Friday, November 13, 2009

Pelosi's House of Horror

While many people were at the movies this past Saturday night being scared by Paranormal Activity, Nancy Pelosi was putting on her own scary movie in Washington D.C. Those of you who have seen Paranormal Activity know how scary it was, (and for those of you who have not yet seen it, I highly recommend you do,) and also know that the House passing this bill is much, much scarier. These two frightening ‘bills’ (yes, going to the movies does indeed rack-up a bill these days [I think it is Bush’s fault, but I digress]) are not so different.

Paranormal Activity is about a demon who is taking over the lives of a young couple. The demon makes their lives difficult, and uncomfortable. What a coincidence. The Nancy Pelosi House of Horror is not very different. As I have pointed out before, not only would the government having a big stake in the healthcare industry obviously have a large effect on the healthcare we receive, it would also result in the government having a say in every aspect of our lives. What we eat, how much we do, can we smoke (I am not saying smoking is good, as a premed student I really do understand how bad it is, but that does not make it the power of the government to stop me from doing so,) and so on. They will have their hands in all parts of our lives, and it will not be pleasant. All with the claim of ‘we are responsible to make sure you live this way based on how we feel it will effect the costs of healthcare, which we are responsible to keep down.’

They will change how our physicians and insurance companies deal with us. It is not possible that they will be cutting Medicare and Medicaid payments to physicians, and regulating to a higher level the types of procedures that they are able to do, without it having an effect on the way the doctor manages his whole practice. [On that note, are physicians going to be able to opt out of accepting Medicaid once they see the new low payment system? Would you be surprised if they would not be?]

They will be regulating who the insurance companies must cover (pre-existing condition, extending the age one will be covered by the parent plans, to name a few.) This will most definitely have an effect on us. Obama is claiming that the reform and the public option will lower costs? If you are forcing the Insurance companies to take more risks, and cover more people, how could it possibly result in costing less? Because of the increased competition you say? Not everyone will be eligible for the public option, so the insurance companies will be able to continue to charge those clients the same as before. Especially since those who do not want insurance will be forced to purchase a plan anyway and if they are not eligible for the public option this will actually give the insurance companies a free hand to charge them what they please since they will now be forced to have coverage. Bottom line, it is not the job of the government to regulate the healthcare industry, nor do they have a constitutional right to do so.

There is however one very big difference between the Paranormal Activity and the House bill. Paranormal Activity cost less than $15,000.00 to produce, but yet as made around $100,000,000.00 so far! I know! The House bill is a little different in this respect. There is no profit to speak of here. In fact, it will cost approximately ten times more than Paranormal Activity made. This is not exactly what I would call a good idea for a country with a national debt of over 1 trillion dollars and growing. The government is not supposed to be spending money on things like this. Yes, I know that they do, and have been for a long time, but that does not make it correct. However, so many people (mostly liberals,) base what they believe the government was set up with the power to do, on what it has done in the past.

This is one of the reasons I am so nervous about the government passing a bill of this size. Specifically, since it will be containing the mandate forcing the uninsured to purchase health insurance. It will open up the door for so many other bills of such proportion to be passed, on the grounds that ‘this is what the government does, just look at the healthcare bill.’ And with the mandate, just imagine what that could lead to. Related to healthcare you could see things such as ‘vitamins are good for you, you must purchase them,’ [I should not give them any ideas.] stemming from, ‘look, they did it with healthcare reform.’ Or maybe we will all have to buy Barack Obama’s book? I mean if we do not all buy his book; the government will have to buy it for us, right?

Of course, let’s not forget how wrong it is in its own right for the government to have such a big hand in our healthcare system. As I have said before, there is no reference to this in the Constitution, (although I fear that no longer matters). We can not afford this right now, and even if we could there is no reason for it to be done in a way that will affect the whole country. If we had a large surplus, and taxes were at a nice low rate for all, and the government chose to set up some clinics for low income families I would have no problem with that. But when it is a system that will affect the level of everyone in the country’s healthcare, and put mandates on individuals and businesses, all while putting the country deeper in debt.

Paranormal Activity does not have a pleasant ending. I will not spoil it for you, but trust me when I say this is not a ‘feel good’ movie. If this bill gets through the Senate I am fearful that its ending will not be any more pleasant than the ending was in the movie. Oh yea, there is one more big difference: This is real life!

Friday, November 6, 2009

A New Jersey (and Virgina)

On Monday, the day before this week's elections, the White House wanted to make sure we all knew that the results of the elections were in no way a reflection on Obama. In fact, on election day the press secretary even said that the President would not be watching the results. [I am trying to figure out how it would be good for Obama’s image to say that he was not concerned with what was happening around the country, specifically in races for which he had spent so much time campaigning. But then again why am I assuming that they actually thought this through and some how concluded that it would be good for his image. And you know what they say about what happens when one assumes. (It kind of feels like Obama is assuming all day long.)]

This indicated to me how fearful Obama was that the Governors he spent hours campaigning for would lose. Also, he is not a stupid man and he knew that it most certainly did have to do with him. What amazes me is how he could not let himself be associated with a loss. Like a small child who needs his parents to remind him that it was not his fault that the team lost, for he pitched great. I think it is his oversized ego that was the motivation for this disclaimer. He needed to make sure that everyone would be saying (and he knew that his media pets would be saying whatever their master told them to,) that it was not him who lost.

They were trying to say that people were voting here based on the economy. Well Mr. Obama, the economy is you. You have made this very clear. With your stimulus, your banks, and your car companies. I mean after all you are the President, you are responsible, right? In fact, you won your election, in a big part because of how you promised you were going to fix the economy. Evidently people are not happy with how you are following up on this promise, which can be seen with Christie's win in New Jersey, and McDonald's in Virginia. These are both states that are usually blue, yet now they are red. If people were satisfied with how you were doing your job, would they not have listened to your phone calls and voted for your candidates? If they liked what were doing would they not have made sure to elect Governors who were claiming that they would be doing the same? Specifically now with healthcare reform, since there is talk of individual states being able to opt out. If people really wanted your healthcare reform would they not have made sure not to risk that (even if you do somehow take over the lives of many Americans) their state would not be included?

I think what is really happening here is that you have properly shown people what democrats really are, and they don't like it. There are many people who vote democrat with the (unfortunately false) belief that they are performing a good deed by doing so, and you are losing their support for your party. I personally have heard lifelong democrats say that 'they want to be a democrat, but that they are now finding it so difficult to do so.' You are showing them what the left truly is, and they are running right back home. I know these results are a direct reflection on you; those who voted know this, and so do you. Are you going to blame this on Bush? (Of course that would make it worse, but habits are hard to break.)

America was founded as a Conservative country, and it has, and will always be one. You prove that statement as well as anyone could. True we might get caught up in a historical campaign and make a foolish mistake (also proven by you.) But the fact that the most liberal President ever can make the country as conservative as ever, guarantees that we will be forever, no matter how hard you try to change it, a conservative nation.

PTP: One of the recent health care bills includes a provision that will penalize physicians who give their patients too much care (no rationing, right?) This is done to ensure costs will be kept down. This practice used to be done by insurance companies until it was ruled a risk for the well being of the patients. Really? Why is it then not risky now? Maybe this was banned from the insurance companies solely to harm their business? Or is this just proof that the government does not really care about you, and that the push for healthcare reform is not about making sure that Americans are well cared for?

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

I'm Only Asking for Some Common Sense

I would first of all like to apologize for the long break since my last blog. But I have a good excuse. I was accepting my Noble Prize in Medicine. Yes, I know I am young and have only just begun the process of applying to medical school, but they gave it to me because they thought that maybe sometime in the future I might make an important discovery. But now I am back, so have no fear.

A few weeks ago Republicans in the senate asked for a bill to be instated that would require any non-emergency legislation to be posted on the internet for the public for at least 72 hours before the senate voted on it. This notion was denied immediately. John Kerry, broke through his Botox frozen face to claim that this was just an attempt by the Republicans to try to waste time. Really? What would the purpose of that be Mr. Kerry? Why would they want to vote on Thursday instead of Monday? Or would it be a problem for you if they had extra time to read the whole bill? It would be difficult to sneak in last minute legislation, like the over 250 pages that were added to the Cap-and-Trade bill the morning it was voted on. How can our representatives be voting on things they have not even read? And do not mistakenly think that the only reason they didn’t read it was because of the last minute additions. They hadn’t read the other 1200 pages either. Maybe some of it, but for sure not all of it.

Some democrats gave a reason for not posting the legislation online before the senate voted. They said that the bills were written in a very confusing language and that if people were able to read it, it would just result in them taking things out of context. Is that so? Is it our fault that you are writing bills in a way that we can not understand so that you can fool us into accepting your agenda? Thomas Paine addressed confusing language in legislation in his work Common Sense, over 200 years ago:

Absolute governments (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, that they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

So by giving this reason for not wanting us to see the bill they are in fact letting us know that they are even worse than we thought. They are not just irresponsible, but they are also part of a system that is comparable to the one this country was established to avoid. A system where the government has the power, and uses it to control many aspects of our lives. A system where we are kept outside the decisions made by few, that have very personal effects for many. I know that we can not all be present at every vote done by the house, but we should at least have the ability to give some insight to our representatives as to how we feel about the matter. They are there to make sure our voices are heard in Washington. How can they do this if we do not even know what they are doing there?

Our representatives in a way do not really represent us anymore. They spend most of the year in Washington making deals with each other, unfortunately using us as pawns. They have full time jobs in a part time field. They rarely take the time after they are elected to hear what we think. They have so much free time that they can sit there and write 1500 page bills, with confusing language and hidden rules. They can search and search for new areas in which they can write those bills and control our lives. They should be meeting a couple of times a year, to vote on a few issues that have come up since their last meeting. They could possibly present bills at the January meeting, to be voted on in the July meeting. Bills that they have time to read, and time to hear from us what we think of them.

If I were a member of Congress I would do this, and I would try to lead by example that this is how Congress should be run. I would not spend my time writing long bills, and finding new areas of life to regulate. I would not take a salary and work full time. I would keep my job, and be a member of my district. I would go a few times a year, (or more if necessary to fight some possible legislation,) and express the opinions of my constituents. I would have a website, where my people can see the bills I will be voting on, and have ample time to let me know what they thought. Maybe I would even have them vote on the website so I can really see how they feel, and I could therefore truly bring their desires to Capitol Hill with me. Bottom line is that I would be a regular guy just making sure my neighbors voice is heard in Washington.

When people read my plan they will think I am crazy. What I am describing is so foreign that it seems like a joke. But this is in reality how all members of Congress should be acting. They should not be writing legislation so long and confusing that their votes are all based on party loyalty, instead of expressing our, and in some cases even their true opinions. If a bill is so long and confusing they should refuse to accept it until they had time to read it, and speak to us about it. In fact I would say that if legislation is so confusing it should be required to be rewritten in a concise simple manner. In fact I would dare go even farther (which I can for this is my blog,) and say that if a proposed legislation needs a bill so long and confusing to represent it, then that is an area of our lives that should not be governed.

It is things like this that remind me how far we have come from the founding of our country. We are seeing the very same things done by our government that our founding fathers were complaining to the British Empire about. I have said this before, and I will say it again. If George Washington saw this government today, he would not know he was in America. If Thomas Paine could see the way our government was being run now he would write another Common Sense, and the saddest part is that it probably would not be very different then the one he wrote in 1776.

PTP: We elect representatives to make sure our voices are heard in Washington. Do we elect them solely to vote along with the of the majority of his or her constituents? Or by electing them are we saying that we trust them to make decisions for us?

In other words: If a representative takes a poll of his or her constituents, and actually knows what the majority of them want, but feels that they are not correct, and that down the road they would regret this decision, can he go against the majority or must he follow the ‘direct order’ of his people?

Friday, October 2, 2009

A Big Stick

General McChrystal asked President Obama to send 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. He said that he does not see America winning the war without them. The President is now in the process of deciding if he will fulfill that request or not. What is he thinking about? Does he think that the General might be requesting something he does not need? Or does he think that he knows how to better manage a war (I do not think that even his ego is that big)? Or is this decision going to be based on, as it always seems to be, politics?

I hope it does not come down to politics. This decision should only be based on what will be better for the troops that are fighting there now, and for our efforts in winning the war. I, however, am not sure if winning the war is indeed a priority for our President. He seems to have made it very clear that he was not in favor of this war. He has also made it his business to make sure the rest of the world knows that. Most recently he did this at the U.N. two weeks ago. Regardless of if he agrees with this war, he must put that aside and act as a commander-in-chief who is interested in winning. He is not on the campaign trail any more. It is time to step up to the plate, stop pointing fingers and act like the President he constantly reminds us he is.

He speaks often about how concerned he is with the way the rest of the world views America. This is why he is so busy telling them he is against the war, and that he will try to fix our mistakes and get out us of there as soon as he can. This is also why he made it one of his first actions as President to close Guantanamo Bay. Well, believe it or not I also am concerned with how the rest of the world views America. I am concerned that the rest of the world will begin to see us a weak country that will cave in to the orders of other nations, specifically those who present threats.

Teddy Roosevelt said we must ‘speak softly and carry a big stick.’ This means that we should not fight if it is not necessary, but at the same time our enemies must know that if they force us to we will hit, and hit hard. We could accomplish this by winning in Iraq and in Afghanistan. If we can show the world that we can and will eliminate those who we view as threats, it will go a long way in making sure that other groups are less likely to choose to threaten us. This is very important with Iran now officially being able to develop nuclear missiles. Ahmadinejad has made it clear that he would be more than happy to use these missiles, not something I would like to see. If we do not make sure that we emerge victorious in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if other nations do not think we would make that type of strike again if necessary, we no longer have our big stick.

Obama has a chance here to make sure America’s stick is nice and big. If he sends these troops to Afghanistan he can show the world that we are committed to eliminating our enemies, and that we will not back down when the going gets tough. He acknowledged that he does not approve of Iran having the ability to make these missiles, but not even in the speaking softly sense. He said that Iran must display its intentions with deeds of peace. ?!?!?!? Until one actually uses the missile is there not always peace? The point of stopping someone who has the ability to harm you is to remove that ability. So what does letting them know that we are expecting them to be nice accomplish? If we are going to wait to see if they do something harmful before we do anything it will be too late.

Obama missed the chance to speak softly to Iraq. He was not the President then. Now, he has the obligation to finish these wars whether he originally agreed with them or not. He must show the world that we do still carry a big stick. If he keeps letting people know that he does not approve of us fighting Iraq, then people will not be afraid that we would attack someone else in the future, meaning we do not have a big stick. If he does not send the troops, giving the Generals on the ground the resources they need to win the fight in Afghanistan, he shows the world that we are not committed to winning our battles and to fighting those that present a threat to us. He should be concerned with how the world views us. He should be very concerned with making sure that they world knows we do indeed carry a very big stick. He has made it clear that he is a big fan of diplomacy. But he must remember that speaking softly only works, if he is carrying a big stick.

Words of Wisdom: During his appearance on Leno, Rush made a very important point about why the Government being involved in healthcare is so scary. He said that if the government is involved in our healthcare they can then control every single aspect of our lives by claiming that it is because of how it will affect the cost of the healthcare, which is funded by our tax dollar. What you eat, what you drive, everything. Doesn't sound so nice, does it?

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Color Coded

About two weeks ago Jimmy Carter (or as Rush calls him, "The hemorrhoid of our country") said that the anger towards Barack Obama is a result of his being an African American. Why would he say that? What could his motivation be for ‘playing the race card’ now? There is the obvious reason of trying to silence the opposition. Since the democrats are having great difficulty in winning the debate on healthcare via substance, they defer to petty distractions. Also it has the added benefit of gaining a few votes from people who are scared that if they disagree with Obama they will be called racists. [Of course these people are indeed racists, and we call them ‘racistaphobes.’ Yes, I made up that word. Their fear of being viewed as racists stems from the fact that deep down they do have racist thoughts and they are trying to hide from them.] I, however, feel that ‘our hemorrhoid’ and all of those on the left say things like Carter did for another reason.

In order for me to explain this reason I must first discuss racism. A common misconception about racism is that it means thinking negatively or generalizing negatively about a certain person / group of people because of their race or ethnicity. In reality doing anything to a person because of their race is also racism. So, if for example one were to vote for someone because they are black this is an act of racism. Basically racism means viewing people as part of a race or ethnic group, instead of just as person.

This includes labeling people by their race or ethnicity. So when the media refers to Obama as the first black president, they are indeed committing an act of racism. Why is this a problem? Because by doing so they are keeping race an issue in our country. As long as people view others memebrs of a race they are working to keep racism an issue. (I do not mean solely as a way to describe someone. So if for example one would say to their co-worker ‘do you remember my neighbor Joshua? You know, the Latino guy.’ That would not be racism. For it would be used as one would use the descriptive word, tall or thin.)

In fact I believe that labeling is what leads to the worst part of racism. It causes the labeled group to feel that they are separate, in a way, from the rest of society. It makes them feel vulnerable - that at any moment their group can once again be singled out and treated differently. (I am of course speaking about present day America, where we have righted our wrongs and no longer have laws allowing legal segregation. In segregated America obviously the worst part of racism would be the segregation.) This mindset that is created by believing that the country views you as a separate group does a great deal of damage, and as long as big figures keep these ‘labels’ alive, this mindset will be present.

This being said, as long as people like Jimmy Carter, and Al Sharpton keep discussing race the way they do, their actions / statements keep racism a big issue in this country. Not only that, but they also are the ones causing the worst effect racism can have. When they make their comments about things being done only because of race, they get people into the mindset I was describing, that they are separate and vulnerable. So as these people come out ‘defending’ minorities, they are actually holding them back and preventing them from feeling like equal members of the society.

Now to get back to the original discussion. I believe that one of the reasons the left talks so much about race is in order to keep it an issue. Why? In order to make sure that the minorities still believe it is an issue, resulting in them having that feeling of vulnerability and separation. This allows the democrats to swoop in as the ‘defender of minorities’ and get their votes. I have said this so many times, it all comes down to votes. By constantly reminding minorities that they are minorities, and by repeatedly making comments about race they are able to make the minority feel that they need to be protected lest the country turn on them once again.

Will racism ever be eliminated from our country? On an individual level, unfortunately I would say probably not. But on a national level, I hope so. In fact, I believe that the main thing holding it back are those who pose as defenders, but in reality are doing just the opposite. So when Jimmy Carter comes out and says that people are opposing Obama because he is an African American, he is causing so much harm. Not because he is completely wrong, as there are certainly individuals who are opposing the President solely for that reason, just as there are those agreeing with him solely for that reason, but because he is making it an issue that hurts the whole nation.

(This article is obviously not adressing actual situations in which people are beaten, discriminated against or put down because of race, ethnicity or religion.)

PTP*: This one is really for Peanut Jimmy. Did Barack Obama tell Governor Patterson (D- NY) not to run for another term simply because he is black? And does Michael Steele oppose Obama because he is black?

* I know I said I would not define it any more, but since we just had a recent flood of readers due to my appearance on the Mark Levin Show, I will define it once again. PTP= Point To Ponder.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Weekend Showdown: President Obama vs. The Orthodox Conservative

I do not have 5 T.V. networks who will host me. Nor do I have a Spanish voice-over man to follow me around; so I am left expressing myself on this blog. (By the way, do you think that Obama’s voice-over guy had his own teleprompter?) In order to try to compete, however, I will respond to Obama’s tour of Sunday morning T.V. with 5 points. True, 5 points is a bit shabby when compared to appearances on 5 of the major networks, but hey, I am but a mere pre-med student sitting in my dorm room, so work with me.

1) Word Games: President Obama seems to be a little confused as to the meaning of the word ‘punish.’ We all remember he used it when discussing abortion, saying “if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.” Then yesterday he said that he would not want to see people who could not afford health insurance be punished. I think he has confused the word ‘punish’ with ‘face reality.’ I am not saying that I want to see people in need who can not find help, but I would not call it a punishment for them to not be GIVEN care. For him to say that it would be punishment for one to not receive care, is working with the starting point that all people are entitled to receive that care, and we would be taking it away from them. That is not the case. The care comes from someone, and is given to others. So if one was not able to get care, it is an unfortunate thing, (and we should, as individuals, find a way to help someone we see in need) but by no means are we punishing those who are not able to afford healthcare by not giving it to them for free. Nice try to make us who are against government overhaul of healthcare seem like evil people ‘punishing’ those who are in need. But it is going to take more than that to get by me, Mr. President.

2)The President also said that he did not view taxing the ‘Cadillac’ insurance policies as a tax to the middle class, even though there are people in the middle class who do indeed have these plans. I say who cares? There is a much bigger problem here then if he is sticking to his campaign promises or not. (We found out long ago that he would not be doing that.) To me the big issue is the way he is so openly speaking about taxing some in order to give to others. Now I know that he did not introduce this concept and that it has been around in this country for many years. But I feel the way he is speaking about it so up-front is not a good thing at all. [I will not even get started on why I feel it is morally incorrect to tax some to give to others, and how it is by no means allowed by the constitution.] He started it on the campaign when he spoke of spreading the wealth, and he has continued it now as he attempts to force through his healthcare reform (or is it insurance reform? You know what here is a blank fill it in whenever you are reading this and have heard his last name for the process of changing healthcare:_____ reform.) When you speak about it like this, you create a very distinct class system where the lower class envies and despises the upper class, and begins to feel that they have been stolen from. This creates a dependency on the government to go and take for them what is rightfully theirs. But this is a good thing for Obama and the democrats, for it creates a voting group who needs to vote for them in order to make sure they ‘get what they deserve.’

3)When asked about ACORN, Obama said that he was not really following that story. He also said that he was not aware that they were getting a whole lot of government money. I find this hard to believe, as he spent a whole lot of time with ACORN on the campaign. But regardless, the point I would like to address is how he blew off the question. He made it seem like it was a small little issue that did not deserve to be spoken about. This displayed to me that he was making it very clear that he is in charge of these interviews and that only the things he wants to speak about are on the table. Or maybe it was him not wanting to dwell on the subject, for we all know how connected he really is with them? Either way, as he keeps saying, he is the President, so when there is news like this, and Congress has just voted to defund ACORN, he should know what is going on. And you can not tell me that the reason he did not answer the question was because he was only doing a talk about healthcare, for he did speak about other topics. But his answer that there are more important things for him to be dealing with now, might have worked had he not proceded to answer a question about the fate of his favorite baseball team.

4)Fox News. Yes, they are still around. I know you were thinking they shut down since you saw the President on every other major news network except for them yesterday, but do not worry, they are still here. The President choosing to not go on Fox News disturbs me because the White House clearly said it was payback for them not airing the President’s press conference two weeks ago. This shows us just how the media is in the government's palm. Not only is the media biased for the left on their own accord, but they are almost being forced to be by the White House. The media is not supposed to be working for the President. The media has a very important job, and by being affiliated with different politicians they are not doing their job properly. (Which is allowed. They can choose to report any way they please. But when the President is involved, and the White House is working so closely with them there must be some form of proper journalism that is upheld.) So, when this type of relationship is displayed between the President and the different networks where ‘you show my speech, and I will give you an interview’ we see that the system is broken. But then again, each time the President goes on national T.V. it seems his ratings are dropping, so good for Fox News that they were able to stay clear of this, since the Obama administration like to call anything not going perfectly - a crisis.

5)On the very same day that we saw the President displaying for us how he expects the news to be catering to his desires and reporting the way he wants it to, with consequences for those who do not, there was talk about bailing out the newspaper industry. First off this is absurd. Just because the world is changing, and newspapers just might not be as effective as they once were, we are to bail them out? Today we have the internet, cable T.V., and satellite radio to compete with newspapers as a source of news. If they can not keep up, sorry. Find a way to be successful with your paper online, and if you can’t, then move along. Nothing lasts forever. Are we to begin bailing out the long forgotten world of radio soap-operas? They are having a great deal of trouble competing with T.V. let’s help them out. This would obviously be absurd, for after they ran out of the money that was given to them their troubles would resume. It is not like you could get the papers back on their feet and then move out, like with the auto industry (I am not endorsing the auto bailouts.) They are struggling now, because the world is changing, and no bailout can help with that. But what would really make me nervous about this is the government having their hands in the news industry even more that it already does. Yesterday Obama was mad at Fox News so he didn’t go on their channel for an interview, they will survive. But imagine if the threat was ‘report this story as we say, or no more bailout money for you.’ They would have no choice. They would shut down with out the money. I think it is pretty clear why the government should not have a hand in the news industry.

Well, I hope you enjoyed my 5 points. I think that even though it might seem small compared with Obama’s journey through the 5 major networks yesterday, if you analyze what we said, it might actually turn out that my 5 ‘things’ were greater. But then again, just like the networks President Obama spent time with yesterday morning, my opinion is biased. Oh, and for all of you Spanish speakers waiting for me to respond to the Univision interview, I apologize for all I can give you a simple hola.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Spender-Confused Government

If one would look solely at the way President Obama has been speaking about wanting to cut spending on our defense they would come to the conclusion that this is an administration that does not spend money easily. They would be under the impression that our government is going to be very careful about spending our tax dollars, and is very concerned with our national debt. This is what one would think if they only looked at the way Obama speaks about spending on our defense.

But then one might look at all of the debate about healthcare reform. One might see that there has been almost no attempt to cut spending and that the CBO has reported huge increases in government spending on healthcare, should any of the bills they had reviewed become law. One might look at all of the stimulus bill spending. One might happen to notice our national debt is indeed rising, and all projections show it will keep rising.

I find this to be very interesting. While the President plans to cut spending on one of the few things that the government is empowered to spend on, according to the constitution, he is speaking about increasing spending in areas that should have nothing to do with the government.

And it is not as if there is no reason to be interested in making our military strong at this time. Just look at the recent headlines in the news. You will see news about how Iran can now make a nuclear bomb, and about how Russia and Venezuela are becoming very friendly with Iran. You will read about China possibly being able to undermine our operations in the Pacific. And there is talk about cutting spending on our defense? This is one of the main reasons why our government exists.

The problem is that the government is slowly being molded with the community. The government’s job is to provide defense, a judiciary system and so forth; while it is the job of the community to deal with things such as healthcare. People should work together to take care of each other, and make sure that people who need help can get it, but that is not the job of the government, nor was it given the power to do so. That is the job of the community.

When the government speaks about less spending on defense, but more spending on things such as healthcare, it shows me that they are forgetting who they are; that they are switching from being the government to being the community. The community, however, is not able to become the government. And, the government is much too large to be a community, and brings along with its ‘community actions’ laws and restrictions that infringe on peoples private lives. One of the beauties of a community is that everybody pitches in optionally, and no one is forced to do anything.

So as the government becomes more and more like a community, we loose our ability to function independently in our own communities. This leaves us with a government that infringes on our private lives, and at the same time damages our ability to effectively take care of the very same things they are claiming to be helping us with. And all this, while neglecting to do the things they are supposed to do as our government.

SHOUT OUT: I would like to take this opportunity to thank The Great One, Mark Levin, for letting me plug my blog on his show last night.

Monday, September 14, 2009

School, Guns, and the Internet

Last week, as I am sure you all know, President Obama gave a speech to children in schools across the country. There was a great deal of controversy around this speech. As the speech was approaching, many parents were even threatening to keep their children home from school that day. Why? What was so upsetting about a speech to children in school that was causing such a response? I did not see such a problem with the President’s idea to give this speech. A President is supposed to be a leader, and hence should have the ability to inspire many. The children of the country are a great audience and certainly a body that can be inspired and motivated to do great things; especially if being spoken to by our president, who is looked up to by virtually every child in the country, and rightfully so. So, why would this speech not be seen as a good thing?

There were many parents complaining that this was not a proper use of school time. I did not see this as such a problem for a few reasons. First, because of what I just explained, that there is the potential for a speech like this to have a very positive impact on the children. Second, the time it would take to have this speech in the big picture of things is so small and negligible as part of the whole school year.

This being said, I was not happy about the speech. Well, the speech itself I was fine with, it was what the White House sent along with the speech that disturbed me. They sent a short email to schools providing suggestions for how the schools could deal with the speech. They said teachers should discuss the speech with children before and after it was given. They were even nice enough to give a list of suggested questions to ask the students, and this is what got me. The questions suggested, really showed me the true agenda of this speech.

Some of the questions that really stood out to me were: What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do? And Why it is important that we listen to the president and other elected officials?

To me, these questions were an attempt to get the children to think in a certain way, mainly that the government is who to turn to for everything. I see these questions as trying to lead the children to believe in big government as a way of life. By trying to get them to think about listening to elected officials and what they are telling us to do, they are leading the children to view the officials in a specific light. They are attempting to guide the children to view the elected officials as the heads of the country, and the ones who should be telling us what to do. True, the president is in many ways the head of our country but not when it comes to how we should behave, and certainly not when it comes to how we should think.

This is not an isolated event. I believe that there is a very strong push by the democrats to create this mindset in all Americans. It does many things for them. It makes it easier for them to pass controlling, and regulating legislation. I also believe it allows them to more easily further their agenda of ‘spreading the wealth.’ By making the people feel that the government is the true head of the country, it is easier to convince them the government has the right to take from one and give to another; for they would feel that the government is truly in control of everything anyways. This has been going on with the democrats for a very long time, and as I have said before has worked wonders for getting votes.

There are a few other things that have been popping up in the news in the past few months that I believe are part of this attempt to change, (and in some, enforce) the way people view the government: As the owners, and controllers of every aspect of the country. Two things that really stand out to me are gun control, and this recent story of trying to give the President the power to take control over the internet.

First I will deal with the talk about stricter gun control. It does not really matter if the government does indeed come along and take away everybody’s guns. As long as they have created a fear that they would, they have done enough to further this agenda. How, you might ask? Well, lucky for you I can answer that question. We must look at why ‘the right to bear arms’ is such a crucial part of the constitution. We must look at what the founders were taking into consideration when setting up our great country, and mainly to create a government that does not own, nor control its citizens (as had been the case in the land they were coming from.) By allowing the people to bear arms, they were making it clear that government’s powers did not include having any control over the citizens. That they would not be able to do things by force, and to take over people’s lives as they had been doing under the King. So keeping this in mind, [and I am not implying that the democrats are trying to use force to take over the country and control us and rule over the people,] but I am saying that they are trying to make people think of the government as a body that can do that. I believe that they want Americans to view the government as the owners of the country, instead of themselves as being such.

The same thing is with this talk about the president being able to control the internet. If the president is able to control such a public, free thing as the internet, where does his power stop? No where. And this is what they want us to think. They want us to view the President, and all elected officials for that matter, as true rulers. As people who are in control of the land, and even in control of the people.

Now many of the democrats get caught up in different ideas that can be further pushed by thinking like this, and can almost forget about what else it implies. They see for example, healthcare for everyone, and can see it as a feasible government option because they view the government as the true owners of all in the land, and hence a body that can take from some to give to others. They do not have the time to see that this also means that the government can take away what is theirs, mainly because they are too caught up in their goal.

But this internet thing specifically troubles me because of the recent events that took place in Iran. The government was killing and beating peaceful protesters in the street, and if not for the internet no one would have known about it. Imagine, the protests were nothing compared to what happened on Saturday in D.C (G-d bless those people who attended,) and the Iranian government was brutally murdering innocent people in the street. Imagine if not for the clever use of Twitter and Facebook , no one outside of Iran would have known about what was going on, and who knows how long it would have continued if not for the international pressure that was put on them. So, how would anyone talk about our President being able to stop us from getting out those Tweets if something like that were to occur in our country? Again, not that I am even in anyway suggesting that it would, but the fact that we would know that if it did, there would be nothing for us to do, would put people in the mindset that ‘the government is in charge here, and they control our whole lives.’

I believe that this was the true motivation behind the speech to the kids in school, and for the talk of giving the president to power to control the internet. I think it is all part of the attempt to make people think of the government as the rulers of the land. To slowly remove from our society the truth that our government is for the people by the people, and that the country is owned by the citizens. To flip the table and create a land where instead of us being in charge and the government working for us, where the government is in charge and we work for them.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

More Speeches?

First kids in school. Now grownups eating dinner. Thankfully I had class tonight so I was only able to catch the end of the President’s speech. I did hear him say something though that really confused me though. He said that in order to keep things fair, if someone was able to afford insurance he would be obligated BY LAW to purchase a plan. He said that this was because otherwise it would make us all suffer because we would then have to cover his emergency room bills. That is absurd. It is like scratching your right ear with your left hand.

The correct way to deal with the problem the President mentioned is not by forcing all to purchase insurance; it is by removing the emergency room laws that require all emergency rooms to be open to all. These rules end up costing the hospitals and us millions of dollars a year, and do play a big part in the high costs of healthcare today. So if the President is concerned about the high costs of the emergency room, why not remove those laws? Why address it by forcing others to spend money? Those people might never even go to the E.R., but now they would have to spend money on insurance anyway. The problem would be solved by removing the E.R. laws just the same, without forcing people to spend money.

He also made a point to mention that there would be stricter rules forcing companies to provide health insurance for their employees. He said that those companies who did not would have an unfair advantage over those who do. I ask how? By making their company less desirable to work for? Obviously he means by saving on the extra cost of providing coverage for their employees. This would of course mean that they would have more money to spend which could lead to more people hired. Something you would think the President would want to see with the unemployment number where it is now.

I addressed this a few months ago. I said that if people, who otherwise did not want to, would be forced to buy insurance they will for sure go for the public option as it will be cheaper. This will force more people into the system and hence make the segue into a single-payer system easier. Same thing with the companies that did not plan on providing the coverage. If they are forced to, they would go for the cheapest thing they can, the public option. Ironically, the President cited the creation of a public option as a proof that the government is not really trying to take over the system. I would love for him to try to explain that one. Uh uh uh uh uh.

This is just another example of a government that has become so large and overpowering. If George Washington would see this government he would be very confused. Abraham Lincoln would be in shock. Americans being obligated by law to purchase health insurance? Obama compared it to the requirement to have auto insurance. Not a good comparison though, because the requirement of the auto insurance is that it covers the party you damaged. The comparison he could have made would be obligating all to purchase home owners insurance. That would not have worked though, as it is not (and rightfully so) the case.

Each time the President speaks about healthcare the polls turn more against him. It is clear why. The more he says, the more people realize that they do not want this. That while our system may not be perfect, no system is, and at least ours is the best.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK: "I prefer a thief to a Congressman. A thief will take your money and be on his way, but a Congressman will stand there and bore you with the reasons why he took it." -Dr. Williams

PTP: Why would Obama want to be able to control the internet? Could it have anything to do with how well the citizens in Iran used it while their government was making some changes that they did not like?

Monday, August 31, 2009

Myths or Facts?

Much of the talk about healthcare reform recently has been about the so-called “myths.” The democrats say that the republicans have made them up just to try and start trouble. The republicans do seem to bring written proof from the proposed bills, but that does not stop the President from claiming they are ‘myths.’ (This could be a result of him not having read the proposed bills himself, but let’s not go there now.) I would like to address two of these ‘myths’: the ‘Death Panels,’ and the coverage for illegal aliens.

The President keeps saying that he has no idea where this idea of the ‘death panels’ has come from. The idea might have come from taking a peek just north of us, or across the Atlantic and witnessing the rationing of care that goes on in those countries with socialized medicine. Where older people find it extremely difficult to get procedures done, which are offered more readily to younger people. This can be called ‘death panels,’ for the older people who have been denied that certain procedure, might have really needed it, and only did not get it because the government has decided it is not worth it for older individuals to receive such care.

But, this is not the only place where the idea might have come from. The idea might have come from the President himself. During one of the first of the ‘town hall’ meetings the President has been hosting, the topic of end-of-life care was discussed. (For those of who are interested, this was the one that was aired on ABC on June 24th.) The topic was introduced by a physician from the Mayo clinic in Rochester who said this “I'm Dr. Michael Jenson at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. I see too many patients who have terminal illnesses or no hope of recovery who receive weeks or months of intensive care unit treatment, only to prolong their death. I find this approach very distressing and the waste of money is appalling. We just can't afford to provide all treatments to all people.”

This frightening introduction was followed by a woman who spoke about her mother, who was told that she was too old, and that it would not be worth it to do a certain procedure on her. But the woman and her mother felt that she really wanted it, and that after meeting with the physician, the physician decided that the lady had such a strong spirit, that he would go along with the surgery. The woman was 100 at the time of the surgery and she is now 105.

President Obama responded by saying this “I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people.” How about we make judgments on what the patient and physician feel they want to do? The patient wanted to try the surgery, and the physician felt that he wanted to do it. The President responds by saying that he is not sure if under his system this woman would have been able to get the care. That there would have to be guidelines that deicide specifically who gets care and who does not. I ask you, is this not a ‘death panel?’ If, like Obama said, the panel would have decided if this lady would have been able to get her surgery or not, (and if not, let her die,) then the panel would be exactly what they are being called.

The president said, don’t worry no one is going to pull the plug on Grandma. Now, that is probably true, at first. But mainly because Grandma would not have even been plugged-in, to start with.

The next ‘myth’ I would like to address is the coverage of illegal immigrants. The President has denied this claim, but I am not sure how. Let us remember that the root of this healthcare reform is, as the late Ted Kennedy said, that all people have a natural right to healthcare. If this is truly what the call for reform is based on, then how can we deny a natural right to someone just because they have not filled out their papers yet? Just like we can not kill an illegal immigrant, it would be wrong to deny one of healthcare coverage (if healthcare is a natural right.) So, since this is the premise the democrats are working with, I do not see it feasible for them to not feel it necessary for illegal immigrants to be covered as well. Which is why I would be shocked if they did not make sure to include it in their bill (as many democrats have said they intended to.)

If the call for reform was more along the lines of, ‘as a whole our country is in good shape. Thus, it would be such a shame if we would have people who needed healthcare but could not receive it. Let us work out a system in which we could get healthcare to people who need it.’ Not based on them being entitled to it, but based on the fact that it we have devised a system that would give them the privilege of receiving healthcare in an economically sound way. If this was the case then, non-Americans who are not members of our society would not fall into the category of people, the Americans who are struggling, who we are seeking to help out. Help being the key word. For the reform would be based on physicians willing to generously give treatment to those who were not able to afford it.

This is sort of what Obama was claiming during the campaign when he said that as the richest country in the world, it is unacceptable that we have people without healthcare coverage. Well, I am not sure he can still make this argument. We are in debt, and the debt is growing. So, based on his own words, I think it would be a fair claim to say that until we fix the debt, any system that would increase debt, or hurt the economy is out of the window. The CBO has reported that all of the proposals so far have only shown increases in the national debt possibly reaching a trillion dollars.

So, if a system is proposed that would not cost any money and raise our debt, then maybe we can talk. When a system is suggested that is based on the generosity of physicians who are willing to participate, maybe we can have further discussions. When a system is thought of, that accepts the idea that being treated is a privilege and not a right, some progress is being made. But until then do not get fooled when Obama brushes aside republican attacks as ‘myths.’ For the only true myth is that a system that will not ‘damage our healthcare system or ruin us financially’ is being proposed.

Bumper Sticker of the Week: 'Annoy a liberal: Work hard and be happy.'

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Presidential Vacation

As I am sure you have all heard the Obamas are on vacation. Many people seem to be upset by this. People are saying things along the lines of ‘How can they be vacationing in that expensive place, while the economy is in such shambles?’ (I can not tell you who is saying this, but I am sure someone is.) I could not care less if they want to go on vacation. In fact, I prefer they go on vacation because it means we will have a break from all the town halls and press conferences. But none-the-less, being the widely read and relied upon writer that I am, I know that it is my duty to discuss the situation.

Let us address the complaint that most people seem to have: That it is wrong for him to vacation while a large number of people in America are barely able to make ends meet. I do not agree with this complaint. It is not his job to suffer alongside his constituents. While it might be a good leadership technique, and might work to raise his popularity, (which has been sinking, and for good reason,) he is not responsible to halt his leisure because others might not be able to vacation themselves (as long as he is doing his job.) However, with this particular president I do find myself a little upset to see him on vacation because of his attacks on the financial industry C.E.O.s. He said things along the lines of ‘they could see what the rest of America lives like for a while.’ If he is going to be knocking them living a wealthy lifestyle, he should be refraining from splurging himself.

To those who keep saying that George Bush also took many vacations, I want you to remember this: President Bush stopped playing golf in the middle of his first term in office, because he felt it was wrong to be out having fun while his troops were fighting overseas. Just want you to keep that in mind when you try to compare Obama to President Bush.

Another thing about this that upsets me is the principle of the government spending money on anything other than the country. It has been reported that the Obamas are picking up the tab for their accommodations in Martha’s Vineyard (about $35,000.00 a week.) But remember, when you are President you can not just go on vacation. You bring a very large entourage with you. The Obamas are not paying for them to come along. I do not think they are paying for their or the entourage’s airfare on Air Force One. So, in the end, this vacation is costing us money. True, in the big scale of things not very much, but it is the principle that matters. Why should we be paying for the President to go on vacation? The Constitution very clearly says that the politicians get a compensation for the time they spend away from their regular jobs in order to serve the country, but does not talk about getting money to go on vacation. But this is right in path with this administration’s slogan ‘spend spend and spend.’

His spokesperson said that since he had been working so hard he deserved this vacation. That is not our fault. Our government should not be putting in full time the way they do. If they were not putting in so many hours they would not be coming up with so much controlling legislation. If they did not have so much free time they would not be able to write 1500-page bills describing how they will control our lives. Not to mention the fact that even with being on a full time salary most of them do not even take the time to read those 1500 pages before voting on the bill.

And take this the right way Mr. President; we would have been a whole lot better off if you had not been working so hard.

PTP: Last week Obama said that the Republicans are only fighting the healthcare reform because they think it will lead to them winning back the house in the midterm elections (like they did in ’94.) Let me ask you, if the country does indeed want the reform, wouldn’t the Republicans fighting it hurt them? And if the country does not want it, then is it not good that the Republicans are fighting it? So if Obama is thinking that opposing the healthcare could win them elections, he should also realize it is because the country does not want the reform, and he should halt it himself. Well, if he cared what the country wants, that is.