This Just In…Obama Is a Leftist!

By Larry Elder

Thursday, 3 September 2009

“Now I’m truly scared.”

A friend wrote this after she watched Fox News’ Glenn Beck’s series on the “alarming number of far-left radicals the President is surrounded by” — referring to some of the President’s special advisers and “czars.” President Barack Obama, my friend tells me, is “a true left-winger.”

So, now she knows.

She didn’t know after the President signed the $800 billion so-called “stimulus program.” She didn’t know after government takeovers/bailouts of banks, insurance companies and auto companies.

She didn’t know after Obama campaigned in favor of protectionism by promising to unilaterally change free trade agreements, such as NAFTA, or after the inclusion of “Buy American” provisions in the “stimulus package.”

She didn’t know after Obama campaigned on government-run health care or after he said during the campaign that “if starting from scratch,” he’d implement the Canadian single-payer system.

She didn’t know after Obama stated his goal to impose job-killing and price-hiking “cap-and-trade” business taxes to fight “man-made global warming.” (Never mind the vigorous debate in the scientific community about the degree to which — or even whether — human activity is the cause and whether it makes more sense to deal with the effect of a slight warming than to undertake costly and likely ineffective measures to stop it.)

She didn’t know after Obama’s plans to “invest” to “create green jobs” of the future or after he moved oversight of the next census from the Department of Commerce to the White House (in order to increase the number of minorities so that government money can follow).

She didn’t know after Obama sided with black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and turned the professor’s altercation with Cambridge police into a microcosm of the alleged widespread problem of unlawful “racial profiling” against blacks; after Obama spent 20 years in a church led by a smoke-coming-out-of-the-nose, America-bashing “spiritual adviser”; after Obama’s selection of an attorney general who called America “cowardly” on matters of race; after the AG’s refusal to indict members of the New Black Panther Party for seemingly clear voter intimidation; or after Obama’s selection of a Supreme Court justice who many times claimed her gender and ethnicity make her superior to a “white male.”

She didn’t know after a proposal by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to cap executive pay — for both those businesses that receive taxpayer money and those that don’t; after Obama’s promise for a government-provided “world-class education” to all who want it; or after the Cash for Clunkers program, under which A helped pay for the purchase of a car for B.

She didn’t know after Obama promised to sit down “without preconditions” with enemies like the president of Iran and the head of North Korea; after Obama slammed Israel for building or expanding settlements, with nary a word about the daily rockets landing in Israel from the Gaza Strip; after proposals to reduce spending on missile shield defense; after the AG appointed a “special counsel” to determine whether workers at the CIA — during the Bush administration — should be prosecuted for using Justice Department-approved techniques to interrogate terrorists (despite a previously undertaken investigation by career prosecutors and over the objection of the current CIA head); or that the term “war on terror” would no longer be used.

She didn’t know after the public support of leaders in the Democratic Party — including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former presidential candidate John Kerry — for the reinstatement of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” to provide ideological “balance” over the airwaves; or after Obama, while publicly opposing the reinstatement of the doctrine, appointed an FCC “diversity czar” to pursue the same objective: squelching conservative talk radio.

What does it take for some to wake up?

When Obama publicly asserts that some corporations, including “Big Oil” and medical insurance companies, make “obscene profits” (they don’t compared with many other industries) and that his “compensation czar” will look into executive compensation, what does that tell you? When he argues that medical insurance companies need a “public option” (before public opinion forced him to back away from it) to keep them “honest,” what does that say? When he arrogantly claims that fighting “global warming” and tackling the “health care crisis” are not just moral imperatives but also necessary to keep our economy robust (?!), what does that show?

Voters last year elected a left-wing former “community organizer” with one of the Senate’s most liberal voting records. He seeks to take the country — over the growing resistance of even those who voted for him — to an idealized world of government-guaranteed equality of outcomes. He wants a government-guaranteed “level playing field” of wealth redistribution via taxing those deemed to have too much.

Obama’s goals are open, blatant and confidently asserted, backed by a filibuster-proof, supermajority, Democratic-controlled Congress. There is no Big Secret, no subterfuge, no bait-and-switch.

This is who and what he is.

COPYRIGHT 2009 LAURENCE A. ELDER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Washington’s Lies

By Walter E. Williams

Wednesday, 2 September 2009

President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that his health care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a Democratic president and Congress, or a Republican president and Congress. You say, “Williams, you don’t show much trust in the White House and Congress.” Let’s check out their past dishonesty.

At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That’s nine times Congress’ prediction. Today’s Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates by the White House or Congress?

Another part of the Medicare lie is found in Section 1801 of the 1965 Medicare Act that reads: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services.” Ask your doctor or hospital whether this is true.

Lies and deception are by no means restricted to modern times. During the legislative debate prior to ratification of the 16th Amendment, President Howard Taft and congressional supporters said that only the rich would ever pay federal income taxes. In 1916, only one-half of 1 percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today’s dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today’s dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply a lie to exploit the politics of envy and dupe Americans into ratifying the 16th Amendment.

The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress are proposing will probably pass. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, had no federal tax liability. That’s out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans — or 41 percent of the U.S. population — are completely outside the federal income tax system. These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?

Another big congressional lie is Social Security. Here’s what a 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: “After the first 3 years — that is to say, beginning in 1940 — you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year … beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. … And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year.” Here’s Congress’s lying promise: “That is the most you will ever pay.” Let’s repeat that last sentence: “That is the most you will ever pay.” Compare that to today’s reality, including Medicare, which is 7.65 cents on each dollar that you earn up to nearly $107,000, which comes to $8,185.

The Social Security pamphlet closes with another lie: “Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you … The checks will come to you as a right.” First, there’s no Social Security account containing your money, but more importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on two occasions that Americans have no legal right to Social Security payments.

We can thank public education for American gullibility.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

We Should Train Our Politicians Like We Train Our Dogs

This article is a summary article written by columnist Frank J. Fleming.  If you desire, the full article can be found at We_Should_Train_Our_Politicians_Like_We_Train_Our_Dogs.  This is an incredible article that I highly recommend when you have some time.

“We get angry with politicians a lot. They seem to behave erratically and often work against our interests. At times, it’s like they don’t even hear us. It’s frustrating. They just seem like bad politicians, running around trying to pass laws they haven’t even read. We get angry and want to yell at them, but that only makes things worse. I think we need a new model for approaching politicians. My suggestion: Cesar Millan, the Dog Whisperer. … As Cesar will tell you, dogs and politicians often act out because they don’t know what’s expected of them. To help with that, they need rules, boundaries, and limitations. For instance, our dog isn’t allowed in the kitchen. We make that clear to her by calmly making her leave any time she tries to enter. She constantly tests this since we just moved into a new house, but as long as we’re consistent, she will understand what her boundaries are. Politicians are the same way. Their rules, boundaries, and limitations are clearly defined in the Constitution, but the key is to be consistent in enforcing them so politicians will know what we expect of them. For example, socialism is clearly not allowed, but politicians are constantly testing this boundary and often ignoring it entirely. Why? We’re not always consistent about it. When the economy got so bad, we got tired of telling the politicians no and let them take over the auto industry. You can see why they’re now confused as to why we’re angry at them for trying to take over health care; it’s because we weren’t consistent. These mixed messages confuse and frustrate dogs and politicians and maybe even cause them to lash out. … Finally, Cesar constantly reminds everyone that dogs and politicians are not people, and you have to treat them like what they are: dogs and politicians. It can be frustrating when you’ve told the dog to stop barking for the fortieth time and told the politician to keep his hands off your wallet for the sixtieth time, but if you’re consistent, calm and assertive, give clear rules, boundaries, and limitations, and only give affection after exercise and discipline, you can have well-behaved canines and legislators.”

Moral Suicide In The American Church

I’ve always been perplexed by the growing movement among some Christians that equate following the biblical commands of the Lord with supporting big government programs to answer society’s needs.  There’s unfortunately all too common of a perception among us that believes that where the government is absent, there is no hope for the needy.  Is the government our Savior?  Is it not complete hypocrisy to look to the government to force ‘charity’ on some of the citizens through government redistributive programs instead of looking inward to ourselves and change the church?  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one who believes that the church of America (or anywhere in the world for that matter) is anywhere near the level that we need to be on this issue…this is most definitely one of the pillar issues that must change in the church today.  With that said, it pains me to see Christians look first to government, even at the cost of moral suicide.  How is it that we’ve come to the place of completely over-looking any moral or character issues among politicians, no matter how extreme, in order to support the great commission through the ‘benevolant’ government?  I’m reminded of a story that I’ve recently read in my quiet times.  In 2 Chronicles 17 & 18, we read about king Jehoshaphat who was ruler of Judah.  He was a good king.  The Bible says that “The LORD was with Jehoshaphat, because he walked in the earlier ways of his father David.  He did not seek the Baals, but sought the God of his father and walked in his commandments, and not according to the practices of Israel.”  (2 Chronicles 17:3-4 ESV)  Unfortunately, already in chapter 18 we see Jehoshaphat making a “marriage alliance” with king Ahab of Israel.  King Ahab was a very evil king.  “Ahab son of Omri did more evil in the eyes of the LORD than any of those before him.  He not only considered it trivial to commit the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, but he also married Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and began to serve Baal and worship him.  He set up an altar for Baal in the temple of Baal that he built in Samaria.  Ahab also made an Asherah pole and did more to provoke the LORD, the God of Israel, to anger than did all the kings of Israel before him.”  (1 Kings 16:30-33 ESV).  We read that when Jehoshaphat aligned himself with evil men, it was said of him “the wrath of God has gone out against you from the Lord.”  We see similar stories when we read about Solomon.  Though, because of his faithfulness he started out as one of the people most blessed with monetary riches and wisdom,  his life ended in judgment and destruction when he aligned himself with evil people.  The Bible is clear.  “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.” (Psalm 1:1 ESV)  “Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.”  (Proverbs 13:20 ESV)  “Make no friendship with a man given to anger, nor go with a wrathful man, lest you learn his ways and entangle yourself in a snare.”  (Proverbs 22:24-25) 

 

So what am I getting at with all of this?  We the Church cannot align ourselves for ANY reason with men who so blatantly stand against the word of God.  Those who stand by such men, are accountable for that decision, and the decisions that they make in which they were empowered to make by their citizen allies.  Obama is such a man.

 

If we were for the moment to throw all other political issues aside (don’t worry, I’ll get into many of those heavily down the road) except for abortion, how would my comments pan out?  Well, on January 23 of this year, Obama reversed the “gag rule”, spending our tax dollars to offer free abortions in foreign countries.  He’s also voted to make it legal for abortion doctors to euthanize babies who are born after botched late-term abortions.  There is also a push to make abortions in America covered by the federal government through the new Obama Care bill.  Even on this previous anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, Obama reinstated his stance when he talked about his commitment to the “rights” of our daughters as it relates to abortions (I’m not sure what historical document he got that from).  During his previous election campaign, when publicity was high for Sarah Palin’s daughter ‘choosing’ to not kill her child, Obama commented, “If my daughter made a poor choice and got pregnant, I wouldn’t want her burdened with a child.”  If this isn’t conclusive enough, Obama then chose John Holdren for science czar.  He’s the one who said, “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early YEARS (yes, that’s plural) after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.” This czar also wrote about putting sterilants into drinking water and staple foods for population control. He then wrote that “it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”  Is this in line with the biblical world view?  I hardly think so.  “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.  I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”  (Psalm 139:13-14 ESV)

 

Again I ask, is it ungodly to ally ourselves with people this morally corrupt?  Again I answer, I think that it would be moral suicide for the church to EVER stand with such men.  Giving men like this more power will only further the evil agenda of such men.  The positions of Obama and his advisers are just too much.

We still hold these truths…

“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!” –Patrick Henry

As we celebrate the 233rd year of our Declaration of Independence, let us look at the common parlance associated with the polar spectrum of current political ideology (while such a review is still permitted by the state), and explore what is meant by “Left versus Right,” “Liberal versus Conservative” and “Tyranny versus Liberty”?

First, a little history.

On July 4th of 1776, our Founders, assembled as representatives to the Second Continental Congress, issued a declaration stating most notably: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. … That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

In other words, our Founders affirmed that our rights, which are inherent by Natural Law as provided by our Creator, can’t be arbitrarily alienated by men like England’s King George III, who believed that the rights of men are the gifts of government.

Our Founders publicly declared their intentions to defend these rights by attaching their signatures between July 4th and August 2nd of 1776 to the Declaration. They and their fellow Patriots pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor as they set about to defend the Natural Rights of man.

At the conclusion of the American War for Independence in 1783, our Founders determined the new nation needed a more suitable alliance among the states than the Articles of Confederation. After much deliberation, they proposed the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, ratified in 1788 and implemented in 1789 as subordinate guidance to our Declaration of Independence.

Since that time, generations of American Patriots have laid down their lives “to support and defend” our Constitution — and I would note here that their sacred oath says nothing about a so-called “Living Constitution” as advocated by the political left.

Given that bit of history as a backdrop, consider the lexicography of our current political ideology.

On the dark side of the spectrum would be Leftists, liberals and tyrants.

(Sidebar: One should not confuse “classical liberalism” with “contemporary liberalism.” The former refers to those, like Thomas Jefferson, who advocated individual liberty, while the latter refers to those, like Barack Hussein Obama, who advocate statism, which is the antithesis of liberty.)

Statism, as promoted by contemporary American liberals, has as its objective the establishment of a central government authorized as the arbiter of all that is “good” for “the people” — and conferring upon the State ultimate control over the most significant social manifestation of individual rights, economic enterprise.

On the left, all associations between individuals ultimately augment the power and control of the State. The final expression and inevitable terminus of such power and control, if allowed to progress unabated, is tyranny.

The word “tyranny” is derived from the Latin “tyrannus,” which translates to “illegitimate ruler.”

Liberals, then, endeavor to undermine our nation’s founding principles in order to achieve their statist objectives. However, politicians who have taken an oath to “support and defend” our Constitution, but then govern in clear defiance of that oath, are nothing more than illegitimate rulers, tyrants.

(Sidebar: Some Leftists contend that Communism and Fascism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Properly understood, however, both of these forms of government are on the left, because both have as a common end the establishment of an omnipotent state led by a dictator.)

Over on the “right wing” of the political spectrum, where the light of truth shines, would be “conservatives,” from the Latin verb “conservare,” meaning to preserve, protect and defend — in this case, our Constitution.

American conservatives are those who seek to conserve our nation’s First Principles, those who advocate for individual liberty, constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, strong national defense and traditional American values.

Contemporary political ideology is thus defined by tyrannus and conservare occupying the Left and Right ends of the American political spectrum, defining the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Though there are many devoted protagonists at both ends of this scale, the space in between is littered with those who, though they identify with one side or the other, are not able to articulate the foundation of that identity. That is to say, they are not rooted in liberal or conservative doctrine, but motivated by contemporaneous political causes associated with the Left or Right. These individuals do not describe themselves as “liberal” or “conservative” but as Democrat or Republican. Further, they tend to elect ideologically ambivalent politicians who are most adept at cultivating special interest constituencies.

That having been said, however, there is a major difference between those on the Left and the Right, as demonstrated by our most recent national elections. Those on the Left tend to form a more unified front for the purpose of electability; they tend to embrace a “win at all costs” philosophy, while those on the right tend to spend valuable political capital drawing distinctions between and among themselves.

I would suggest that this disparity is the result of the contest between human nature and Natural Law.

The Left appeals to the most fundamental human instincts to procure comfort, sustenance and shelter, and to obtain those basic needs by the most expedient means possible. The Left promises that the State will attain those needs equally, creating a path of least resistance for that fulfillment.

On the other end of the spectrum, the Right promotes the tenets of Natural Law — individual liberty and its attendant requirements of personal responsibility and self-reliance.

Clearly, one of these approaches is far easier to sell to those who have been systematically dumbed down by government educational institutions and stripped of their individual dignity by the plethora of government welfare programs.

That easy sell notwithstanding, the threat of tyranny can eventually produce an awakening among the people and a reversal of trends toward statism. But this reversal depends on the emergence of a charismatic, moral leader who can effectively advocate for liberty. (Ronald Wilson Reagan comes to mind.)

For some nations, this awakening has come too late. The most notable examples in the last century are Russia, Germany, Italy and China, whose peoples suffered greatly under the statist tyrannies they came to embrace. In Germany and Italy, the state collapsed after its expansionist designs were forcibly contained. In Russia, the state collapsed under the weight of 70 years of economic centralization and ideological expansionism.

The Red Chinese regime, having witnessed the collapse of the USSR, has so far avoided its own demise by combining an autocratic government with components of a free enterprise economic system. (My contacts in China, including that nation’s largest real estate developers and investment fund managers, believe the Red regime will be gone within five years.)

Of course, there exists an American option for the rejection of tyranny: Revolution. And it is an essential option, because the Natural Rights of man are always at risk of contravention by tyrants. At no time in the last century has our Republic faced a greater threat from “enemies, domestic” than right now.

“Our individual salvation,” insists Barack Obama, “depends on collective salvation.” In other words, BHO’s tyranny, et al, must transcend Constitutional authority. And in accordance with his despotic ideals, Obama is now implementing “the fundamental transformation of the United States of America” that he promised his cadre of liberal voters.

It is yet to be seen whether the current trend toward statism will be reversed by the emergence of a great conservative leader, or by revolution, but if you’re betting on another Ronald Reagan, I suggest you hedge your bet.

Our Declaration’s author, Thomas Jefferson, understood the odds. He wrote, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground,” and he concluded, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Accordingly, George Washington advised, “We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times.”

Indeed we must.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

By Mark Alexander From PatriotPost.US Vol. 09 No. 26; Published 2 July 2009

They are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights

We Americans seem to get this strange idea that we have a “right” to all sorts of different things.  We have a “right” to health care, we have a “right” to government programs, and we have a “right” to __________.  When asked, people will usually say that it comes from the Constitution.  I ask, “Where does the Constitution say that?”  The founders never had or supported the idea of the citizens of America having a “right” to anything.  We don’t have rights to things, we have rights from things.  A “right” is supposed to protect citizens from government infringing on our “unalienable rights” that are “endowed by their Creator”.  The founders believed that our rights came from God, and we the people lend them to the government.  Rights NEVER come from government.  Any rights enjoyed by one citizen can never infringe on the rights of another.  For example: in order for citizens to receive Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc., the civil government needs to come and take money from someone, to give a handout to someone else.  How can one person have a “right” to a program that the government mandates someone else pay for.  If I were to walk up to you on the street and say, “give me your money,” I’d be a criminal.  How come those same people can vote in politicians to do just that and it’s called “social justice”.  Dr. Rogers had a good quote on this back in 1984 when he said, “Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.  And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.  The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody.  And when half of the people get the idea they don’t have to work because the other half’s going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody’s going to get what I work for.  That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation.”

Inconvenient Truths Behind the ‘Hope and Change’

With Rasmussen and Gallop polls showing American support slipping to a mere 40% for ‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009’ in the last few days, President Obama has been campaigning in front of stacked town hall meetings across the country on behalf of his single-payer health care reform bill.  With many promises and reassurances coming from the Democratic Party talking points, I ask this simple question.  What does the bill, and its authors actually say?  Let’s together compare the Democrat’s promises with the wording in their own 1,018 page bill.

 

One line that Obama has repeatedly advertised is that, “If somebody has private_insurance that they like, they can keep it.”  Even on the surface that statement is inaccurate, and there’s a lot more to the story than that.  Let’s go to page 16 of the House_bill.  It explains that upon passage of this bill, private insurance companies will not be able to draft any new private insurance contracts.  The only option at that point for uninsured people is the government option.  Furthermore, employers who offer private insurance to their employees, and people who pay for their own private plans, will have only a short grace period in which they can transition over to the government option.  After the grace period, both businesses and individuals who still use private insurance, rather than the government option, will be taxed an additional 6%-8%.  If we then jump to pages 142 and 146 we see that when we file for taxes every year, everyone must show proof of having a ‘qualified’ health plan.  If a person doesn’t have such a plan, they’ll be fined for the cost of one year of the government option, and then automatically/mandated be enrolled in the government plan.  So let’s just clarify something.  With the government making the rules, and with their ability to mandate subsidies from the tax payers, they can write whatever low rate they want in order to out bid the private insurance companies who won’t receive the bailout.  The government can also mandate that the private insurance companies only offer Cadillac plans, at rates that won’t make a profit.  Then, with penalties for those who do keep private insurance, the majority of people are sure to switch plans.  That will then put private companies out of business forcing the remainder of people to switch plans.  In probably just a few short years, most people, if not everyone will be on the government ‘option’.  Obama himself even campaigned on the very promise of nationalizing the healthcare industry.  I guess his recent promises to the contrary haven’t been so genuine after all.

 

Obama has also said, “There are 47 million Americans who lack health coverage.”  Huh?  He must have conveniently forgotten about the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1968 which says that hospitals cannot turn ANYONE away for ANY reason: even if they have no way of showing the hospital who they are, if they can pay, if they’re a criminal, or any other information.  EVERYONE can get help when they need it.  Let’s be fair though; perhaps President Obama mis-spoke a few hundred times and meant to say, “47 million Americans are un-insured” (which is completely different).  This report that has been quoted so often from the left is a reference to the 2005 Census_Bureau  report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005” which cites 46.577 million Americans who are living uninsured. When they later break down those numbers we find that 9.487 million of those “Americans” are illegal immigrants (but don’t worry, they’ll be covered under the new bill with tax dollars that they aren’t paying into). 8.3 million of the uninsured people make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million make more than $75,000 per year and choose not to purchase insurance. They can clearly afford it with their income above the household median income of $46,326. Also, 10.6 million of those people are between the ages of 20-30 and, like myself, have chosen not to purchase health insurance. We’re now down to 9.45 million people who “can’t afford health insurance.” Out of those people, how many are already eligible for Medicare or Medicaid? How many are in job transitions and will be covered in the next few months from a new job? The ‘47 million Americans who are desperate for health care coverage and need this bill to pass RIGHT NOW’ are quickly disappearing.

 

Another idea that President Obama has pushed is that, “Nobody’s talking about health care rationing.”  While that may be true for the town hall talking points of the Democratic Party, reality dictates the exact opposite.  Let us for a moment consider how the average American hospital today is funded.  For simplicity’s sake, let’s say that every healthcare procedure costs the hospital $100 for supplies, staff, etc.  Because the government makes all of the health care rules, they’ve mandated that their constituent gets that $100 of service, but through Medicare the government only pays the hospital $94 and through Medicaid (what most people use), the government only pays about $86.  To help make up that difference, everyone on private insurance pays roughly $136 for every $100 of service.  Obama has talked heavily about the rise in health insurance premiums.  Well, as we consider the rise in number of people who use government insurance, the private market is forced to carry a heavier burden.  Let’s now consider the health care quality if the private market is removed from this equation (which it will be under Obama Care as shown in the previous paragraph).  In 2008, America spent $2.4 trillion on health care.  The Congressional Budget Office says that the government will spend $1.7_trillion on the new healthcare plan.  If we’re cutting 30% of the money in the health care industry, either hospitals will go out of business, or rationing of treatment and serious staff cuts are inevitable.  Think of it this way.  Let’s say that you and I have a pie to split.  We have just enough with the current system (actually, some people complain that we DON’T have enough as it is); if we go and add two more people to share with and remove nearly a third of the pie…we don’t have more pie, we have less pie.  Obama promising better care with such a massive reduction in cost is foolish.  Notice that he can’t quote any economists who agree with him.  The reason why is because this same system has been tried many times before, never with success.  Take a look at Canada, Great Britain, or any other country with nationalized health care.  They have a government bureau that makes all health care decisions.  Citizens wait in lines for sometimes a year or more to get simple treatment.  Because of that, they come HERE to get our treatment because they know that you can’t wait for cancer treatment for a year and SURVIVE.  Nations who nationalize their health care system must ration health care because the system is going bankrupt even with big taxpayer bailouts and extremely heavy rationing.  Furthermore, just before the August recess for the House there was an amendment proposed with very simple language which explicitly forbid the government option from ever rationing care.  It was struck down by the Democrats.  Why?  Because deep down they know that this will not be self sustaining without broken promises down the road.  Don’t be alarmed though; the same people who voted down that measure were sure to put in an amendment protecting them from this legislation.  The House and Senate have their own Cadillac health care plans, also paid for by you and me.

 

What about abortion? Currently, there are around one million surgically performed abortions in America each year (that’s excluding any abortive “birth control” plans that can be administered such as the morning after pill, or IUDs, as well as the government funded abortions in other countries thanks to Obama reversing the “gag rule”). Under the new health care plan, government funding would multiply to ultimately fund all abortions. Our tax dollars would fund more than a million murders per year.  With the economic laws of supply and demand, if something is supplied for free, do you think demand will stay the same?  Of course not!  Look at the cash for clunkers program.  They gave a pool of money that was to last four months and it didn’t last three days!  Congradulations!  We’ve figured out that people take advantege of hand-outs!  Studies are blatently clear that when the government covers abortion procedures, the statistics drastically go up. If this bill passes, we’ll likely find that the number of abortions funded by you and me will rapidly increase. (Stats published by: Focus on the Family, July 23, 2009)

 

Obama has talked about his plan to reduce health care costs by using the famed “end of life counselors”.  I must say, he will most certainly reduce costs here, but you may not like how he does it.  If we read pages 425-430 of the House_bill it talks about this very program.  Democrats have defended this passage claiming that it merely encourages doctors to talk to elderly people about their health care options and if they’ve drafted a will.  The problem is that doctors already do that.  What the bill actually does is it provides bonuses for doctors to minimize healthcare expenses for the elderly.  In other words, it’s a financial incentive for doctors to be pushy for the elderly to “die with a little bit of dignity” rather than keep fighting their illnesses or get those costly surgeries when ‘they’re just going to die anyway, right?’ 

 

Obama’s own advisors have talked about these issues.  The advisor to Cass Sunstein (the regulatory czar), Peter Singer, wrote about this in a piece with the New_York_Times on July 16 when he said, “Saving the life of one teenager is equivalent to saving the lives of fourteen 85-year-olds.”  They’re just not worthy of the cost on society, I guess.  Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (Obama’s Health Advisor) was clear on these issues as well.  Emanuel has admitted that cuts to the health options we currently enjoy will be deep. “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records (sound familiar?) and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change,” he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).  Emanuel believes that, get ready for this… “communitarianism” should guide decisions on who gets care. He contends that care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. ’96). In other words, hope you have some good ideas to care for grandma with Parkinson’s, or your new baby with down syndrome or cerebral palsy, because they aren’t worth the tax burden to these guys. Emanuel even defends such action, “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years” (Lancet, Jan. 31). Emanuel also criticizes Americans for being too “enamored with technology” and is talking about reducing access to it. Both he and Dr. David Blumenthal (also an advisor) have agreed that controlling medical innovation is a good way to control spending. “Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they’re ‘associated with longer waits’ and ‘reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices’ (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it ‘debatable’ whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you’ll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)” This was in the New_York_Post on July 24.  Emanual also said this in January, “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”  If you can believe this, Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, is also known for writing even worse.  “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”  This czar also wrote about putting sterilants into drinking water and staple foods for population control.  He then wrote that “it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”  “In future society,” when protesters like myself are out of the way, “It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”  Holdren then went on to suggest a “coercive fertility control” program that involved “the development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired … The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”  Okay, so in their perfect world, women need to seek permission from the government to have babies, any undesirable people will be euthanized, and if you’re not worth the tax burden you don’t get care.  Now, let’s be fair.  I don’t think Obama has ever said these things.  But if this is what his advisors talk about openly in public, what are they saying behind closed doors?  If Obama’s convictions were as strong as he would have us believe, how can he surround himself with people like this?  With this kind of value on human life, I can only imagine what our health care system will look like in just a few short years under Obama Care.

 

Now let me be clear; I do not believe that our health system is perfect.  Reform is needed.  First, let’s work on tort reform.  Secondly, open up the market to allow citizens to purchase health insurance across state lines allowing us to purchase the lowest costing options.  Third, let’s work on getting people off of government assistance so that they can be productive members of society.  Those three things alone will drastically improve the health industry, and drastically reduce costs.  None of these key issues are in this bill.  This is nothing personal against Obama or Democrats; this is policy.  A lot of people in America are angry and scared at what might happen.  I’m one of them.  Contrary to Mrs. Pelosi’s remarks, it doesn’t take a nazi to be against this bill.  Common sense would say that this bill is “downright evil” (Sarah Palin, Aug. 7).

A Call to Conservatives

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”      – Thomas Paine

I think that it’s come to the point where both republicans and democrats are nothing more or less than very progressive big government parties.  They both want to expand government, just in different ways.  Let’s take a brief step back into history for a moment.  In the late 1920’s, America was in a similar period of economic “growth” that we were in just a few years ago.  When the bubble burst and the economy fell, President Herbert Hoover undertook expensive taxpayer efforts to artificially stimulate the economy through big government programs.  Ohh, by the way, Hoover was a REPUBLICAN.  When this of course failed leading to the Great Depression in the 30’s, Hoover lost the white house to Roosevelt in the election in 1932.  Roosevelt ran on great promises of “hope and change”.  Neither became the case as he doubled down on the same policies of big government spending, bailouts, and government control.  He created massive government programs such as welfare, and prevented us from coming out of the depression really until the economic boom in the 1950’s.

Since Hoover, both Democrats and Republicans have continued to grow federal government in catastrophic ways under nearly every administration.  Towards the end of President Bush Jr., Bush insisted that a big government bailout was the only answer to combat the collapsing economy.  Democrats in the House and Senate signed off, and we had a republican lead both parties in destroying the economy even more (after all, it was the government controlling the lending industry, and government controlled Fannie May and Freddie Mac that led the housing drop, which led the economic collapse that we’re now in).  Obama ran on the ideas of “hope and change” and criticizing Bush’s failure in the economy, only to double down and pass a stimulus of his own right after getting into office.  He then went on to overhaul childcare, Cap and Trade, and the current attempt to completely nationalize 1/5 of the US economy through the healthcare bill.  It’s nothing but the same old, same old.  On Friday, I was listening to someone subbing in for the Sean Hannity radio program as he was venting about all of the big spending by Obama.  He then concluded by saying, “And you know what the solution to all of these problems are?  Vote for Republicans in the 2010 elections!”  I wanted to throw my book at the radio!  IT WAS THE REPUBLICANS WHO STARTED THIS MESS!  I’m sorrier than ever that I voted republican in this last election!  McCain was weak on the border, weak on national security, weak on social issues, and was a complete communist when it comes to the economy!  Is that any different then what we have now?!?!

I made a picture that I made of what I feel like the political landscape today is like.  I attempted to attach it to this note (though I’m still figuring out this whole blog thing).  This is what I mean when I say we need a third party.  On a scale of 1-10, 1 being true conservative and 10 being a liberal, this is what I feel our country looks like.  We have the Republican party who is progressive and supports more government programs, we have the democratic party who is progressive and supports more government programs.  Then…well…there isn’t really anything left.  We have liberals, and we have…liberals.           

Where’s the voice of conservatives in America?  Government can’t run anything better than the private sector can because there’s no incentive to.  If the private sector is inefficient, the business or organization will not exist anymore; if the government is inefficient, they’ll get more funding from the very businesses who are efficient.  Does this make sense to anyone?  If anyone doubts me, walk into a military hospital, or for that matter join the military and look at all the waste!  Every other government bureaucracy is more of the same!  Government should exist for two purposes only.  Number 1: Form a military to protect the country from outside forces.  Number 2: Form a simple law and police system to protect the citizens and bring legal justice within.  NOTHING ELSE SHOULD EXIST.  Frankly, I think that Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and all of these other crazy programs shouldn’t even exist.  We should reform them by REPEALING THEM!  Yes, I believe that the healthcare system needs reform…by getting the government OUT!  My objection to Obama Care is not about “not wanting democrats to get credit for the reform”, it’s because I know that the government will screw up our healthcare like every other socialized healthcare nation in the world!  Let’s get the government out of everything, let the market hit bottom and things will get better.  Government will never be our Savior!

Hillary Clinton Will Never Replace Your Momma

“You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”  ~ Abraham Lincoln

When you think of the term “government,” what do you think about?  Maybe you think about various institutions in Washington D.C. and in your state’s capitol city.  Maybe you think about all of the different agencies or bureaucracies designed to take care of all of the needs of its citizens.  If you thought this (as I did for most of my life), you’re aligned with the vast majority of Americans today when we think about government being defined as nothing more than civil government.  We can see this definition reflected even in our educational system.  In the past, high school classes dealing with state or federal government were called “Civics”; today they’re given the title of “Government” as if this was the complete definition of the word.

Historically, the view was very different though.  Noah Webster’s definition of government (American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828) was in this way: “Direction; regulation.  ‘These precepts will serve for the government of our conduct.’  Control; restraint.  ‘Men are apt to neglect the government of their temper and passions.’”  He then went on to include family government as part of the definition: “The exercise of authority by a parent or householder. ‘Children are often ruined by a neglect of government in parents.’”  In this historical American definition, civil government is nowhere to be found!  Webster was clearly aware that the term “government” was so much broader than merely “civil government.”  Government began with the individual, then extended to include other institutions, then EVENTUALLY the civil government.  If we look at “Webster’s New World Dictionary” which was written in 1972, government is defined much differently.  It is as follows: “The exercise of authority over a state, district, organization, institution, etc.”  Nowhere is self or family government even listed!  In fact, as I write this in Microsoft Word, I was flagged for a grammatical error when even writing “family government.”

More than just a historical word has been lost though.  If we look around at the political spectrum today, we’ve lost a priceless sense of responsibility.  According to the Bible, it’s the duty of parents to govern in the home.  “And fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).  It is not the duty of a civil government institution to interfere with the affairs of the family.  Too often, parents neglect their God-given duty to raise their children in the “discipline and instruction of the Lord.”  When this happens, we can expect the state to take an increasingly dominant role in family affairs.  Such a role is to the detriment of the family.  Author Gary Demar summed this point up well when he said, “To deny the validity of the many governments and the responsibilities that each has under God, would be to deny the authority that belongs to each of them in the realm of their activity…If we as individuals neglect our personal governing duties, then we can expect the state to assume the role of all other legitimate governments and claim to be the sole government, while labeling all others as counterfeits.  Therefore, to see the state as the only governing institution is destructive of liberty and of life…If generations continue to be indoctrinated with the modern definition, as they have been, they will neglect their own personal, family, church, and local governing duties.  They will believe that these duties are outside their area of authority and responsibility.  EACH GENERATION WILL BECOME MORE DEPENDENT ON THE ‘BENEVOLANT’ STATE FOR CARE AND SECURITY…If the people of the United States do not once again establish self, family, church, local, state, and national governments to their proper places of power and authority, our nation is doomed.”  (God and Government: Volume 1, p. 4, 5) 

The battle today is over Lordship.  The issue of politics today is the issue of sovereignty.  Who is Lord of all of life to whom man must give his total allegiance, Christ or Caesar?  The answer to this question is the difference between liberty and slavery, justice and tyranny.  The critical issue of our day is the relationship of Christ and His Word to our political and legal system in the United States.  Who has jurisdiction over every aspect of American society, Jesus Christ or the State?  Is America to be a Christian nation, or a humanistic nation?  The ONLY faithful answer that a Bible-believing Christian can give is this: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12).  “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us” (Isaiah 33:22).  The Christian’s study of the Word of God must bring with it the desire and ability to make application where Scripture makes application.  If Scripture speaks to civil government, then civil government must be called upon to acknowledge the Lord of Scripture and be reconstructed according to His demands. This was our nation once…it can be our nation again; but before too long, it may be too late.

“If Christ is really king, exercising original and immediate jurisdiction over the State as really as he does over the church, it follows necessarily that the general denial or neglect of his rightful lordship, any prevalent refusal to obey that Bible which is the open law-book of his kingdom, must be followed by political and social as well as moral and religious ruin.  If professing Christians are unfaithful to the authority of their Lord in their capacity as citizens of the State, they cannot expect to be blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in their capacity as members of the Church.  The kingdom of Christ is one, and cannot be divided in life or in death.  If the Church languishes, the State cannot be in health; and if the State rebels against its Lord and King, the Church cannot enjoy his favour.  If the Holy Ghost is withdrawn from the Church, he is not present in the State; and if he, the only ‘Lord and Giver of life,’ be absent, then all order is impossible, and the elements of society lapse backward into primeval night and chaos…I charge you, citizens of the United States, afloat on your wide sea of politics, there is another king, one Jesus: the safety of the state can be secured only in the way of humble and whole-souled loyalty to His person and of obedience to His law.” (A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology, pp. 246-248)

“Rights come from God to us and we lend them to government.  We must never allow them to convince us that our rights come from them.”  (Glenn Beck, Common Sense, p. 78).  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”  (Declaration of Independence).  The rights of the individual, the family, the church, and all other sacred institutions have been under attack for far too long.  Most of them perhaps haven’t overtly affected you, but we cannot continue to agree to give up the rights of others and expect that it won’t come back on us because when they do, no one will be around to stand with us as our rights are infringed upon.  What do I mean by that?  One golden example is the law passed in 1954; banning pastors from “engaging in political campaigns,” while still having their donors receive a tax exemption.  So now organizations such as ACORN, or people such as Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Jeremiah Wright get a pass on preaching liberal politics, but our pastors can’t.  In fact, ACORN received a large stimulus in the bailout package passed just a few short months ago, even while they were being investigated in several states for voter fraud.  Or let’s look at the Social Security program.  Why do we have it?  It’s because some people made poor choices and didn’t save and invest their money for a rainy day.  Now the federal government takes our money and “protects” our future.  Or let’s take California for example.  Just a few years ago, a California appellate court found that “parents do not have a constitutional right to home-school their children” under California law.  Children need the education of “experts”.  Now we have the “omnipotent” State deciding what values our children should have.  Students can even receive education, counseling, and medical treatment for abortions, contraceptives, and homosexuality (just to name a few) without the parents even knowing about it.  Or on a lighter side, if we head on over to Saint Paul, Minnesota, it is now illegal for you to idle your car for more than three minutes without potentially being fined.  I know that some of you come from warmer climates or live in rural areas, but try to not idle your car when it’s 50 degrees below zero and you’re stuck in a rush hour traffic jam…good luck.  Or we can consider Minnesota’s lovely law prohibiting smoking in any restaurants.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like smoke in my face while enjoying dinner with my family; but the only right that I have in this case is to eat somewhere else.  I don’t need to give them my business if I don’t like it.  What right does the government have to decide policies like that in a private business?  We may also consider the push for strong seat belt laws, helmet laws, or no cell phones in cars, or the attack on driving SUV’s and trucks, or not being allowed to buy incandescent light bulbs…the list goes on and on and on.

Everyone has choices.  Every choice comes with consequences.  Some consequences are good, others are bad.  Today we’re allowing the civil government to decide these choices for us.  Initially it was simple decisions that we all made anyway such as wearing our seat belts.  Common sense, right?  If you wear your seat belt, your chances of surviving a car accident increase.  When we allow the civil government to crack that door of making those choices for us, human nature is always to grab more power.  Today, we have the civil government with firm control through the public school programs, or funding for public colleges.  In most areas we still have choices to get private schooling, but it may not be long until we all follow California’s example.  Today we still have the freedom to raise our own children, but it won’t be long until…

Ohh wait, one of the amendments being considered for the new health care bill is to have “experts” come into people’s homes and train parents on proper ways to instruct and correct children.  Couple that thought with the fact that just over a month ago, one family had their child seized by civil government authorities for the sole reason that he was obese.  I’m telling you, this isn’t fear mongering, this isn’t the distant future conspiracy theories…this is today.  We need to stop our civil government from being our nanny. 

Civil government was put in place to protect us from other people infringing on our freedoms and that’s it!  It was not designed to protect a person from himself!  Hillary Clinton will NEVER replace the wisdom of your momma!  

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.” ~ Thomas Jefferson