Sunday, July 26, 2009

President Obama: Doesn't mingle?

As the uprising in Iran was beginning, and claims of a rigged election were becoming very loud our President made it clear that we do not mingle in the affairs of other countries. He said that it is not our place to step in and interfere in their election, and that it was Iran's business to conduct it's own election. I am not sure why this is the case. The man who "won" the election, Ahmadinejad, is in the process of obtaining nuclear power. (Something Obama seems to be fine with.) He has also stated very openly that there is a country he feels should be destroyed completely. How could we not step in and do everything in our power to try to remove this man from a position that allows him to pose this kind of threat. The kind of man who speaks about erasing a country from the face of the earth, is not someone who should be allowed to remain in a position that would allow him to do so.

Nor did Obama seem to react very quickly in letting Iran know that the way they were treating the protesters was unacceptable. He did eventually say it, but it was clear that it should be known that America is not going to be mingling in the affairs of other countries.

However, from Obama's own actions it seems clear that America does indeed mingle in the affairs of other countries. He has spoke out many times telling Israel to halt its settlement building in the West Bank. If we do not mingle in the affairs of others, why would he be saying this. Not to mention the fact that one of the times he said it was in Egypt, while he was in essence speaking directly to the Arab world. Why would he say that Israel was at fault for building the settlements, and that they were doing a great deal to slow down peace processes while speaking to those who are fighting against Israel? Who in their right mind would, while speaking to those very people who were not very long ago shooting rockets into civilian areas, say this, thus giving them an excuse for doing so.

Why was the mention of Israel not completely focused on reprimanding those instigators of violence? Why did he not make it very clear that as long as any type of terrorist actions were taking place, America would not be dealing with those taking part in the terrorist acts? The answer is because Obama does not believe this. He does not think that America does not deal with terrorists. In fact he has made it very clear that we do just the opposite. What a bright idea. This lets other countries know that 'if you want to get America's attention, start causing trouble.' He could let other countries know that in order to speak to America you must behave, but he chooses the opposite.

I am not left with many choices when it comes to interpreting these two actions of Barak Obama. On one hand, when an evil threat is gaining more power, and killing people in the streets of his own country, Obama says we do not mingle in the affairs of other countries. While on the other hand, he time and time again speaks out to Israel, telling them to stop building houses in their own land. (Imagine if England called on the U.S to stop building houses in Texas.) So he says we do not mingle in others affairs in order to allow an evil man to continue to be a threat to the world, and at the same time works to give terrorists more control over land in Israel. (The same terrorists who were shooting missiles into Isreal earlier this year.)

I do not think I need to say anymore. The only one who needs to explain this contradiction of his stated foreign policy is our President. He needs to explain why he is working to help terrorists, instead of our allies, for I sure as hell can not.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Global Warming = Global Corruption

Gather around children, it is story time. There was once man who spent a lot of time convincing the world that blue shirts are better than green ones. He explained that in blue shirts one can move faster, think better, and even lose weight. He was so convincing, that he even got the government to make laws enforcing the wearing of blue shirts. Everyone was so proud of him. He won awards for his great contribution to society. There was one thing that everyone managed to overlook though. This man owned a company that manufactured blue shirts. Did anyone stop to think that maybe he had an alternative motive in promoting the wearing of blue shirts. That maybe he was not doing it to make people healthier, but in order to make his company a whole lot more valuable.

Well, this story is not true. But it is very similiar to one that is. Al Gore, a man sent here to save us from the horrible threats of world disaster, and to rescue us from the oncoming horrors of global warming, is very much like the man in this story. Did you know that Mr. Gore is one of the partners of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a firm who has a large amount of money invested in developing "green" products? Or that he founded the company Generation Investment Managment, a company also heavily invested in global friendly products? Maybe, just maybe, he was thinking of these compnaies while he making his documentary. Maybe he was picturing the potential earnings of a eco-friendly company, specifically in a world that fears for the future of its planet. A fear that he himself did a great deal to promote. Now, I am not saying he invented global warming, (this is not the internet we are talking about,) but I am suggesting that he found a way to capitalize on it. Just look at how he lives and you will know in a second that he does not really care for the cause he is constantly preaching about. Look at his 20 room mansion equipped with a guest house and a pool. Take a look up to the sky to see him fly by in his private jet. I am not saying he should not have these luxuries, but if he is going to preach about conservation and cutting back on energy, he sure as hell better be doing the same himself.

Especially if his works are going to lead to government enforced regulation on the rest of our energy usage. The Waxman-Markey bill will devastate the economy. It will raise taxes on companies, and we will feel the brunt of it. Some of us will feel it when we get fired due to downsizing to make up for the new increases in expenses. And all of us will feel it as the prices rise for many products for the very same reason.

The bill also has corruption written all over it. There are a few question I would like to have answered. (Although I do not think the answers would come quickly since I doubt any of the congressman who voted for the bill even read any of the over 1200 pages it consisted of.) Who will determine how many 'energy shares' each company gets? What is stopping the government from giving fewer shares to companies it seeks to harm, such as ones that might not be 'green' enough for them?

Waxman-Markey is not the only way the government has recently been stepping in to control our energy uses. There are laws passes now that will regulate the make of lightbulbs we use. There is legislation that will the miles per gallon a car gets. Just wait, it won't be long before there are rules regulating how much energy we can use in our own homes. Before the government will have the power to shut down our power if we go over our limit. Or before NASCAR becomes illegal for its cars drive to fast and use too much gas.

Bottom line, these bill is no more than another way for the government to control our lives. It will give them the power to break down many companies, and boost up their friends. It is just another step towards the type of government that Barack Obama is trying to create. The type of government that has its wings spread over every part of our lives, and suffocates us while it itself expands.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Healthcare Part 2

Sorry it has been so long since my last post. I was a little busy these past few days. Well, enough of the small talk. Let's get to business.

If you remember, and I am sure you do, one of the main points I made the first time I spoke about health care was that this push for reform by Obama is mainly to serve as a segue into socializing the system. As more information surfaces, and as details from the proposed plans are becoming known, I am more certain that this is the case.

There would be a law that would require all people to purchase insurance, and that all those who do not purchase insurance would be fined a percentage of their income. (Now do not even get me started on this. How can one be obligated by law to purchase insurance? It is amazing that this is even being discussed, forget that fact that with the Democrats having the votes, it likely to be passed. The fact that the government is trying to take this much control of our lives is very frightening. But I digress.) As I have been saying, the reason for this would be to force people into the government option. The only people that would be affected by this are people that would not otherwise want to purchase health care. So when they are now forced to, they will obviously seek the cheapest option, the government option. Mission accomplished, more people loaded on to the system.

There would also be some type of legislation stating that if one looses their coverage after the bill is passed, they would have to join the government option. Again, more people forced into the system. Oh, and what happened to keeping your own insurance if you liked it?

Another one of the proposals would include expanding the coverage of Medicaid. Let me ask you. If Obama keeps saying, (and correctly so,) that there are huge problems with Medicaid, (and we all know that it is bankrupt,) how does it make sense to add to its expenses? How could it possibly help for it to spend more? As usual, the answer is it doesn't. It obviously does not make any sense for a failing system to expand. But then again, does this administration seem concerned with doing anything that makes sense?

Obama has said repeatedly that they will be reducing Medicaid expenses and making it more efficient. By adding on more people to cover? The only way this is even remotely possibly is if they at the same time cut what they cover by a large amount. That's right. All you low income families who rely on Medicaid, and who are so excited to see the government pick up more of your bills will be hurt by this health care reform. The government will be supplying you with less coverage. Less tests, less procedures, less health care. If you wish to keep up your current level of care, you will have to pay some other way. They will not tell you this, but wait and see, this will happen. I can not predict exactly where they will choose to cut back, but they have seemed to indicate that it will be in the area of testing. Maybe they will choose to stop covering a annual mammogram? Who knows. I don't. And to be quite honest with you, I do not think they do either.

They keep talking about cutting unnecessary testing. Not once have they given an example. Not once have they said which tests they plan to cut out. So many diseases are being cured today because of early detection. I mentioned the mammograms earlier. In the U.S.A., the survival rate of breast cancer is 92%. In Britain, it is only 78%. This is greatly because of the testing done here. It is also because of more treatment options here, but that is another story. What I am trying to say is that cutting down on testing will more likely lead to a less efficient system, not the opposite as they are promising.

And make no mistake. The government knows this would not be economically responsible. They have made it clear that they have no intentions of saving money, and lowering costs. The director of the Congressional Budget Office said that the only thing he has seen from the House, has been efforts to increase spending, and increase government involvement in the system. Interesting, no sign of them attempting to lower costs. Isn't it sad that I am not surprised to hear that?

One of the ways they are planning on raising back some of this money is obviously.... increase taxes! The Democrats best friend. Should this bill be passed, there would be 39 states with people in upper brackets paying over 50%. Yes 50%. You make 100 dollars, 50 dollars goes to the government. Highway robbery. People were joking (but it wasn't funny,) that Obama was like Robin Hood, coming to spread the wealth. They were incorrect. Robin Hood would have never even attempted to take over 50%.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Fan mail?

I read an article on CNN's website yesterday about the 'wise Latina women' comment made by Ms. Sotomayor. To put it nicely, I did not agree with the author about many things. The author was Dr. Laura Gomez. Using the google, I found her email address at the school she teaches in, the University of New Mexico.

The article:

My email: (Still waiting for a response. Don't worry. I stopped holding my breath after only a few seconds of doing so.)

Dr. Gomez,

I read your article on CNN earlier this morning, and I am very troubled by much of what you wrote. The reason I am troubled is because you are an educator, and thus, it is safe for me to believe that you are teaching the same concepts and beliefs which you have conveyed in this article. In the piece you refer to the role of a Judge as consisting of judging with empathy and/or life experiences. This is not the role of a Judge. The role of a Judge is to objectively judge a case with out any input of personal beliefs and feelings. The Judge's job is see that the constitution is being upheld, not to rewrite it.

When referring to Ms. Sotomayor's wise Latino comments you provide a defense against the racism claims that have been tied to it. Your first two arguments in my opinion are only word games, which do not serve much purpose. You third defense, however, while I do not necessarily believe to be her true intentions, can not argue against it. By claiming the emphasis was on the word wise, and that Latino women was a coincidental following, it can be said that she was not claiming Latino women to make a better Judge, but rather that wiser people make better Judges (something I think we would all agree on.)

However, you go on to do Ms. Sotomayor a disservice when you attempt to explain her statement even further. You go on to explain that she was saying that because of the past experiences of a Latino women, she would be able to bring more empathy into her judging. As I stated earlier, this is not the job of a Judge. Later in the article you go on to say that Justice O'Connor had brought her experiences as a women to the bench with her while Judging, while in fact she said much the opposite. She said that an old man and old women would both reach the same conclusion while Judging. This is true for the Judge's job is to apply the law, and the law is the same no matter the race, sex, or age of the Judge reading it.

So, while I can not with certainty say Ms. Sotomayor did not mean to say that as a Latino women she is more suited to be a Judge than a white male, (for it would have been pointless to say it had she not meant it, and if all she was seeking to say was that wise people are better Judges, first of all why waster her breath, for no one would think otherwise. And second, why specifically contrast a Latino women and white male?) I think one thing is clear. You are a racist. Now, remember racist does not necessarily mean one thinks lowly of other races, but it does mean that one feels ones race inherently effect their capabilities. Here are the things you said that make me feel this way:

1) You describe the conference in which the famous wise Latino women quote was taken from, to be addressing the crisis if more Latinos do not become Judges. Might I ask you why? If you would agree that all people are equally capable to be a Judge, why would there be a crisis? Unless either you are a racist and feel Latinos make better Judges, or if you are implementing the belief that their empathy is needed to Judge. Being that I am certain of my latter charge, there is room for you to wiggle out of this claim, but don't worry, I have more.

2) Later on in the piece, you address the question of if black women would be better Judges than white men. You describe the question as one which needs studying. What is there to study? Only a racist would feel that ones race would make them better able to understand laws. Only one who felt that a persons ethnic background, not their education, would be what determines their ability to Judge.

3) You conclude by stating "It's past time our nations highest court looked more like our nation." You claim that it is wrong that 107 of the 111 prior Justices have been white males. If one should be appointed to the position of Supreme Court Justice based on their prior achievements, why are we even looking at their sex and race. Only a racist applies these numbers where they do not belong. You should not be counting how many white Judges there have been, but how many good Judges there have been. Judges that did their job, and made certain the Constitution was upheld. (All though you would probably not consider a Judge who does so to be a good one, it seems.) There have only been two Jewish Justices on the Supreme Court. Am I complaining, or demanding more Jews be on the bench? No, for all I wish to see is good Judges on the bench.

So, I am worried that as an educator you have the opportunity to pass your beliefs onto growing minds. I am troubled that you have the ability to mold young lawyers to believe as you do. To believe the Constitutions description of a Judge is wrong, and that race and gender are primary categories to consider when assessing ones capability. I say this respectfully, for I am only a 20 year old premed student, but at the same time I say it brazenly, for you have left me no choice. Should I be fortunate enough to become a physician, I will almost certainly find myself involved in legal matters at times in my career, and I am worried that I could be facing a system that would have evolved into the type of system you would like to see. A system where should I be sued by a minority women, I would find myself fighting a loosing battle for the Judge and jury sympathize with her situation over that of a white male physician's. One where race is the case, and justice is forgotten.

Joshua Nabatian

P.S. This letter will be posted on my blog. If you wish to respond, the response would also be posted.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Justice Sotomayor? I dare say not!

Today the confirmation hearings (or as I would like to call them, the rejection hearings) for the supreme court nominee Sonya Sotomayor began. The committee, consisting of 12 democrats and 7 republicans (a little unequal if you ask me,) each gave opening addresses directed at the nominee outlining how they plan on making their decision. Here is what mine would have been:

"Sonia, I would first like to congratulate you on all of your achievements up to this point. You were valedictorian of your high school class, graduated with top grades from Princeton, and went on to do the same in Yale Law school. All, obviously not easy tasks.

However, these hearings are not about how well you can take tests. So, as far as I am concerned it does not make any difference which schools you went to. What does make a difference is what you have done in your career since then. The rulings you have made as a judge, and the many different things you might have said.

I would like to remind you that the role of a Judge is to see that the law is being upheld. No more, and no less. Just like it would be wrong for a Judge to take a bribe and rule in the favor of the bribing party, it would be wrong for the Judge to 'make' their own laws which lead him or her to rule in favor of one party. And as I review previous rulings you have made in your career, I am inclined to think you are often guilty of the latter. Coupled with the fact that you have said a Judge's job is to establish policy, I find it hard to believe that my inclination is incorrect.

President Obama said he felt a Judge's job was to judge with empathy and to consider different events in their life when making decisions. I could not disagree with this more. A Judge's job is in fact the opposite: to completely remove empathy and their personal beliefs when they judge. This allows them to judge solely based on the already established laws. You have made it clear, numerous times, that you feel a person's background helps them to come to the proper judgement. I ask, if a Judge's primary job is to see that the law is being upheld, how does one's background aid them?

As a member of this committee, it is my job to ensure that you will work to uphold the Constitution, and that you will not bring your personal feelings, and beliefs onto the bench with you. That you will not attempt to out step the boundaries of the Judicial Branch of our government, and act as if you were a member of the Legislative Branch and attempt to make laws. This is what I will be working to find out."

Not bad, if I can say so myself. (Which I can since I write this blog.)

The only job of the Supreme Court is to make sure the cases brought before them resulted in a ruling that is constitutional, or if a law brought before them is constitutional. By attempting to make policy, or bring outside feelings and beliefs into account, the Judge would be acting to in effect determine if the Constitution itself is constitutional. Which obviously makes no sense. This 'style' of judging is a very liberal approach, in that it is a way for the individual person to control the lives of many. By bringing their own beliefs to the table, (or bench I should say,) the Judge is acting to impose their beliefs on others.

One more thing I would like to point out is that the Democrats are playing the same game they played during this past presidential campaign. The race game. If I had a dollar for every time I heard 'the first Hispanic nominee ever' when describing Sotomayor, I would be very wealthy. (So wealthy I could probably retire from writing this blog.) It is not exactly the same in this case for the public does not get to vote on whether or not Sotomayor becomes a Supreme Court Justice, but it is very similar. And I would like to point out that Sotomayor is not the first Hispanic nominee, and in fact would not even be the first Hispanic Justice. Benjamin Cardozo was of Hispanic decent. True he was born in America, but so was Sonia Sotomayor. (But the media is not concerned with facts.)

All I can hope is that enough politicians realize Sonia has no intention in upholding the Constitution, as she has said herself. (Which of course requires there are enough politician who care about the Constitution being upheld. Something I am not to sure of.) For if she gets appointed she will be there for a long, long time.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Universal Coverage?

President Obama is claiming that his plan for health care reform is no more than just providing another option for people, that would be cheaper than regular insurance companies. He says one would be able to keep their own insurance if they wanted to. He says this is not an effort to socialize medicine. That having this option available will just serve to keep the insurance companies in check, and keep costs down for everyone.

I do not believe him. First of all, I do not think any of his claims as to how the health care industry will look should this 'government insurance company' be created. Nor do I believe that this is not really effort to get closer to socializing medicine.

I will tell you why. The reason the President and his cronies are seeking to get this government option created is that it will then allow them in the future to make more and more steps towards socializing medicine. By having this system running, the government can say "look, we have been involved in running the health care for some time now. We are covering millions of people already. Socializing the system, would only be a minor change."

I have proof. Part of the health care reform is that ALL businesses will by law have to provide some type of health care for their employees. However, at the same time, the health care benefits will be taxed. This would make it more expensive to provide the health care. So, by forcing businesses to provide health care, and at the same time making it more expensive to do so, the businesses will be forced to seek a cheaper option, and waiting with open arms will be the 'government option'. ( And do not be surprised if there is a special deal for lower taxes on the health benefits for the businesses that choose the government option, as an incentive to get more businesses to join.) If all they were seeking to do was provide another option, and mainly to have more people covered, why would they be making it harder for employers to cover their employees at the same time.

Businesses may also choose to balance the increased costs by downsizing. If the expense of covering an employee goes up, the business will choose to have less employees to cover. It can not be expected that when the government raises taxes and makes it more expensive to run a business, that businesses will not find ways to keep their profits up. The easiest way to do this is by lowering the expense of running the business, and the easiest way to do this is by eliminating some salaries.

Now, in regards to keeping your current insurance. This might be true for some, but for many this will not be the case. First of all, for the above mentioned reason that many companies will be forced to switch to the government option. And the people who loose their jobs as a result of this induced downsizing will most likely have no option other than the government one, if they want coverage. (They will report this as a sign of how good the system is, by showing the recently unemployed people who are now covered by the government option. They will neglect to mention, however, that it was the health care reform that made those very same people unemployed.)

Secondly because there will have to be changes. The insurance companies will have to deal with the new competition. They will make the money back in some way. It might be by paying the doctors less, which will lead to less doctors accepting your insurance, (or possibly any insurance at all). Or by hiking up your co pays, and or premiums. They might also choose to stop covering certain expensive procedures.

The government is claiming that this is a fair playing field. It is not, and this leads to multiple problems. It is not a leveled playing field for two reasons. First of all there is no one to regulate the government option. Second of all, they do not have to make a profit. This is the main problem. By not having to make a profit they can easily charge less than the insurance companies, hence not a leveled playing field. Another thing they can do is provide less quality coverage. They have no burden of attracting customers, so they can do whatever they wish. Your current insurance has to be showing you that they have a wide range of doctors, can cover a lot of procedures, low co payments, and so on, in order for them to entice you to choose them over their competition. The government is not forced to do this, for they are not in the business of making money.

This is where the rationing of care comes into play. If the main objective when providing the coverage is not to supply the best product on the market, what will be pushing them to do more? Nothing, and that is just what they will do. They will find people who they choose not to provide certain services to, such as the terminally ill, the elderly, or people that can technically survive without the procedure will find themselves waiting in long lines. The government being involved in the game, and covering a large amount of people indirectly does lead to a rationing of care. When they choose what they will cover, they are deciding what will be done by the medical world. If they choose to not cover a certain medication or procedure it will slowly stop being given or preformed. This effect has been seen through medicaid already.

Another thing that bothers me about the government option is the doctors' end. Now, a physician is not obligated to accept insurance, or he can choose which ones he will accept. What will be the case here? Will the doctors be forced to accept the government option? How much will the government pay them? And as I said before, I see this whole change resulting very possibly in a decrease in the pay of doctors. This will lead to a decrease in the amount of doctors, and the quality of the doctors. And remember, not only will the physicians make less, but so will the drug companies. This will result in a decrease of activity from them. Also not a good thing.

So do not be fooled by this man and his plans. This is by all means the beginning of the path to socializing medicine. It will not lead to lower costs. And it will result in higher taxes, and more national debt. If the system covering many people now, medicaid and medicare, is in debt and getting worse, how does it make sense to make the coverage larger? It does not. Just like a great deal of what this administration is doing does not make sense.

But Obama has a blackberry and is cool, so who cares, right? Soon enough we will have no choice but to care. But by then, it might be too late.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Double Feature

Yes, that's right. Two blogs in one day. It is like double Jeopardy, only better.

I) If you have turned on your television or radio at some point in the past 2 weeks, then you know Michael Jackson has died. You probably also know that his funeral was yesterday. There are a large amount of people complaining about this intense media coverage of the death of Jackson.

I do not see the problem. The news, in my opinion has one obligation. To report the news it covers unbiased. (Something it failed to do during this past election, and whenever Israel is attacked, and countless other times.) However, it has no obligation in regards to what it must report. We can not forget that running a news station is a business. The more people watching the news the more money the news station can make. Hence, they report the news people want to see. As long as they are not guilty of slander, they have the option of choosing what to report. They know that people want to hear about Michael Jackson, over and over again, so that is what they give them.

To me, the real problem is that this is what the people want. The media would not be able to run stories about celebrities like this unless the audience was interested. It is not the reporters who made Jackson's death such a big deal, but rather the people who watch the news. The same thing is with athletes. People often complain about the high salaries of professional athletes. If the athlete is able to get such a contract, why should he not take it? Am I disappointed if he or she does not proceed to do some good things with their money? Yes, but I am in no way upset that they got the contract. We can not blame the sports teams for giving these contracts, it is their business and they make money even with these huge player salaries. How? because we let them.

Not that there is any problem with that, but I believe there is something wrong when the same person argues at the doctor's office when it is time to pay the five dollar copay, with no problem shells out twenty bucks to go watch a baseball game.

The sports industry and the entertainment industry survive because we support them. If the general public was not obsessed with the lives of celebrities, those stories would not be on the news. If people did not care about Michael Jackson this much, his death would not have been the headline news. So the blame is not on the media for covering Michael's death to this extent. But on the audience for making this is the news they want to see.

II) You did not think I was serious. You thought there would be only one. Well here it is. Number two. If I am good for anything it is my word. (As long as I am not lying, that is.)

Fox news reported yesterday of a law suit being brought against a school for making a seventh grade girl take off her pro-life tee shirt. They are saying that by doing so, the school was violating the first amendment right of the student.

We have seen court cases in the past in regards to students' rights to express themselves in school. The one that comes to mind for me is Tinker V. Des Moines, when the school ordered the students to remove arm bands which were displaying protest of the war. The court ruled in favor of the children to be allowed to express themselves and to wear the bands. So what is different here?

This time the school can have an easy way out. The t-shirt had a picture of an embryo on it. The school can argue that their decision was because of the image, not what the shirt was representing. They can say that the image was disturbing for the younger children in the school. One of the girl's attorneys points out that this image is also in the text books. The attorney forgets though, that the younger children in the school do not see these textbook.

I do not know why the school had her remove the shirt. I can guess, being that most school teachers tend to be very liberal, but it would be difficult to prove it. How can this case be played out? If the court rules that a school can not stop a student from wearing a pro-life shirt, the school will argue, that they would agree, but the pictures on this shirt were too much for little children to absorb. Then what could come next? The dispute of whether or not the images are too disturbing for younger children is not a constitutional one, but an opinionated one to be decided by the school. I am sorry Ms. Sotamayor, but it is not the courts job to decide if a picture would be found disturbing by little kids, no matter where the judges are from. Although, I do feel an Asian man, about 43, with black hair and a goatee would make the best judgement in such a case, were it to be a courtly matter.

A school has the authority to decide if an article of clothing is not appropriate to be worn in school. If a student wore a shirt with profanity on it, we would all agree the school can make the student take it off. Is that what happened here, who knows. Does it matter, unfortunately no. The school should easily be able to win this one if they play their cards right.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Barack Obama- Kung Fu Fighter

Have you ever seen those Jackie Chan movies where he ends up forced to fight against 20 guys at once? I have, and I love them. But did you not always wonder, why do they always attack, one or maybe two at a time allowing for him to win. (Of course you know it is because they are following the script, but work with me here.) Why don't they all attack him at once, and they will certainly beat him. Jackie wouldn't even have known what hit him.

Well, President Obama might have also watched these movies. He also noticed that when the thugs attack Jackie one at a time, Jackie always wins. He is employing this strategy now, as he works to pass a great deal of legislation, in a very short time. He knows that if we had time to block the punches of Cap-and-trade and health care reform one at a time we would knock them away with ease. But when we are hit by multiple attacks simultaneously, we are caught off guard and loose the battle.

These legislations President Obama and his cronies are trying to force through Congress and the Senate will have devastating effects. We know this not by speculation, but by evidence. Look at the other countries, that Barack himself directs us to look at for examples as to how these types of government initiatives play out. He tells us to look at Spain where possibly the biggest energy reform has taken place. He guides us very selectively to see all of the jobs that were created. He forgets to mention that even more jobs were lost. He forgets to mention all of the businesses that were shut down. I see where CNN gets its reporting style from.

The health care reform, I can guarantee you will not only result in higher medical bills, higher taxes and increased government debt. It will also result in unnecessary deaths. Again not just a prediction, but fact, as reported by the countries who have very strong government involvement in health care. I will get more into health care in the near future, but just remember, there is a reason people come from all over the world to seek medical care in America.

One more point, then I will return to my MCAT studying. (Yes MCAT studying. How do I have time to write a blog and study for the most difficult exam in the world? Yes, I am just that good.) Today we heard Obama's TelePrompter (I presume, I thankfully only heard it, I did not have to see him,) announce that we will be the leaders in cutting back on nuclear missiles, along with a joint effort by Russia. In today's time, with the horrible regimes in Iran and N. Korea, how can we be cutting down on our nuclear war power? Even if Obama really feels Russia is completely not a threat and that as long as we disarm together we will for sure be safe from the Russians, how can he forget about Iran and N. Korea? Does he honestly expect these regimes that beat and kill their own people, to suddenly want to play nice and disarm solely because we are? Does he truly not understand that the only way to control these monsters is to show them that we can?

Maybe President Obama was indeed watching those movies when he was younger, while President Reagan showed how to handle hostile regimes, including Iran. He reminded them who the boss was, us. He did not march around the world apologizing for us protecting ourselves. He did not take initiatives, such as reducing spending on defense making us weaker. He understood that in order to keep peace, especially with evil regimes, it must be known that we are strong, and that there will be consequences to those that do not behave. As Teddy said, "carry a big stick."

We must not let President Obama get away with this. As Rush says, we need him to fail, for if he succeeds, we do not. Our success, and his are inversely proportional. We must slow him down and take each punch independently, so that we can properly fight them off. We must not let him continue to pile on more and more devastating reform until we collapse. Now is the time to fight back before it is too late. Now is the time to force Barack to fully explain what he is really trying to do, because quite frankly right now, 'no one understands the words that are coming out of his mouth.' And those of us who do, see that he has a quasi hidden agenda to slowly, from within, destroy this great country. We must act now, for if we wait much longer he might succeed, and we will pay the price, literally.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Sarah Palin- Democrats worst enemy

As I am sure you all know Sarah Palin resigned from her position as Governor of Alaska this past Friday. As she said, a major reason which led her to this decision was all of the attacks she was under by the Democrats. She said that she was facing over half a million dollars in legal bills that were necessary to fight all of the ethics complaints filed against her. (Which she won all of.)

This led me to wonder. Why do the Democrats hate her so much. She was constantly under heavy criticism and attacks form the DNC, and the media. What was it about her that made her the recipient of such hatred.

I believe it was the fact that by her being in the position she was in, a big name in the Republican party, she stood as a proof against many of the claims the democrats have against us. You constantly hear the democrats say that the republicans are close minded, racists and sexists, and so on. With a woman on the ballot for Vice President, it is kind of hard to say that Republicans are sexists.

Another attack they commonly make is that Republicans are out-of-touch with the common class. That the Republicans represent wealthy Americans but leave the middle class behind. Again, she proves them wrong. She is a member of the middle class herself, but yet she finds herself a big force in the Republican party.

Bottom line, the democrats hate her because she is a success, and they hate success. With the liberals it all comes down to jealousy. An attractive women, from a small town in Alaska who worked her way up to become a big name in national politics. It is not fair in their eyes. They have not achieved such success, so why should she? Thus, they have an agenda to bring her down to their level to make 'things fair again.'

Which is so sad, but yet so typical of the liberal philosophy. Rather than find a way to lift ones self and achieve success for themselves as well, the liberals seek to bring all those ahead of them back to their level and once again 'level the playing field.'

Friday, July 3, 2009

233 years since the Declaration of Independence, how much has changed

As July 4th approaches, I'd like to look at the event this day is celebrating, The Declaration of Independence. The document written by the founding fathers in which they spell out, very clearly, the reasons for, and the philosophy behind the founding of the greatest country in the history of the world. To me, the central point of this great document, and the central pillar for which our government should be standing on (should be, implying that it is not,) is as follows:

"...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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

This clearly spells out the purpose of our government. The government was created in order to establish a security, so to say, that guarantees that no individual's natural rights will be taken away from them. The governments job, is to ensure the safety of its constituents (from forces abroad, as well as domestic,) and nothing more. The government thus acquires its limited power only in areas related to this. For example, the government can impose taxes in order to have money to run an army for national security. The government, however, should not have the power to do anymore.

Today, (and this did not happen overnight,) this is not the only agenda of our government. Our government now has programs of entitlements, and has hundreds of rules and regulations controlling our lives. Just this week a legislation was passed which spells out how light bulbs can be made. Where did the government obtain the power to do this? Where in our founding documents does it say that the government has the power to collect taxes in order to create programs of entitlements? To spread the wealth?

The answer is that it never did. The government is and continues to act out of its jurisdiction. This is not the country that our founding fathers were trying to create. How often does one hear others, (and often themselves,) complaining about taxes. I used to find this to be odd. In theory, when one pays taxes, (in a country such as ours used to be,) the taxes are paid to fund government operations that are necessary for the country to survive, such as defense and a judiciary system. Hence, when one pays taxes, they should be happy for they are in essence giving money to themselves, and if the governments only agenda was to protect out natural rights then this would be the case.

This is not the case though. The government does more than it was established to do, and hence, it is no longer what it was designated to be: a government for the people by the people. The country is no longer owned by us, and run by our employees, the government. But rather it is owned by the government, and run accordingly. With them controlling and regulating many aspect of our life, and seeking to control more.

So this July 4th, I won't be doing much for it is on the Sabbath, but I will be doing this and I encourage you all to do the same. Read the Declaration of Independence. Think about it. Think about how it does, or does not, match the ideals and running of the country which it is supposed to represent, ours, the greatest country in the history of mankind, The United States of America.