It would seem that there is nothing that we can do in this present age to escape the constant barrage of self esteem hype. We are told that the problem with our children is that they do not have enough self esteem, and that if we want them to be successful in life, we must do all we can to build their self esteem. I take the position here today that this is utter nonsense. I would say that self esteem is very natural to fallen humanity, and is something that we should endeavor to fight against, rather than foster.
Take my own children for instance, I'm not saying that they are bad kids, but I'm pretty familiar with them. It is not hard in the least to get them to tell you all about all the things that they want, at any given time. They always want something, and things are just never fair, as far as they are concerned. To them, unfair means, things didn't go how I wanted them to go. Now, lest you think I'm simply raising a couple of monsters, let me tell you, the case of my children is pretty mild by comparison to what I see when I look around me. Part of that is because I do not buy into the lies that the Cult of Self Esteem has been pushing on our culture, and instead try to give my kids a healthy and realistic self image, and understanding of their place in the world.
Don't get me wrong here, it's not just kids either. It doesn't seem to matter if you go to the store, or to work, or, very sadly, even to Church, what you hear most often from most people is "me me me me me." Again, don't misunderstand, we are in our lives, and so we can't very well act as if we aren't, and so there is no choice but to talk about ourselves and use words like "I" and "me" as we go throughout the day, but there is a way that this is done that is very self centered. Believe it or not, you can talk about yourself without making it sound like you are the center of the universe.
The fact of the matter is that our prisons are full of people with very high self esteem. Our schools are full of kids who think that they should pass on to the next grade simply because they are just as good as everyone else, no matter what their grades say. Our institutes of higher learning are full of young adults who think that they deserve a minimum of a B if they show up for class every day, no matter what their grades are like (no, you deserve a minimum of an F, you have to work to get it higher than that). Our workplaces are full of people who think that they deserve a raise just because the honor the company by being willing to work there. Our Country is full of people who think they deserve to be fed and cared for by the rest of us, just because they are there, and it doesn't matter if they simply refuse to work, doggone it, they deserve it! And our communities are full of people who think that every kid who plays a sport should get a trophy, just so their self esteem isn't damaged. As we move about in everyday life we are constantly bombarded with a never-ending stream of people who think so highly of themselves that it is absolutely staggering.
No, there is no need to work at building self esteem in people, on the contrary, we need to work to make sure that we are not full of ourselves, and not making too much of ourselves. High self esteem comes easy, and is highly destructive, an appropriate view takes work, but is well worth it. Sometimes my daughter will do something that she's not supposed to do, and I'll have to discipline her for it, and she always says, "But Daddy, I wasn't trying to disobey!" To which I always respond, "Honey, you don't have to try to disobey, that is really easy to do, it's obedience that takes work."
And this isn't just my opinion, the Apostle Paul cautions us in Romans 12:3 "For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned." (ESV) and in Philippians 2:3 he says, "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." (ESV)
Regardless of what we see on TV, or what so many experts want to tell us, the fact is that we don't need high self esteem, in fact, we need low self esteem, humility and a servants heart. These are the things that will allow us to live good, godly lives. High self esteem will just make us selfish jerks, which is really easy to be, in fact, you might say it comes naturally, being a humble servant takes work.
Showing posts with label Lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lies. Show all posts
Friday, August 28, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Health Care Fact Check, Mr. President
|
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
A Very Old Argument
When he was on the campaign trail, then candidate, Obama talked a lot about change, and said that it was time for new, fresh ideas. However, as soon as he became President, he bought into the same old arguments for Government intrusion into the Economy and American life. Something always seemed really off to me about the whole "too big to fail" argument. And as for Obama himself, he likes to say that he really doesn't want to take over companies and such, but he just has to, because of the economy. Basically saying that, while having the Government take over everything would be bad, the economy would just collapse if he doesn't do it.
Aside from the fact that all of the things that he has done will not do anything to fix the economy (Yes, I know Bush started some of this stuff, but Obama has started quite a bit more, and has ramped up all the stuff that Bush started), there was something else that I couldn't quite nail down. Then it finally hit me. This is an argument so old that no one alive today actually heard it first hand. However, if you've studied American History in depth at all, you have heard this argument before, it went something like this, "Well, personally I don't think we should have Slavery in the United States, but if we get rid of it, the economy will collapse, so we just have to accept Slavery." In that case the truth was that the people making that argument were either cowards, unwilling to stand up for what was right and take some risks, or, more likely, they were really pro Slavery and looking for an excuse to continue the practice. In the current case we are looking at people, from Obama on down, who really do want to install a Marxist Government, and are using the excuse of the economy to do it.
While personal Slavery is certainly a worse form of Slavery than Marxist enslavement, under the Marxist system it is the entire populace that is enslaved.
It really is remarkable to me that the very same argument that was used by the pro Slavery crowd 150 years go, is now being used by another group whose interest lies in enslaving us all.
Aside from the fact that all of the things that he has done will not do anything to fix the economy (Yes, I know Bush started some of this stuff, but Obama has started quite a bit more, and has ramped up all the stuff that Bush started), there was something else that I couldn't quite nail down. Then it finally hit me. This is an argument so old that no one alive today actually heard it first hand. However, if you've studied American History in depth at all, you have heard this argument before, it went something like this, "Well, personally I don't think we should have Slavery in the United States, but if we get rid of it, the economy will collapse, so we just have to accept Slavery." In that case the truth was that the people making that argument were either cowards, unwilling to stand up for what was right and take some risks, or, more likely, they were really pro Slavery and looking for an excuse to continue the practice. In the current case we are looking at people, from Obama on down, who really do want to install a Marxist Government, and are using the excuse of the economy to do it.
While personal Slavery is certainly a worse form of Slavery than Marxist enslavement, under the Marxist system it is the entire populace that is enslaved.
It really is remarkable to me that the very same argument that was used by the pro Slavery crowd 150 years go, is now being used by another group whose interest lies in enslaving us all.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Independence Day Post
Last year on Independence Day I posted the Declaration of Independence, and I thought about doing it again, because too many people haven't read it, but for this year, if you want to see it, you can go back and look under July 4 of last year. For this year though, I thought it might be important to discuss something that is going on in our world today.
You may have seen on the news that the military of Honduras has removed the President from power, and you may have seen that President Obama has condemned this action, and called it illegal, but it is highly doubtful that you have seen all the facts.
Under the Constitution of Honduras, much like our own in this respect, a President is allowed to serve only two terms. The President of Honduras tried to illegally alter the Constitution through the backdoor, to allow him to run for a third term. It was the Supreme Court of Honduras that decided that the President was engaged in illegal activity and ordered his removal, which the military carried out, and the Congress of Honduras who appointed a temporary replacement. Hardly a "Military Coup" as it has been called by the liberal press in the US.
Why is it that President Obama, who looks at the horrors being perpetrated on the citizens of Iran by the Islamo-Nazi regime there, and can only muster such inane nonsense as, gee, that's terrible, but we can't interfere, doesn't have any issue coming out with a full throated condemnation of the legal and legitimate actions of the Government of Honduras? When tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Iran, because the election there had been stolen from them, Obama and most of the people in the media all but ignored it, yet now, when a President is ousted for violating the laws of his nation, and attempting to set himself up as a dictator, Obama comes out strongly in his defense, and the mainstream media in the US searches out the 1,000 protesters who support the would-be dictator, who are being allowed to protest and state their opinions, as long as they stay peaceful.
Why is it that in both cases our President decided that he had to take the side of the Tyrant?
Is it too extreme to think that he has plans to hold on to power in the US at all costs? That he has no intention of stepping down after 4 years if defeated, or 8 years if re-elected? I don't know, in some ways that seems a little nuts, but at the same time, in two cases, this year alone, he has come down on the side of two people who were doing exactly the same thing.
Unfortunately, our system was set up in such a way that allowed people to just not care what was going on, and it has allowed Statists in our Government to do pretty much anything they wanted, but the time for that is over, unless you want to watch soft Tyranny that has been developing over the last 80 years, and ramping up big time here recently, turn into a real hard tyranny, it is time to become active and defeat the statists before it's too late.
You may have seen on the news that the military of Honduras has removed the President from power, and you may have seen that President Obama has condemned this action, and called it illegal, but it is highly doubtful that you have seen all the facts.
Under the Constitution of Honduras, much like our own in this respect, a President is allowed to serve only two terms. The President of Honduras tried to illegally alter the Constitution through the backdoor, to allow him to run for a third term. It was the Supreme Court of Honduras that decided that the President was engaged in illegal activity and ordered his removal, which the military carried out, and the Congress of Honduras who appointed a temporary replacement. Hardly a "Military Coup" as it has been called by the liberal press in the US.
Why is it that President Obama, who looks at the horrors being perpetrated on the citizens of Iran by the Islamo-Nazi regime there, and can only muster such inane nonsense as, gee, that's terrible, but we can't interfere, doesn't have any issue coming out with a full throated condemnation of the legal and legitimate actions of the Government of Honduras? When tens of thousands of people took to the streets in Iran, because the election there had been stolen from them, Obama and most of the people in the media all but ignored it, yet now, when a President is ousted for violating the laws of his nation, and attempting to set himself up as a dictator, Obama comes out strongly in his defense, and the mainstream media in the US searches out the 1,000 protesters who support the would-be dictator, who are being allowed to protest and state their opinions, as long as they stay peaceful.
Why is it that in both cases our President decided that he had to take the side of the Tyrant?
Is it too extreme to think that he has plans to hold on to power in the US at all costs? That he has no intention of stepping down after 4 years if defeated, or 8 years if re-elected? I don't know, in some ways that seems a little nuts, but at the same time, in two cases, this year alone, he has come down on the side of two people who were doing exactly the same thing.
Unfortunately, our system was set up in such a way that allowed people to just not care what was going on, and it has allowed Statists in our Government to do pretty much anything they wanted, but the time for that is over, unless you want to watch soft Tyranny that has been developing over the last 80 years, and ramping up big time here recently, turn into a real hard tyranny, it is time to become active and defeat the statists before it's too late.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Why Mark Sanford Should Resign
Some Democrats are claiming that Mark Sanford should resign because he is a Republican who has always talked about family values, and then failed to live up to them. Some Republicans are making the rather bizarre argument that he should stay in his job because having an affair isn't related to his ability to Govern his State. Both of these groups are off the mark.
First of all, just because he claimed to hold to certain values, and then it turns out he's a lying, cheating piece of crap, doesn't reflect on the values he claimed to hold. If a father teaches his children not to steal, and then it turns out that he has stolen millions of dollars from his company, does that mean that he was wrong when he told his children that stealing was bad? Are we required to say that stealing is OK because he didn't live up to the standard that he preached to his children? Hardly. By the same token, what Sanford claimed to think about cheating and the sanctity of marriage has nothing to do with this, even if he had never said a single word about family values, but still cheated on his wife, he would be a lying, cheating piece of crap, just as he is now.
On the other hand, the office of Governor is a position of trust. Being a husband is also a position of trust. When a man is married he takes a sacred oath before God and man, that he will love, honor, and cherish his wife for the rest of his life. The marriage vow, deeply personal, and yet highly public, is not to be taken lightly. The oath that a man swears to be faithful to his wife should be fundamental to him, shaping all aspects of his life. He must be willing to deny his own selfish desires any time they may violate the vow that he has made. In many regards, the office of Governor is no different. A man (or woman, but I'm talking about a specific man here) takes an oath to do what is right and good for the people of his State, laying aside his own selfish desires, and vows to always stand up and fight for the people of his State. How can the people of South Carolina possibly trust Mark Sanford to uphold his oath to them if he couldn't be bothered upholding his oath to his own wife? Quite frankly, they can't.
It is also time for Sanford to put his own career aside for another reason. He should step aside for the good of the GOP. Unless it is his intention to hand victory to the Democrats in the next Gubernatorial election, he needs to allow the South Carolina GOP to some breathing room to try to pick up the pieces and actually have a shot at staying in power, which will be almost impossible if he remains in office.
Let's remember that being a Governor is not like being an actor. Actors can do good work even if they are total schmucks who can't be trusted for anything at all, ever. Being an actor is not a position of trust. I'm not saying that I encourage actors to be unfaithful, just that they don't need to quit being an actor because of it. But anyone who is in a position of trust, be they a Governor, a Senator, a President, or anyone else in a position of trust, who can't even honor a sacred vow to be faithful to their spouse, should not remain in office.
First of all, just because he claimed to hold to certain values, and then it turns out he's a lying, cheating piece of crap, doesn't reflect on the values he claimed to hold. If a father teaches his children not to steal, and then it turns out that he has stolen millions of dollars from his company, does that mean that he was wrong when he told his children that stealing was bad? Are we required to say that stealing is OK because he didn't live up to the standard that he preached to his children? Hardly. By the same token, what Sanford claimed to think about cheating and the sanctity of marriage has nothing to do with this, even if he had never said a single word about family values, but still cheated on his wife, he would be a lying, cheating piece of crap, just as he is now.
On the other hand, the office of Governor is a position of trust. Being a husband is also a position of trust. When a man is married he takes a sacred oath before God and man, that he will love, honor, and cherish his wife for the rest of his life. The marriage vow, deeply personal, and yet highly public, is not to be taken lightly. The oath that a man swears to be faithful to his wife should be fundamental to him, shaping all aspects of his life. He must be willing to deny his own selfish desires any time they may violate the vow that he has made. In many regards, the office of Governor is no different. A man (or woman, but I'm talking about a specific man here) takes an oath to do what is right and good for the people of his State, laying aside his own selfish desires, and vows to always stand up and fight for the people of his State. How can the people of South Carolina possibly trust Mark Sanford to uphold his oath to them if he couldn't be bothered upholding his oath to his own wife? Quite frankly, they can't.
It is also time for Sanford to put his own career aside for another reason. He should step aside for the good of the GOP. Unless it is his intention to hand victory to the Democrats in the next Gubernatorial election, he needs to allow the South Carolina GOP to some breathing room to try to pick up the pieces and actually have a shot at staying in power, which will be almost impossible if he remains in office.
Let's remember that being a Governor is not like being an actor. Actors can do good work even if they are total schmucks who can't be trusted for anything at all, ever. Being an actor is not a position of trust. I'm not saying that I encourage actors to be unfaithful, just that they don't need to quit being an actor because of it. But anyone who is in a position of trust, be they a Governor, a Senator, a President, or anyone else in a position of trust, who can't even honor a sacred vow to be faithful to their spouse, should not remain in office.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Missing Details
When President Obama talks, at length, about how the Economy got to be in the tough spot that it's in, why is it that he always leaves out the part that he played in bringing it all about. And I'm not talking about some votes he cast in his legislative roles. No, his involvement is much more direct than that.
It all goes back many years to the Community Redevelopment Act (I've also heard it called "Reinvestment") which forced Mortgage lenders to give loans to low income people who could not afford them, and would be very unlikely to be able to pay them back. Of course, lenders were very cautious and tried to push back and make as few of these bad loans as possible, and the Marxist Groups, such as the now infamous ACORN, resorted to strong arm tactics to try to force the banks to make loans that they knew would be bad. During this time, Barack Obama, then a lawyer and street activist (or Community Organizer as they like to say) was one of the lawyers that sued the lenders to force them to make these highly risky loans.
Why is it that every other person in the world can be blamed for this mess, regardless of whether or not they had anything to do with it, or did anything wrong, or were forced by legislation and lawsuits (some brought by lawyer Obama) to do what they did, yet Obama, who bears direct responsibility, never gets mentioned with regards to blame at all?
It all goes back many years to the Community Redevelopment Act (I've also heard it called "Reinvestment") which forced Mortgage lenders to give loans to low income people who could not afford them, and would be very unlikely to be able to pay them back. Of course, lenders were very cautious and tried to push back and make as few of these bad loans as possible, and the Marxist Groups, such as the now infamous ACORN, resorted to strong arm tactics to try to force the banks to make loans that they knew would be bad. During this time, Barack Obama, then a lawyer and street activist (or Community Organizer as they like to say) was one of the lawyers that sued the lenders to force them to make these highly risky loans.
Why is it that every other person in the world can be blamed for this mess, regardless of whether or not they had anything to do with it, or did anything wrong, or were forced by legislation and lawsuits (some brought by lawyer Obama) to do what they did, yet Obama, who bears direct responsibility, never gets mentioned with regards to blame at all?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Lot's Of Stuff Happening
I know that I haven't been blogging all that much, but I have been paying attention, or the most part anyway. There is an awful lot of stuff happening, and most if is, well, awful.
We have a President who believes that Judges should be activists and pushing an agenda instead of applying the law, which is the primary role of Judges. Contrary to popular belief, they role of the Supreme Court is not the interpret the Constitution, but rather to read it's plain meaning and apply it. If a law violates the Constitution, or some higher law (Not higher than the Constitution, but higher than the law being considered), then they have the power to strike it down, other than that they are to be making sure that the laws are being applied fairly. Far too often, however, they force their will on society, ruling by judicial oligarchy, which is well outside of their purview. This is exactly what Politicians like Barack Obama like in a Justice or lower court judge, and that is why we have the current nominee that we have.
We have a President who has no backbone when it comes to foreign affairs, saying that it's fine if Iran uses Nuclear power for electricity, and basically says that we'll just trust the bunch of thugs not to use it to create Nuclear weapons. The position that we should be taking on that is, if you want to have Nuclear Energy, ok, but you're going to allow us to inspect the program to make sure you're not using it to make Nuclear Weapons, and if you won't do that, we will take whatever steps we must to shut down your Nuclear Energy Program. Period.
We have a President who has made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that under his Administration, our longstanding alliance with Israel is pretty much meaningless, and if they dare to act to protect themselves from total annihilation at the hands of the maniacs who run Iran, then we will turn our backs on them (as a nation, not most of us personally). He is also sending signals that he doesn't feel that Israel has given up enough to the murderous thugs who want to steal their land, and seems to think that if they just keep on giving things to them, they will stop killing Israeli children one of these days. I guess he doesn't understand that these thugs will not be happy until every Jew on the planet has been wiped out... or maybe he does understand that? Now there's a scary thought.
There's a lot more to be said, but this should give us all plenty to think about for today.
We have a President who believes that Judges should be activists and pushing an agenda instead of applying the law, which is the primary role of Judges. Contrary to popular belief, they role of the Supreme Court is not the interpret the Constitution, but rather to read it's plain meaning and apply it. If a law violates the Constitution, or some higher law (Not higher than the Constitution, but higher than the law being considered), then they have the power to strike it down, other than that they are to be making sure that the laws are being applied fairly. Far too often, however, they force their will on society, ruling by judicial oligarchy, which is well outside of their purview. This is exactly what Politicians like Barack Obama like in a Justice or lower court judge, and that is why we have the current nominee that we have.
We have a President who has no backbone when it comes to foreign affairs, saying that it's fine if Iran uses Nuclear power for electricity, and basically says that we'll just trust the bunch of thugs not to use it to create Nuclear weapons. The position that we should be taking on that is, if you want to have Nuclear Energy, ok, but you're going to allow us to inspect the program to make sure you're not using it to make Nuclear Weapons, and if you won't do that, we will take whatever steps we must to shut down your Nuclear Energy Program. Period.
We have a President who has made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that under his Administration, our longstanding alliance with Israel is pretty much meaningless, and if they dare to act to protect themselves from total annihilation at the hands of the maniacs who run Iran, then we will turn our backs on them (as a nation, not most of us personally). He is also sending signals that he doesn't feel that Israel has given up enough to the murderous thugs who want to steal their land, and seems to think that if they just keep on giving things to them, they will stop killing Israeli children one of these days. I guess he doesn't understand that these thugs will not be happy until every Jew on the planet has been wiped out... or maybe he does understand that? Now there's a scary thought.
There's a lot more to be said, but this should give us all plenty to think about for today.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Rationed Care
There is a lot of confusion about the current state of the Health Care System in the United States of America, leading many to think that the only solution is the Universal Health Coverage option being pushed by the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress, among others, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
Are there problems with Health Care in the United States as it stands today? Sure there are, but why? Well, some of it is pretty easy to understand, and once the problems are understood, it's easy to see how those things could be remedied, without turning the whole thing over to the Government.
The first thing that most people can understand without much trouble is quite simple, litigation. That is to say, lawsuits with huge judgments that cause all doctors to need malpractice insurance that costs tons of money and drives up the cost of Health Care for everyone. Judgment limits, or penalties for people filing frivolous lawsuits would make a drastic dent as it is one of the largest areas of waste in the entire Health Care System.
A second problem started with total coverage insurance. That is to say that some people having insurance that is too good has been part of the problem. This can be a little more difficult to understand, so let me explain. As good as it seems to most of us to have great insurance, with no deductible and no, or very low copay, this leads some people, possibly even a great deal of people, to run to the Doctor or ER for every sniffle or hangnail, which further increases the cost of Health Care, again, for everyone.
Then there is the issue of the uninsured, one of the biggest places that the Statists tries to convince us that we need the Government to step in and take over, by telling us that there are 50 million uninsured people in the United States that just simply have no access to Health Care, and, they would have us believe, are just dying in the streets. There are so many lies surrounding this part of the issue that it's almost difficult to see all of it. First of all, the very number is a lie. This number of people comes from the Census data, and includes people that were uninsured for a very small window of time, after losing a job, or some such reason, as well as people who are offered insurance by their employer, or can afford to purchase it on their own, but choose not to, mostly because they are young, healthy people who feel they can better use the money in other areas, and are willing to take the risk. Very few of these people are chronically uninsured. Besides this, around 10 million of the 50 million number are illegal aliens. The second part of this lie is the idea that even those who are unable to get Health Insurance are also barred from receiving medical care, however, current Federal laws require that all people who come to any Emergency Room must be evaluated and receive any required treatment. Are there people who fall through the cracks? Probably, but they are the exception, and not the rule.
The other side is what actually happens when such a plan is put in place. We need only to look to Britain and Canada. It doesn't take much to find British news stories telling all of the horror stories about how terrible this system is. Basically, it amounts to rationed care, that is to say, someone sitting in a cubicle somewhere deciding who receives treatment and who doesn't. The Government never does anything efficiently, so the idea that the State running Health Care is going to reduce cost and increase the amount quantity of care available is an absolutely insane idea. The fact is that they will likely increase cost even more, and limit the quantity of care available, but let's assume a best case scenario where the quantity of care stays equal to what it is right now, they are telling us that there isn't enough now, so there wouldn't be enough then either, meaning that someone will have to decide who gets it, and who doesn't, and if it's all considered free, the demand will increase, which will further limit the supply. The elderly will be hit first, and then likely the children. Those with the most political influence will receive the best care, because Health Care decisions will not be medically based, but rather politically based, just as is everything that a Government does is politically based.
The truth is that universal Health coverage, provided by a Government equals rationed care, not enough care, and a far worse system than what we have today.
Are there problems with Health Care in the United States as it stands today? Sure there are, but why? Well, some of it is pretty easy to understand, and once the problems are understood, it's easy to see how those things could be remedied, without turning the whole thing over to the Government.
The first thing that most people can understand without much trouble is quite simple, litigation. That is to say, lawsuits with huge judgments that cause all doctors to need malpractice insurance that costs tons of money and drives up the cost of Health Care for everyone. Judgment limits, or penalties for people filing frivolous lawsuits would make a drastic dent as it is one of the largest areas of waste in the entire Health Care System.
A second problem started with total coverage insurance. That is to say that some people having insurance that is too good has been part of the problem. This can be a little more difficult to understand, so let me explain. As good as it seems to most of us to have great insurance, with no deductible and no, or very low copay, this leads some people, possibly even a great deal of people, to run to the Doctor or ER for every sniffle or hangnail, which further increases the cost of Health Care, again, for everyone.
Then there is the issue of the uninsured, one of the biggest places that the Statists tries to convince us that we need the Government to step in and take over, by telling us that there are 50 million uninsured people in the United States that just simply have no access to Health Care, and, they would have us believe, are just dying in the streets. There are so many lies surrounding this part of the issue that it's almost difficult to see all of it. First of all, the very number is a lie. This number of people comes from the Census data, and includes people that were uninsured for a very small window of time, after losing a job, or some such reason, as well as people who are offered insurance by their employer, or can afford to purchase it on their own, but choose not to, mostly because they are young, healthy people who feel they can better use the money in other areas, and are willing to take the risk. Very few of these people are chronically uninsured. Besides this, around 10 million of the 50 million number are illegal aliens. The second part of this lie is the idea that even those who are unable to get Health Insurance are also barred from receiving medical care, however, current Federal laws require that all people who come to any Emergency Room must be evaluated and receive any required treatment. Are there people who fall through the cracks? Probably, but they are the exception, and not the rule.
The other side is what actually happens when such a plan is put in place. We need only to look to Britain and Canada. It doesn't take much to find British news stories telling all of the horror stories about how terrible this system is. Basically, it amounts to rationed care, that is to say, someone sitting in a cubicle somewhere deciding who receives treatment and who doesn't. The Government never does anything efficiently, so the idea that the State running Health Care is going to reduce cost and increase the amount quantity of care available is an absolutely insane idea. The fact is that they will likely increase cost even more, and limit the quantity of care available, but let's assume a best case scenario where the quantity of care stays equal to what it is right now, they are telling us that there isn't enough now, so there wouldn't be enough then either, meaning that someone will have to decide who gets it, and who doesn't, and if it's all considered free, the demand will increase, which will further limit the supply. The elderly will be hit first, and then likely the children. Those with the most political influence will receive the best care, because Health Care decisions will not be medically based, but rather politically based, just as is everything that a Government does is politically based.
The truth is that universal Health coverage, provided by a Government equals rationed care, not enough care, and a far worse system than what we have today.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Taking The Blame? Didn't Think So.
While in Mexico, our President said, among other things, that the problems that Mexico is having with the drug cartels are because of demand for the drugs in America. In other words, he was blaming the US for the failure of the Mexican Government to maintain order in their own country. More to the point though, he was blaming drug users in the US for this problem. He couldn't have been blaming me though, because I've never used illegal drugs of any kind, nor had any dealings with them, aside from whatever my patients might have been using back in my EMT days. However, President Obama has admitted in his own books that he has used illegal drugs in the past, so is he taking personal responsibility for Mexico's problems? Yeah right. He's happy to blame the vast majority of us who don't use drugs, but taking personal blame just isn't in his nature.
One more thing I would like to explain is this. Obama also (mis)quoted an oft (mis)quoted statistic with regards to the guns used in the Mexican drug wars, stating that 90% of the guns recovered there came from the US. This also is a flat out lie. This comes from testimony given before Congress last year (or was it '07?) that 90% of the guns that the Mexican Government turned over to the ATF for tracking had come from the US. That is to say, of the guns they gave to the ATF because they already thought that they came from the US, 90% actually did. There is no statistic available, so far as I know, that tells us what percentage of recovered guns in Mexico have been turned over to the US, but we do know that it is not all of them, but only the ones that they suspect of coming from the US in the first place. Kinda changes things when you know the truth, doesn't it?
One more thing I would like to explain is this. Obama also (mis)quoted an oft (mis)quoted statistic with regards to the guns used in the Mexican drug wars, stating that 90% of the guns recovered there came from the US. This also is a flat out lie. This comes from testimony given before Congress last year (or was it '07?) that 90% of the guns that the Mexican Government turned over to the ATF for tracking had come from the US. That is to say, of the guns they gave to the ATF because they already thought that they came from the US, 90% actually did. There is no statistic available, so far as I know, that tells us what percentage of recovered guns in Mexico have been turned over to the US, but we do know that it is not all of them, but only the ones that they suspect of coming from the US in the first place. Kinda changes things when you know the truth, doesn't it?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Dishonest Indignation
Last night the local news had a report about a gambling operation being raided and shut down by the State in Orlando yesterday. The reporters, the law enforcement officials, the state officials, and pretty much everyone else was indignant about how this place was operating against Florida's anti-gambling laws, and that they were ripping people off, because so many people played and lost money, while so few people won anything at all.
A few things about this story bothered me, though it seemed to all be lost on the news reporters and such. First, they talked about the people who ran the operation as if they were armed robbers, forcibly stealing money from unsuspecting innocent people. While I certainly don't approve of what they were doing, and it could almost certainly be classified as stealing, the so called victims were hardly innocent bystanders. These people went to this establishment looking for some easy money, and thinking that they were the ones that would get lucky and strike it rich, knowing full well that in all likelihood, they would leave with less than they came in with. In fact, it looked like most of the people who went there were regulars. Now, I'm not defending the operation in any way, they were preying on the desperate, but let's face it, they did not take the money at the point of a gun, the people handed it over to them willingly.
The other thing that really bothered me was the utter dishonesty on the part of the reporters and the State officials. They were all claiming, be it implicitly or explicitly, to be outraged and disgusted that such an operation is going on in Florida. They were just indignant that there was a gambling operation designed to take advantage of desperate, low income people, where those people would be nearly certain to lose their money and end up with nothing to show for it, or, at best, win back far less than they would lose over the long haul. But maybe I'm being too harsh, maybe they really are outraged, maybe they've never heard of the Florida Lottery!
That's right, the Lottery, in any state, but today I'm talking about Florida, is based on the same principles as the operation that was shut down by the State yesterday. They prey on desperate and low income people, who stand a very low chance of winning anything, and if they do, most of them lose far more over the course of their lives than they will ever win (let's face it, if the Lottery were a good way to make money, rich people would play it too, and they don't). The state makes huge profits off of the Lottery, supposedly for Education, but don't worry, sticky fingered politicians find ways around that (yes even here in Florida, it's not just a New York problem). And that is the real source of the outrage. You see, the Government officials and the reporters and all of them aren't upset because this is going on in Florida, they are upset because somebody was encroaching on their turf. Like a mob boss who is angry when another mob tries to operate in his territory, he's not angry that there crime there, he's angry because he's not getting his cut. It's the same with the State.
Wait, what? Did he just call the State a bunch of Mafia thugs?!? Yes, I basically did. Now, don't get me wrong, it's not that I want places like this operating all over the place, it's just the horrendous display of dishonesty I saw in this news report. Let's be honest about it, the State doesn't want this going on unless they are getting their cut, and that's the truth.
A few things about this story bothered me, though it seemed to all be lost on the news reporters and such. First, they talked about the people who ran the operation as if they were armed robbers, forcibly stealing money from unsuspecting innocent people. While I certainly don't approve of what they were doing, and it could almost certainly be classified as stealing, the so called victims were hardly innocent bystanders. These people went to this establishment looking for some easy money, and thinking that they were the ones that would get lucky and strike it rich, knowing full well that in all likelihood, they would leave with less than they came in with. In fact, it looked like most of the people who went there were regulars. Now, I'm not defending the operation in any way, they were preying on the desperate, but let's face it, they did not take the money at the point of a gun, the people handed it over to them willingly.
The other thing that really bothered me was the utter dishonesty on the part of the reporters and the State officials. They were all claiming, be it implicitly or explicitly, to be outraged and disgusted that such an operation is going on in Florida. They were just indignant that there was a gambling operation designed to take advantage of desperate, low income people, where those people would be nearly certain to lose their money and end up with nothing to show for it, or, at best, win back far less than they would lose over the long haul. But maybe I'm being too harsh, maybe they really are outraged, maybe they've never heard of the Florida Lottery!
That's right, the Lottery, in any state, but today I'm talking about Florida, is based on the same principles as the operation that was shut down by the State yesterday. They prey on desperate and low income people, who stand a very low chance of winning anything, and if they do, most of them lose far more over the course of their lives than they will ever win (let's face it, if the Lottery were a good way to make money, rich people would play it too, and they don't). The state makes huge profits off of the Lottery, supposedly for Education, but don't worry, sticky fingered politicians find ways around that (yes even here in Florida, it's not just a New York problem). And that is the real source of the outrage. You see, the Government officials and the reporters and all of them aren't upset because this is going on in Florida, they are upset because somebody was encroaching on their turf. Like a mob boss who is angry when another mob tries to operate in his territory, he's not angry that there crime there, he's angry because he's not getting his cut. It's the same with the State.
Wait, what? Did he just call the State a bunch of Mafia thugs?!? Yes, I basically did. Now, don't get me wrong, it's not that I want places like this operating all over the place, it's just the horrendous display of dishonesty I saw in this news report. Let's be honest about it, the State doesn't want this going on unless they are getting their cut, and that's the truth.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Where Are They Now?
It's been a few years since we were introduced to the idea of "Hate Crimes." A new and fairly radical idea of supposed justice, where ones actions in the commission of a crime actually become secondary to their motive. Motive is important when establishing that a person is guilty of a crime, sometimes a jury has trouble believing that a person is guilty if they don't understand why that person might have done it. However, with the introduction of hate crimes laws, we see that a persons motive is influencing far more than the verdict of guilty or not guilty, but the actual sentence received if they are indeed found guilty.
The whole idea is truly absurd. If someone kills another person, they should be punished for that crime, regardless of the motive. Is the person who is killed for their race more valuable than the person who is killed for money? Is the Muslim who is beaten for his religion any more a victim than the Atheist who is beaten at random, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Is the crime truly more heinous because the motive in a certain category? Certainly not. But that is what many would have us believe.
First it started with applying the hate crimes laws to who a person is, things such as their race or gender, and what a person believes, things such as religion. Naturally though, they couldn't even leave it at that, they demanded that it be expanded to cover what a person chooses to do, and so they covered homosexuals. This last one to the point that even saying that you believe that Homosexuality is a sin is considered a hate crime in some places. Still, the point is that by their own definition they want to cover what a person does, so why aren't they trying to protect the AIG execs?
It seems to me that these people are being targeted for where they work, which falls under the category of what they do. Aside from the fact that most, if not all, of the people who were being awarded the bonuses had no part in the failure of their parent company, and had genuinely earned the bonuses that they were being paid, the fact of the matter is that they are being threatened with bodily harm, and even death to themselves and their families because they happen to work at a company where people other than themselves did irresponsible things, and squandered the money that these people had worked so hard to make.
However, even if these were the very people responsible, I think that the expanded hate crimes laws should apply. They are being targeted for what they do, so why haul in all of the people who have threatened them, and all of the people (politicians included) who have incited these feelings of hatred, and charge them with hate crimes, after all, why wait for a crime to be committed, if you're going to punish someone for what they think, instead of what they do, then why not head them off at the pass and lock them all up before they have a chance to hurt anyone. You think I'm joking, but just wait, it won't be long before someone proposes just that, but not for thoughts against just anyone, just against the favored groups of their own choosing.
This brings up one more point though, couldn't this be applied to our very criminal justice system? Couldn't someone say, hey, you protected people from being harassed or harmed for what they do, well, I say you're just arresting and prosecuting me because I'm a murderer and you just hate murderers. Absurd? Yes, but it's the logical conclusion of their own absurd ideas.
Hate crimes laws boil down to just one thing, quelling dissent. That is to say, silencing anyone with a differing point of view, not to protect anyone, not to make society more just, but rather to eliminate freedom of speech, and with it all other freedoms we enjoy.
The whole idea is truly absurd. If someone kills another person, they should be punished for that crime, regardless of the motive. Is the person who is killed for their race more valuable than the person who is killed for money? Is the Muslim who is beaten for his religion any more a victim than the Atheist who is beaten at random, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Is the crime truly more heinous because the motive in a certain category? Certainly not. But that is what many would have us believe.
First it started with applying the hate crimes laws to who a person is, things such as their race or gender, and what a person believes, things such as religion. Naturally though, they couldn't even leave it at that, they demanded that it be expanded to cover what a person chooses to do, and so they covered homosexuals. This last one to the point that even saying that you believe that Homosexuality is a sin is considered a hate crime in some places. Still, the point is that by their own definition they want to cover what a person does, so why aren't they trying to protect the AIG execs?
It seems to me that these people are being targeted for where they work, which falls under the category of what they do. Aside from the fact that most, if not all, of the people who were being awarded the bonuses had no part in the failure of their parent company, and had genuinely earned the bonuses that they were being paid, the fact of the matter is that they are being threatened with bodily harm, and even death to themselves and their families because they happen to work at a company where people other than themselves did irresponsible things, and squandered the money that these people had worked so hard to make.
However, even if these were the very people responsible, I think that the expanded hate crimes laws should apply. They are being targeted for what they do, so why haul in all of the people who have threatened them, and all of the people (politicians included) who have incited these feelings of hatred, and charge them with hate crimes, after all, why wait for a crime to be committed, if you're going to punish someone for what they think, instead of what they do, then why not head them off at the pass and lock them all up before they have a chance to hurt anyone. You think I'm joking, but just wait, it won't be long before someone proposes just that, but not for thoughts against just anyone, just against the favored groups of their own choosing.
This brings up one more point though, couldn't this be applied to our very criminal justice system? Couldn't someone say, hey, you protected people from being harassed or harmed for what they do, well, I say you're just arresting and prosecuting me because I'm a murderer and you just hate murderers. Absurd? Yes, but it's the logical conclusion of their own absurd ideas.
Hate crimes laws boil down to just one thing, quelling dissent. That is to say, silencing anyone with a differing point of view, not to protect anyone, not to make society more just, but rather to eliminate freedom of speech, and with it all other freedoms we enjoy.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Some Further Thoughts
Yesterday I spent quite a bit of time explaining some truth about all the media attention to the Embryonic Stem Cell Research announcement this past week. Today I want to talk about another aspect of President Obama's action.
As part of the announcement that the Federal Government will now fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research, without any regard to Ethical concerns, it was stated that President Obama is against cloning. In order to see why this is a lie, we'll have to talk a little bit about what cloning is.
There are two kinds of cloning, scientifically speaking. There is reproductive cloning, and therapeutic cloning.
First, reproductive cloning. This would involve the creation of an embryo by selectively fertilizing an egg and then placing it inside a woman (unless some way is found in the lab to grow it without a woman being involved) and allowing it to be born as a human infant. While there are some practical concerns about the viability of a person created in this manner (that is to say it's ability to survive and not mutate) but assuming those things could be overcome, one would be hard pressed to argue against this on ethical grounds. I know that's something of a shocking statement, most people believe that reproductive cloning would be terrible, and that somehow we would be playing God by doing such a thing. I can't agree with that assessment though. God created the material universe, and everything in it, including people, out of nothing. Then He gave us a command. In Genesis 1:28a God tells us, "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..." and while God designed a wonderful and marvelous, you might say miraculous, way for us to do this naturally, there is no prohibition against doing so by other means. To genetically engineer the clone certainly would change the discussion, but just reproductive cloning on it's own is not unethical on it's face. Oddly enough, this is the type of cloning that President Obama is opposed to.
Now, assuming just straight up cloning were perfected, what would make it unethical? Clearly treating the clone as though they had no value as a human being, and/or using them as you saw fit, against their will, would be wrong. Take for instance the idea of cloning a person, growing them into an adult and then killing them so that their organs could be used for transplant for non clones. This would be an unethical and monstrous thing to do. However, in an exaggerated way, I just described therapeutic cloning. That is where you clone an embryo and then destroy it by extracting the Stem Cells, for research, or assuming that someday they actually did find a practical use for them, which seems unlikely today, then for some therapy. That is to say, cloning a human being for the purpose of killing them for the benefit of non clones. Therapeutic cloning is at the heart of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The research cannot be done without it.
In summary, there are two kinds of cloning, one is ethical, and one is not. President Obama is opposed to the ethical type, but supports the unethical version.
Of course, this is magnified when you consider the fact that there are literally hundreds of uses for Adult Stem Cells already in use, and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells show even more promise, while there is not a single use of Embryonic Stem Cells yet, nor do they show any promise whatsoever. In fact, Embryonic Stem Cells cause tumors, so, rather than promising to make things better, they make things worse. So why would you support destroying Human beings, or even potential human beings, when there is both no benefit, and the benefits you are hoping for are available from another means which carries none of the moral or ethical qualms?
Doesn't seem to make much sense does it?
As part of the announcement that the Federal Government will now fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research, without any regard to Ethical concerns, it was stated that President Obama is against cloning. In order to see why this is a lie, we'll have to talk a little bit about what cloning is.
There are two kinds of cloning, scientifically speaking. There is reproductive cloning, and therapeutic cloning.
First, reproductive cloning. This would involve the creation of an embryo by selectively fertilizing an egg and then placing it inside a woman (unless some way is found in the lab to grow it without a woman being involved) and allowing it to be born as a human infant. While there are some practical concerns about the viability of a person created in this manner (that is to say it's ability to survive and not mutate) but assuming those things could be overcome, one would be hard pressed to argue against this on ethical grounds. I know that's something of a shocking statement, most people believe that reproductive cloning would be terrible, and that somehow we would be playing God by doing such a thing. I can't agree with that assessment though. God created the material universe, and everything in it, including people, out of nothing. Then He gave us a command. In Genesis 1:28a God tells us, "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..." and while God designed a wonderful and marvelous, you might say miraculous, way for us to do this naturally, there is no prohibition against doing so by other means. To genetically engineer the clone certainly would change the discussion, but just reproductive cloning on it's own is not unethical on it's face. Oddly enough, this is the type of cloning that President Obama is opposed to.
Now, assuming just straight up cloning were perfected, what would make it unethical? Clearly treating the clone as though they had no value as a human being, and/or using them as you saw fit, against their will, would be wrong. Take for instance the idea of cloning a person, growing them into an adult and then killing them so that their organs could be used for transplant for non clones. This would be an unethical and monstrous thing to do. However, in an exaggerated way, I just described therapeutic cloning. That is where you clone an embryo and then destroy it by extracting the Stem Cells, for research, or assuming that someday they actually did find a practical use for them, which seems unlikely today, then for some therapy. That is to say, cloning a human being for the purpose of killing them for the benefit of non clones. Therapeutic cloning is at the heart of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The research cannot be done without it.
In summary, there are two kinds of cloning, one is ethical, and one is not. President Obama is opposed to the ethical type, but supports the unethical version.
Of course, this is magnified when you consider the fact that there are literally hundreds of uses for Adult Stem Cells already in use, and Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells show even more promise, while there is not a single use of Embryonic Stem Cells yet, nor do they show any promise whatsoever. In fact, Embryonic Stem Cells cause tumors, so, rather than promising to make things better, they make things worse. So why would you support destroying Human beings, or even potential human beings, when there is both no benefit, and the benefits you are hoping for are available from another means which carries none of the moral or ethical qualms?
Doesn't seem to make much sense does it?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Mass Deception
I'm sure that everyone has heard in the media by now that President Obama has reversed President Bush's ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The problem is that in most cases, most, if not all, of the details are lies.
First off, President Bush did not ban the research, in a gesture reflective of his devotion to life he banned the Federal Government from funding such research on lines of Embryonic Stem Cells created after August 9th of 2001. So Federal dollars could not be used to fund the creation and destruction of embryos in ongoing research, but the research did continue. There was funding at the State level, and there was private funding. Bush's so-called ban was a symbolic gesture, nothing more. Certainly it didn't stifle the research, as so many would have us believe. In order to take that argument seriously would be to believe that nothing worthwhile is ever developed without Government funding, and that's just silly.
The second big lie is the idea that only Embryonic Stem Cell Research holds any promise for health care application. The lies don't come much bigger than this one. The fact is that Embryonic Stem Cells have shown little or no promise in practical application, while adult Stem Cells and what are known as Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells have shown tremendous promise for many different applications. In fact, there are some treatments available today that are making use of Adult Stem Cells in repairing debilitating injuries and restoring quality of life to real people in real situations, the same cannot be said for Embryonic Stem Cells, and that is not because there were no Federal dollars funding the research, as I said, the research has been going on, but they face some pretty significant problems, the least of which is the few bucks they may or may not get from Uncle Sam.
The problem, as usual, is that the media can't be bothered with the facts, not when there is a political agenda to be won. They report on this story as though, now that the great President Obama has reversed the backwards decision of that moron that came before him, we'll have cured Cancer inside of a few weeks. It's ridiculous, but that's how they tend to report on things like this.
Another problem with the reporting is that they like to make believe that this is all about religious wackos trying to get in the way of science, but the fact is that there are genuine ethical concerns here that do not have a religious basis. Ethical concerns are always trying to find a balance with scientific research and discovery. They don't test nuclear bombs in Central Park, do they? Of course not, but that's not a practical scientific concern, it's an ethical one. We don't do medical experiments on humans (Fetuses and Embryo's not withstanding) and that also is an ethical, rather than a scientific concern.
You see, you could extract some Adult Stem Cells from me right now, and aside from some minor discomfort, I would be none the worse for wear. You can collect Umbilical Cord blood from newborns, with no ill effect on either the child or the mother (that is another promising source). But to collect Embryonic Stem Cells requires the destruction of the Embryo. But of course, the argument goes, that Embryo's are not people, sure, under the right conditions they could become people, but they're really not people. I would ask, how do you know? This is starting to sound a lot like the Abortion debate isn't it? Well, it should, it's related. The argument from the other side goes that, we don't know when they really become a person, so it's ok to use them as we see fit. This is a stunningly ignorant argument. If you see a burlap sack laying in the middle of the street, and you don't know if it's just a bag of old leaves, or if it's a bag of kittens, does not knowing make it ok to run over that bag, which might be full of kittens? Or would it be correct and ethical to be careful and protect the bag until you were able to look inside and see if it contains live kittens or not? To me the choice is clear.
If you must destroy something that may or may not be human life, is that not enough of an ethical dilemma to tell you that you should hold off on that? Even if it did hold great promise for curing all kinds of diseases and such, which, as I explained before, it does not.
This doesn't even cover all of the lies that are being propagated regarding this issue, but hopefully I've given you something to think about, and hopefully we can get past the lies, and learn the truth.
First off, President Bush did not ban the research, in a gesture reflective of his devotion to life he banned the Federal Government from funding such research on lines of Embryonic Stem Cells created after August 9th of 2001. So Federal dollars could not be used to fund the creation and destruction of embryos in ongoing research, but the research did continue. There was funding at the State level, and there was private funding. Bush's so-called ban was a symbolic gesture, nothing more. Certainly it didn't stifle the research, as so many would have us believe. In order to take that argument seriously would be to believe that nothing worthwhile is ever developed without Government funding, and that's just silly.
The second big lie is the idea that only Embryonic Stem Cell Research holds any promise for health care application. The lies don't come much bigger than this one. The fact is that Embryonic Stem Cells have shown little or no promise in practical application, while adult Stem Cells and what are known as Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells have shown tremendous promise for many different applications. In fact, there are some treatments available today that are making use of Adult Stem Cells in repairing debilitating injuries and restoring quality of life to real people in real situations, the same cannot be said for Embryonic Stem Cells, and that is not because there were no Federal dollars funding the research, as I said, the research has been going on, but they face some pretty significant problems, the least of which is the few bucks they may or may not get from Uncle Sam.
The problem, as usual, is that the media can't be bothered with the facts, not when there is a political agenda to be won. They report on this story as though, now that the great President Obama has reversed the backwards decision of that moron that came before him, we'll have cured Cancer inside of a few weeks. It's ridiculous, but that's how they tend to report on things like this.
Another problem with the reporting is that they like to make believe that this is all about religious wackos trying to get in the way of science, but the fact is that there are genuine ethical concerns here that do not have a religious basis. Ethical concerns are always trying to find a balance with scientific research and discovery. They don't test nuclear bombs in Central Park, do they? Of course not, but that's not a practical scientific concern, it's an ethical one. We don't do medical experiments on humans (Fetuses and Embryo's not withstanding) and that also is an ethical, rather than a scientific concern.
You see, you could extract some Adult Stem Cells from me right now, and aside from some minor discomfort, I would be none the worse for wear. You can collect Umbilical Cord blood from newborns, with no ill effect on either the child or the mother (that is another promising source). But to collect Embryonic Stem Cells requires the destruction of the Embryo. But of course, the argument goes, that Embryo's are not people, sure, under the right conditions they could become people, but they're really not people. I would ask, how do you know? This is starting to sound a lot like the Abortion debate isn't it? Well, it should, it's related. The argument from the other side goes that, we don't know when they really become a person, so it's ok to use them as we see fit. This is a stunningly ignorant argument. If you see a burlap sack laying in the middle of the street, and you don't know if it's just a bag of old leaves, or if it's a bag of kittens, does not knowing make it ok to run over that bag, which might be full of kittens? Or would it be correct and ethical to be careful and protect the bag until you were able to look inside and see if it contains live kittens or not? To me the choice is clear.
If you must destroy something that may or may not be human life, is that not enough of an ethical dilemma to tell you that you should hold off on that? Even if it did hold great promise for curing all kinds of diseases and such, which, as I explained before, it does not.
This doesn't even cover all of the lies that are being propagated regarding this issue, but hopefully I've given you something to think about, and hopefully we can get past the lies, and learn the truth.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
I Hope He Fails Too
I know that I've addressed this once before, but there sure do seem to be a lot of people out there who just aren't getting it, so I'm going to take another crack at it.
Rush Limbaugh has taken a lot of heat for saying that the hopes that President Obama fails, and has tried to explain what he means by that. Of course, his problems is that most people don't care what he means. They are the drones who just want to go along with Obama and support everything he does, no matter how destructive to our nation.
Of course, Rush has one other problem. I don't think that he, or most of his defenders, have done a particularly good job of explaining what he meant.
Barack Obama is an admitted Marxist, oh, not is so many words, but again, as I've said before, if you understand Marx, and you listen to what Obama is saying, and what he is pushing, you will see that it can hardly be described by other names. Many would say Socialism, and I've used that word before, because it is accurate, but Marxism is a particular brand of Socialism, so it's a less broad definition.
It is a fact that Socialism has been tried many times over, in many different forms, including Marxism specifically, the world over, and it has never worked. It is a flawed and failed system, and Obama and his administration are trying to put it in place here in the United States. Being that we know that this will be a colossal failure and do horrific damage to our nation, we hope that he fails in that plan.
For President Obama, success means instituting socialism in the the United States of America. Therefore, yes, I hope he fails!
Rush Limbaugh has taken a lot of heat for saying that the hopes that President Obama fails, and has tried to explain what he means by that. Of course, his problems is that most people don't care what he means. They are the drones who just want to go along with Obama and support everything he does, no matter how destructive to our nation.
Of course, Rush has one other problem. I don't think that he, or most of his defenders, have done a particularly good job of explaining what he meant.
Barack Obama is an admitted Marxist, oh, not is so many words, but again, as I've said before, if you understand Marx, and you listen to what Obama is saying, and what he is pushing, you will see that it can hardly be described by other names. Many would say Socialism, and I've used that word before, because it is accurate, but Marxism is a particular brand of Socialism, so it's a less broad definition.
It is a fact that Socialism has been tried many times over, in many different forms, including Marxism specifically, the world over, and it has never worked. It is a flawed and failed system, and Obama and his administration are trying to put it in place here in the United States. Being that we know that this will be a colossal failure and do horrific damage to our nation, we hope that he fails in that plan.
For President Obama, success means instituting socialism in the the United States of America. Therefore, yes, I hope he fails!
Monday, March 2, 2009
Partisan Bickering
Politicians like to use Buzz Words. These are words that either sound good, or sound bad, depending on what emotion they wish to instill in the people, but often how they sound has little or nothing to do with the actual meaning of the words, or with the real world situation that the politicians are talking about.
Lately, one of the big buzz phrases is "partisan bickering." This is something that we hear about all the time on the news, and it's given with the implication that the only reason someone is standing up and arguing against the direction that someone wants to go is because they are in the opposing party, and it's all dismissed as partisan bickering.
The problem is that what they are dismissing is not someone just being obstructionist because of their party affiliation or political ideology, but they are dismissing disagreement. Dissent, which is critical to the functioning of a free society, is being ignored and dismissed, not because the disagreement is not valid, but rather because those in power, and their lapdogs in the media, are afraid that if there is an honest public debate, their side will lose ground. They want to implement all of their ideology without anyone getting in their way, for any reason whatsoever, and so they decry "partisan bickering" every time someone holds an opposing view.
As I said though, debate and disagreement are critical to the functioning of a free society. People will have differing ideas, and they need to be able to stand up and say so, but when they do, in this day and age, they find themselves dismissed as being partisan.
Did you know that the Soviet Union had no Partisan Bickering? Did you know that Nazi Germany had not Partisan Bickering? Communist China has no Partisan Bickering. Burma has no Partisan Bickering. Nor does Cuba or Venezuela. Are we seeing a point here? For anyone too dense to get it, all of these are, or were when they existed, totalitarian regimes where disagreement would get you killed, or still will in some of them. Is this where we are headed? Impossible? It didn't' happen overnight in those countries either. Venezuela is a good example of a place where they aren't all the way down that road yet, but are getting there at an alarming pace.
On top of this we have some Democrats, like the senior Senator from New York, declaring that a totally partisan bill, like the so called stimulus package, is be-partisan, and how dare anyone not go along when he has declared that the Republicans have been met halfway, regardless of the actual truth of the matter.
Disagreement is good, and when it is gone, freedom of speech is not far behind.
Lately, one of the big buzz phrases is "partisan bickering." This is something that we hear about all the time on the news, and it's given with the implication that the only reason someone is standing up and arguing against the direction that someone wants to go is because they are in the opposing party, and it's all dismissed as partisan bickering.
The problem is that what they are dismissing is not someone just being obstructionist because of their party affiliation or political ideology, but they are dismissing disagreement. Dissent, which is critical to the functioning of a free society, is being ignored and dismissed, not because the disagreement is not valid, but rather because those in power, and their lapdogs in the media, are afraid that if there is an honest public debate, their side will lose ground. They want to implement all of their ideology without anyone getting in their way, for any reason whatsoever, and so they decry "partisan bickering" every time someone holds an opposing view.
As I said though, debate and disagreement are critical to the functioning of a free society. People will have differing ideas, and they need to be able to stand up and say so, but when they do, in this day and age, they find themselves dismissed as being partisan.
Did you know that the Soviet Union had no Partisan Bickering? Did you know that Nazi Germany had not Partisan Bickering? Communist China has no Partisan Bickering. Burma has no Partisan Bickering. Nor does Cuba or Venezuela. Are we seeing a point here? For anyone too dense to get it, all of these are, or were when they existed, totalitarian regimes where disagreement would get you killed, or still will in some of them. Is this where we are headed? Impossible? It didn't' happen overnight in those countries either. Venezuela is a good example of a place where they aren't all the way down that road yet, but are getting there at an alarming pace.
On top of this we have some Democrats, like the senior Senator from New York, declaring that a totally partisan bill, like the so called stimulus package, is be-partisan, and how dare anyone not go along when he has declared that the Republicans have been met halfway, regardless of the actual truth of the matter.
Disagreement is good, and when it is gone, freedom of speech is not far behind.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Spending Spree
Hot on the heels of the bloated so-called Stimulus package, and remember that that was $827 Billion after amendments, Congress has passed a special $410 Billion spending package. This they did quietly so that people wouldn't have the chance to call and voice their objections to it. This is simply more money that the US Government will have to borrow, assuming there are any persons or nations still willing to lend, and leave for future generations to pay back.
President Obama keeps talking about how he inherited a deficit from President Bush, and even said the other day that he is going to try to cut the deficit in half during his first term, but this is an out and out lie. Now, I don't like any deficit spending at all, I think the Federal Government should run on the same principles that most of our Grandparents did, if you can't afford it, you just do without it, but let's look at the numbers. The deficit that the new Administration inherited was about $450 Billion. Accounting for interest (sometimes people say "debt service") the deficit has exploded to over $2 Trillion, and Obama has been in office just over a month. Now, I understand that Congress passed the spending bills, but Obama chose to sign them, and in this case, the Congress did not have the votes to over ride a Veto, had the President chosen to not go along, but of course he did go along, because he's complicit in the selling out of our children, and our Nations future.
This is sure not to be the only massive spending increases this year. They now have their sights set firmly on Health Care, and they have already started laying the groundwork for Nationalizing Health Care, which, if they are successful, will be an unmitigated disaster. The fiscal burden of Government run Health Care is well beyond what most people can even imagine, although imagination is hardly required, as we have plenty of examples around the world of just how colossal a failure this system is, just look at Canada and Britain. Besides the cost in dollars though, there is an even higher cost in human lives, and human suffering, as Government managed care amounts to rationed care, and while everyone is technically covered, many are denied access due to cost concerns. This is something that most Americans today don't even comprehend.
For the moment, all we can do is to talk to people, educate people, explain to them why these policies are the wrong ones. We can stay in touch with members of Congress and try to influence the decisions they make, and certainly if your Representative or Senator is in the Minority of those that are doing the right thing, please send them some encouragement so that they might keep on keeping on. Beyond that though, the next big impact we can have is to get involved in the upcoming election in 2010, find those candidates that will fight for what is right and support them. The only way to stem the tide of Socialism in America is to take back Congress in 2010. By 2012 it will be far more difficult to alter course, and if we fail by then, it will almost certainly be too late. People have to wake up, get up, and start fighting this battle now. The future of our Children, and our Nation, depend on it.
President Obama keeps talking about how he inherited a deficit from President Bush, and even said the other day that he is going to try to cut the deficit in half during his first term, but this is an out and out lie. Now, I don't like any deficit spending at all, I think the Federal Government should run on the same principles that most of our Grandparents did, if you can't afford it, you just do without it, but let's look at the numbers. The deficit that the new Administration inherited was about $450 Billion. Accounting for interest (sometimes people say "debt service") the deficit has exploded to over $2 Trillion, and Obama has been in office just over a month. Now, I understand that Congress passed the spending bills, but Obama chose to sign them, and in this case, the Congress did not have the votes to over ride a Veto, had the President chosen to not go along, but of course he did go along, because he's complicit in the selling out of our children, and our Nations future.
This is sure not to be the only massive spending increases this year. They now have their sights set firmly on Health Care, and they have already started laying the groundwork for Nationalizing Health Care, which, if they are successful, will be an unmitigated disaster. The fiscal burden of Government run Health Care is well beyond what most people can even imagine, although imagination is hardly required, as we have plenty of examples around the world of just how colossal a failure this system is, just look at Canada and Britain. Besides the cost in dollars though, there is an even higher cost in human lives, and human suffering, as Government managed care amounts to rationed care, and while everyone is technically covered, many are denied access due to cost concerns. This is something that most Americans today don't even comprehend.
For the moment, all we can do is to talk to people, educate people, explain to them why these policies are the wrong ones. We can stay in touch with members of Congress and try to influence the decisions they make, and certainly if your Representative or Senator is in the Minority of those that are doing the right thing, please send them some encouragement so that they might keep on keeping on. Beyond that though, the next big impact we can have is to get involved in the upcoming election in 2010, find those candidates that will fight for what is right and support them. The only way to stem the tide of Socialism in America is to take back Congress in 2010. By 2012 it will be far more difficult to alter course, and if we fail by then, it will almost certainly be too late. People have to wake up, get up, and start fighting this battle now. The future of our Children, and our Nation, depend on it.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Great Depression?
Are you, like me, sick of hearing that our current Economic "Crisis" is the worst thing our Nation as been through since the Great Depression. However, the chart above proves the lie in that oft repeated statement. Clearly, what we are going through right now is not nearly as bad as the recession of the early 80's. And what did we do to get out of that recession? Ronald Reagan cut taxes, increased military spending and cut spending in many other areas. This led to the roaring economy of the 1990's and, with the exception of the blip after September 11th, 2001, has just now crashed nearly 20 years after the fact. And now we are being told that the only thing that we can do is to go into hyper spending mode, raise taxes on the "rich" and cut military spending, in the middle of a war. Is anyone out there waking up yet?
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Funding Terrorists
Compared to the Trillions of dollars that our Government is throwing around in an obvious attempt to increase the size and power of itself the amount seems fairly small, a paltry $900 Million. That's how much the Obama administration is planning to send to the Middle East to rebuild the Palestinian territories after Israel "invaded" the West Bank. Of course Israel took action against the Palestinian territories after the terrorists living there used them as cover to attack Israel and kill Israeli people and Soldiers.
We are told not to worry, that the money will not reach the hands of the terrorists, which is a bunch of bull. If the money goes to that part of the world, it will get into the hands of terrorists because the entire region, outside of Israel itself, is controlled by terrorist organizations, which is what led to these problems in the first place. Then they tell us that the money will have to be distributed through the UN... right, because they have such a great record of doing things right. I guess we can take solace in that though, because at least less money will reach the terrorists because as it moves through the various departments of the United Nations most of it will be pilfered off and never reach the intended recipients anyway.
In short, this is just more of our money being thrown away by our own incompetent Government, except that this time it will be used to attack one of our greatest allies on the World stage. This is a sad day indeed.
We are told not to worry, that the money will not reach the hands of the terrorists, which is a bunch of bull. If the money goes to that part of the world, it will get into the hands of terrorists because the entire region, outside of Israel itself, is controlled by terrorist organizations, which is what led to these problems in the first place. Then they tell us that the money will have to be distributed through the UN... right, because they have such a great record of doing things right. I guess we can take solace in that though, because at least less money will reach the terrorists because as it moves through the various departments of the United Nations most of it will be pilfered off and never reach the intended recipients anyway.
In short, this is just more of our money being thrown away by our own incompetent Government, except that this time it will be used to attack one of our greatest allies on the World stage. This is a sad day indeed.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Let's Call The Whole Thing Off
There is an old song that most of you are probably familiar with where the issue is the pronunciation of the words potato and tomato, and the point being that, since we can't agree, let's call the whole thing off. This is how I feel about the so called stimulus bill that is being rammed through Congress at amazing speed. The Democrats in Congress and the President call it stimulus, those of us who see through the nonsense call it out of control, pork barrel, Government spending which will stimulate nothing other than bigger and more powerful Government, so, let's call the whole thing off.
You also hear a lot about how this bill has no earmarks at all (although I think that some got added in the Senate, so I guess now they want to say, very few) but even that is misleading. Normally an earmark is added as an amendment to a bill, for an example, you have put forth a bill to make water filtration in your state better, and I look at you and say, OK, I'll support that as long as you support my amendment to build a bridge with my name on it in my home state. The bridge is an earmark. That's just one example, but hopefully you get the point. It's a process by which members of the House and Senate get all of their little pet projects taken care of. That did not happen to this bill, so technically saying that there are no (or maybe very few now) earmarks attached to this bill is true, but the reason for that is that the entire body of the bill is made up of funding for every body's little pet projects. So, in reality, almost the entire bill is earmarks.
They also like to claim that the bill includes tax cuts, but this is a flat out lie. The bill includes another refundable tax credit, meaning that people who make under a certain amount of money will get a check from the Government, regardless of whether or not they paid any taxes. This is very similar to the plan that was pushed by the Bush administration last year that simply didn't work. How like Government, it didn't work last time, so we're just going to go ahead and do it again, surely it will work this time, but of course, it won't. Here's why. Let's say you own a small business selling widgets, and everyone loves your widgets and really wants one, so the Government sends everyone these checks in the mail, and lots of people come down to your store and buy a widget, so business is great right after the checks come out. Now, according to what the Democrats are trying to sell us, because business is up, you're going to turn around and hire a couple more widget makers to keep up with demand, thus creating jobs. The problem with the plan is that you, as a small business owner, are not a moron. You understand that this uptick in sales is nothing more than a minor short term blip, so maybe you work some longer hours and pay the people you already having making widgets overtime for a couple of weeks to meet the demand, but once the checks from the Government stop rolling in, sales fall back to normal. The smart businessman will try to put some of these profits aside for a rainy day, but certainly will not hire more workers based on an artificial boom.
Real tax cuts, on the other hand, that is, allowing people to simply keep more of the money that they make, will cause a smaller, yet much longer term increase in sales, that will be sustainable over time and will cause you to need more widget makers in your business, thus increasing jobs.
Besides the false tax cuts, there is also the case of hugely increased spending in a large variety area's, and where is that money going to come from? Debt of course, that's the only place it can come from at this point. That means that we are putting our nation into a position that will require our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to pay that tab, and that assumes that we stop the out of control spending sometime relatively soon.
There are more problems with this bill, including the provisions moving us along the line toward Socialized medicine, which will, as I've explained before, amount to nothing more than the rationing of Health Care, with some Government bureaucrat deciding if you get the medicines and treatments that you need.
This is one of the worst bills ever to have come before Congress, and if it can still be stopped it needs to be. We simply can't afford to let it go forward.
You also hear a lot about how this bill has no earmarks at all (although I think that some got added in the Senate, so I guess now they want to say, very few) but even that is misleading. Normally an earmark is added as an amendment to a bill, for an example, you have put forth a bill to make water filtration in your state better, and I look at you and say, OK, I'll support that as long as you support my amendment to build a bridge with my name on it in my home state. The bridge is an earmark. That's just one example, but hopefully you get the point. It's a process by which members of the House and Senate get all of their little pet projects taken care of. That did not happen to this bill, so technically saying that there are no (or maybe very few now) earmarks attached to this bill is true, but the reason for that is that the entire body of the bill is made up of funding for every body's little pet projects. So, in reality, almost the entire bill is earmarks.
They also like to claim that the bill includes tax cuts, but this is a flat out lie. The bill includes another refundable tax credit, meaning that people who make under a certain amount of money will get a check from the Government, regardless of whether or not they paid any taxes. This is very similar to the plan that was pushed by the Bush administration last year that simply didn't work. How like Government, it didn't work last time, so we're just going to go ahead and do it again, surely it will work this time, but of course, it won't. Here's why. Let's say you own a small business selling widgets, and everyone loves your widgets and really wants one, so the Government sends everyone these checks in the mail, and lots of people come down to your store and buy a widget, so business is great right after the checks come out. Now, according to what the Democrats are trying to sell us, because business is up, you're going to turn around and hire a couple more widget makers to keep up with demand, thus creating jobs. The problem with the plan is that you, as a small business owner, are not a moron. You understand that this uptick in sales is nothing more than a minor short term blip, so maybe you work some longer hours and pay the people you already having making widgets overtime for a couple of weeks to meet the demand, but once the checks from the Government stop rolling in, sales fall back to normal. The smart businessman will try to put some of these profits aside for a rainy day, but certainly will not hire more workers based on an artificial boom.
Real tax cuts, on the other hand, that is, allowing people to simply keep more of the money that they make, will cause a smaller, yet much longer term increase in sales, that will be sustainable over time and will cause you to need more widget makers in your business, thus increasing jobs.
Besides the false tax cuts, there is also the case of hugely increased spending in a large variety area's, and where is that money going to come from? Debt of course, that's the only place it can come from at this point. That means that we are putting our nation into a position that will require our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to pay that tab, and that assumes that we stop the out of control spending sometime relatively soon.
There are more problems with this bill, including the provisions moving us along the line toward Socialized medicine, which will, as I've explained before, amount to nothing more than the rationing of Health Care, with some Government bureaucrat deciding if you get the medicines and treatments that you need.
This is one of the worst bills ever to have come before Congress, and if it can still be stopped it needs to be. We simply can't afford to let it go forward.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Battle Lines
The battle lines are clearly drawn. Finally someone on the left has admitted what it is they really want. The head of the Green division of the British Government has stated that population control should be an aim of the left, and castigated the rest of the environmentalists for not being willing to talk about it. He is saying that people who have more than 2 children are enemies of the planet, and that contraception and abortion should be used to control population. US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tried to make a similar case, trying to get people to believe that money for contraception and abortion will help our economy to recover. Brittan and Canada have had socialist health care (call it universal coverage or whatever you wish) for many years now, and a close examination of their systems will show that this too is about population control, as I've been saying for some time. This is something else that the left wants to institute in the US. Government run health care amounts to health care rationing, or decreased access to health care, rather than increased access as some would have you to believe. Rationing health care, and restricting access to it, is for one purpose only, and that is to kill people, thus reducing overall population.
Aside from being lies of the left, even if they were true, these ideals are very shortsighted. Even if Speaker Pelosi were correct and keeping women from becoming pregnant and murdering babies in the womb would be a boost for our economy, what happens down the road when there are not enough younger workers to keep the economy moving? This is the problem faced by Japan right now. In fact, according to breakpoint (w/Chuck Colson and Mark Early), Japanese companies are sending their workers home early for the express purpose of... making babies. They have recognized the dire straights that they are in due to past practices and policies that have greatly lowered their birth rates, and they are taking action to correct the problem. Why are we trying to head in the other direction?
Beyond this, the fact of the matter is that these are, in fact, lies. The planet does not suffer from overpopulation, and is capable of sustaining many more people than are living on it today. Of course, we need the environmentalist wackoes to stop fighting against the farmers, and let them grow the crops and raise the livestock to be able to feed the global population, which they have the ability to do, if they are allowed to do so unhindered. Nor is "Global Warming", which has now turned into global cooling, forcing the extremists to change their jargon to "climate Change" which is a meaningless propaganda phrase, a real threat, according to leading and renowned climatologists, but instead of listening to them, the news only tells us about Al Gore and the other liberals, many with no science education at all, or certainly no specialty in climate science, saying that there can now be no doubt. True enough, there can be no doubt that these people are trying to introduce population control measures by any means they possibly can.
The truth of the matter is that it really comes down to the family. Rather than trying to destroy our culture by handing out condoms to our kids and murder as many babies as possible, we need to work on healing families. We need to undo the sexual revolution, get people to stop having sex before or outside of marriage, and stay married for life. I don't mean by laws, but by way of reason. We must start to explain that the way to make a strong, stable society, economy and everything, is by having a strong base of strong families.
You see, the family, and certainly not the Government, is the base of any society, and any society that loses that, and fails to regain it, is doomed to failure. Families are not perfect by any means, but they have been under constant attack in the country for many decades now, and the assault shows no signs of letting up any time soon. We must fight back. If we don't want abortion and population control, and further destruction of the family to be the norm of the day, we must take a stand now.
As Christians we can never accept the idea that murdering people by denying access to health care (under the guise of universal health care coverage) and murdering babies in the womb, can ever be the right way to go. If you didn't understand before why the ideals of the left are wrong, I hope you do now. I will try in the future to make this clearer. We must stand and fight for the family and for the people. Right vs. Left really is Right vs. Wrong.
Aside from being lies of the left, even if they were true, these ideals are very shortsighted. Even if Speaker Pelosi were correct and keeping women from becoming pregnant and murdering babies in the womb would be a boost for our economy, what happens down the road when there are not enough younger workers to keep the economy moving? This is the problem faced by Japan right now. In fact, according to breakpoint (w/Chuck Colson and Mark Early), Japanese companies are sending their workers home early for the express purpose of... making babies. They have recognized the dire straights that they are in due to past practices and policies that have greatly lowered their birth rates, and they are taking action to correct the problem. Why are we trying to head in the other direction?
Beyond this, the fact of the matter is that these are, in fact, lies. The planet does not suffer from overpopulation, and is capable of sustaining many more people than are living on it today. Of course, we need the environmentalist wackoes to stop fighting against the farmers, and let them grow the crops and raise the livestock to be able to feed the global population, which they have the ability to do, if they are allowed to do so unhindered. Nor is "Global Warming", which has now turned into global cooling, forcing the extremists to change their jargon to "climate Change" which is a meaningless propaganda phrase, a real threat, according to leading and renowned climatologists, but instead of listening to them, the news only tells us about Al Gore and the other liberals, many with no science education at all, or certainly no specialty in climate science, saying that there can now be no doubt. True enough, there can be no doubt that these people are trying to introduce population control measures by any means they possibly can.
The truth of the matter is that it really comes down to the family. Rather than trying to destroy our culture by handing out condoms to our kids and murder as many babies as possible, we need to work on healing families. We need to undo the sexual revolution, get people to stop having sex before or outside of marriage, and stay married for life. I don't mean by laws, but by way of reason. We must start to explain that the way to make a strong, stable society, economy and everything, is by having a strong base of strong families.
You see, the family, and certainly not the Government, is the base of any society, and any society that loses that, and fails to regain it, is doomed to failure. Families are not perfect by any means, but they have been under constant attack in the country for many decades now, and the assault shows no signs of letting up any time soon. We must fight back. If we don't want abortion and population control, and further destruction of the family to be the norm of the day, we must take a stand now.
As Christians we can never accept the idea that murdering people by denying access to health care (under the guise of universal health care coverage) and murdering babies in the womb, can ever be the right way to go. If you didn't understand before why the ideals of the left are wrong, I hope you do now. I will try in the future to make this clearer. We must stand and fight for the family and for the people. Right vs. Left really is Right vs. Wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
