receive Medicare (65 and older), and the federal gov’t funds Medicaid for low-income families (the allocation to this fund has been declining).

United States and its Health care:      The gov’t has some government-run programs and private insurance.

Switzerland has mandatory health insurance that covers all residents.

France has a mandatory health insurance system that covers 75% of health care spending.

Canada pays for services provided by a private delivery system. The gov’t pays for 70% of the care.

Countries that Provide Universal Healthcare 32 out of 33 developed countries in the world have universal health care.

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification" for the US "to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security," "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

On March 20, 2003, the United States began military action against Iraq for the stated purpose of deposing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and preventing his use of suspected nuclear weapons (weapons of mass destruction)

U.S. faces a hard set of choices, in a context shadowed by conflicting imperatives and the agendas of other regional powers. One can understand the caution shown by the administration -- at least as much as the zeal of those who want the U.S. to be embroiled in the region once more.

American power and Washington's ability to reshape facts on the ground. Petraeus's "Mosul model" is now just one more forgotten chapter in a long, bloody journey that began in 2003. The wishful thinking of U.S.  leadership in Iraq was on display in the build-up to the war, when its main proponents showed little appreciation for the resources and troops the U.S. would have to deploy in a near-decade long occupation

Thirty-eight U.S. troops die, along with six Iraqi soldiers. The Pentagon estimates 1,200 insurgents are killed, and the Red Cross says eight hundred Iraqi civilians die with them.

In January 2004, David Kay, the former top U.S. weapons inspector, tells Congress: "We were almost all wrong." A presidential commission concludes in March 2005 "not one bit" of prewar intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction panned out

Acting on tips from the dictator's bodyguard and family members, U.S. troops find Saddam Hussein hiding out in a one-man hole near his boyhood home of Tikrit.

U.S., British, and other coalition forces quickly overwhelm the Iraqi Army, though elements loyal to Saddam Hussein who will form the core of a postwar insurgency fight on

President Bush announces U.S. forces have begun a military operation into Iraq. "These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign," the president says

the events leading up to the 2003 invasion only go half way to explain why the US chose to launch this campaign, and in order to understand the complex and multidimensional factors contributing to the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq, one must go back further and examine pre 9/11 US policy. Likewise, the official and publically stated reasons for military action only go some way to explain the invasion, and one must look at the unofficial factors and goals which were determinants of equal importance.

Americans believed that the initial decision to go to war in 2003 was the right one, and an even smaller number still supported the administration’s handling of the situation in Iraq.

American opinions on the war sometimes crossed traditional party lines and doctrinal affiliation, with many to the right of the avowedly conservative Bush seeing the war as an act of reckless internationalism and some to the political left—appalled by the Baʿthist regime’s brutal human rights violations and its consistent aggression—giving grudging support to military action

American cities in the lead-up to the invasion, many opinion polls showed considerable support for military action against Iraq before and during the war

deaths of U.S. troops soared thereafter, reaching some 1,000 by the time of the U.S. presidential election in November 2004 and surpassing 3,000 in early 2007; in addition, several hundred soldiers from other coalition countries have been killed

I. Introduction