On The Manhattan Declaration

As I mentioned after my Thanksgiving day wishes, there has a been a lot of buzz about the Manhattan Declaration. To me, this is something which is far too important to ignore.

For those who may not know, let me start by explaining what the Manhattan Declaration is. I will not be posting the Declaration itself here on my blog, but please feel free to go to www.manhattandeclartion.org to check it out for yourself, and see if you think that my characterization is accurate. It is certainly not my intention to, in any way, or at any time, mislead anyone, or misrepresent what this is all about.

The Manhattan Declaration, according the declaration itself, is "A Call Of Christian Conscience." It was originally drafted on October 20th of 2009, and released to the public on November 20th of 2009.

The document addresses three main issues, abortion, same-sex marriage, and religious liberty. It purports to be a document which unites differing Christian groups around these very important issues. It lays out a case for the pro-life position, and against Abortion. It lays out a case in favor of preserving marriage as a sacred institution, and why we should strive against allowing same-sex marriages to be recognized. It also outlines the dangers faced by religious groups in the present age, where there is much animosity directed at anyone who dares to so much as disapprove of nearly anything.

To the extent that it does these things I would support it as a statement of position, and as a place for people of conscience to rally, and say, OK, we have differences, but we all agree that these things are important, so let's stand together on them. But that is not all that the document says. And it going farther, it leaves a lot to be desired.

Clearly, I am pro-life. If you wish to call me anti-abortion, that's fine, I'm not going to fight you on it, I am anti-abortion, because I'm pro-life. As far as it goes, I think that the declaration does a pretty good job of laying out some good arguments and points for a pro-life position, however, for something that supposes to be a Christian document, it spends far too much time expounding secular arguments instead, and virtually no time on Biblical arguments, save a couple of verses of Scripture which are never explained or defended in any way. Also, I do believe that marriage is only possible, in a very real sense, between one man and one woman, and again, the declaration does a very good job of laying out a secular case for traditional marriage, but again, is staggeringly weak when it comes to a Biblical basis, which is especially important on this issue, because, if the Bible didn't speak to this issue I personally wouldn't really care about it at all. I also understand the importance of religious liberty, but again, it is defended and explained entirely with secular arguments. So, while I can affirm the positions taken by the declaration, I think that they could have done a better job laying them out and defending them, and the fact that they didn't defend them from the Bible is a serious problem for me.

All that being said, let me get on to the main problem that I have with the Manhattan Declaration.

The document makes a big deal about Christians, and where they stand on important issues. But what is meant by "Christian"? Well, to quote from the declaration; "We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians..." This should be another problem for Bible believing Christians. The fact that this document lumps Evangelical Christians in with Catholics, as well as, so-called, Orthodox, sounds huge warning bells in my mind, as the beliefs of these groups are wildly different. This brings me back to how the Manhattan Declaration came to my attention. Initially I had heard Chuck Colson talk about some, which is not surprising since he is one of the people who wrote it, but I hadn't had time to check it out. Then a friend asked me if I had signed it yet, and I could only respond that, up to that point, I hadn't had time to check it out yet. So, when I had time, I went to the website, www.manhattandeclaration.org, and checked it out.

The first that I saw when I got to the website was the very brief summary that is there, and I decided to look and see who had signed the declaration. While there are some very well known Christian leaders on the list, you can't help but notice more than a few Roman Catholic Archbishops on the list. For any Bible believing Christian, this has to give you pause when considering something like this. So I knew I was going to have to look very closely at the declaration before I could make up my mind, so I pulled up the full declaration and read the entire thing.

If you should read the declaration you will find that only scant lip service is given to the Gospel, and even then it is not defined or explained in any way shape or form, yet we know for sure that a Roman Catholic Archbishop would mean something very different by Gospel than I do. Given that this document was written with the idea in mind that it was for the approval of Catholics and Christians, it seems clear that the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is not what's in view even the one time that it is mentioned. And no, in a pure sense, Catholics are not Christians. At it's best Catholicism is an apostate form of Christianity, but not true Biblical Christianity. That is not to say that no Catholics are truly redeemed, but given what is taught in most Catholic Churches and circles, I would venture to say that they are a rare breed.

Having established that the purposes of this document are not to further the Gospel, what then could they be? Well, it must have to do with propagating morality, but if that's all they are concerned with, why mention Christianity at all? Simply to have a grounding for the morality they are seeking? Perhaps, but if so, that does not do justice to the purpose of Christianity. The purpose of Christianity is to share the Gospel with the entire world. That's it, that's the core, it's why the Church exists. Our mission to spread the Gospel, to preach the Gospel, is the reason the Church is in the world, it's the reason God doesn't rapture (sorry, it's the best word I can think of for this) us out of the world the instant we come to faith in Him. And that is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, that we are sinners in a fallen world, in danger of eternal judgment from a righteous and Holy and Just God, and can be redeemed out of this world and saved from that damnation only by grace and through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, which is something that could not be affirmed by many of the signers and endorsers of the declaration.

Now, from the Catholic perspective, there is a certain logic to this declaration. Being that Catholicism, as it is practiced, and as it is taught in most local Parishes and such, is a very legalistic religion, believing in a works based righteousness (often you will hear that the works must be coupled with faith, but even that is a gross bastardization of the Gospel) and that being good at least gets you closer to Heaven, no matter why you are good, it would make sense to force people, through political action or whatever, to be better, and thus put them closer to God, even if you have to drag them, kicking and screaming, to it. But this is not something that is compatible with Biblical Christianity. If a person rejects the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that is the true Gospel, then they are damned and destined for Hell, and just how good or bad they are is of little consequence to them.

So, if I were to sum up the Manhattan Declaration, I would have to put it something like this: "We, under the guise of Christianity, demand adherence to our moral standards. We stand up, shake our fist at the culture and say, you will submit to us, we will see to it. We couldn't care less if you go to hell for all eternity, we will have our moralistic domain here and now! We don't care if you believe, only that you submit!"

But wait, there's something familiar about that sentiment, it's Islam! That's right, Islam doesn't require an affirmation of faith, only submission to it's laws and teachings. That's what's going on with the Manhattan Declaration, it's declaring that we don't care what you believe, only that people submit to the moral standards that it puts forth. This is all too common amongst people who wish to claim Christianity. It is what Dr. Michael Horton calls Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism. That is, we try to be moral, and it makes us feel better, and oh yeah, as an afterthought, there is a god, but that doesn't really affect us.

For me to affirm the Manhattan Declaration would be to say, if you are homosexual, you can go to hell, as long as you go without a marriage license. If you are woman, you can go to hell, as long as you go without having had an abortion. And I will fight for religious liberty, and disregard laws that I think conflict with that, while also refusing to submit to the consequences of such action. That is something that I absolutely cannot affirm. No matter who you are, or what your sin, I want you to learn about Jesus, repent of your sins, and be redeemed. If you are going to hell anyway, it doesn't matter what sin you committed, it will separate you from God.

So do I support the Manhattan Declaration? Will I be signing it? No. Unreservedly, and emphatically, NO!

There is more to be said, and I know that some will raise objections to what I've written, but I'll have to deal with those as they arise, because this long enough already.

Health Care Fact Check, Mr. President

Dear America, President Obama told the American people in his weekend address he wanted to "start dispelling the outlandish rumors" about the Democrats' risky health care experiment. I couldn't agree more with the President. There is no place for outlandish rumor or outrageous rhetoric in the debate for the affordable and accessible health care reform we all want. Below are some facts that will help you counter the dishonest rhetoric Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and liberal special interest groups are disseminating in their attempt to silence dissent: Rhetoric: President Obama Promises Americans Can Keep Their Current Health Care Coverage. "You know, the interesting thing is we've actually been very clear on what we want. I've said I want to make sure if you have health care you are going to keep it..." (PBS's "The Newshour With Jim Lehrer," 7/20/09) FACT: Analysis Shows Over 88 Million People To Lose Current Insurance Under Government Health Care Takeover. "Under current law, there will be about 158.1 million people who are covered under an employer plan as workers, dependents or early retirees in 2011. If the act were fully implemented in that year, about 88.1 million workers would shift from private employer insurance to the public plan." (John Shelis, Vice President, Lewin Group, "Analysis Of The July 15 Draft Of The American Affordable Health Choices Act Of 2009," 7/17/09) Rhetoric: President Obama Pledges Americans Can Keep Their Doctor. "If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing. You keep your plan. You keep your doctor...We're not going to mess with it." (President Barack Obama, Remarks At White House Press Conference, The White House, 6/23/09) FACT: Mayo Clinic Says Government-Run Health Care Will Force Doctors To Drop Patients. '[L]awmakers are on track to approve across-the-board federal payment reductions of $155 billion over 10 years for hospitals ... Mayo and similar health systems object to the sweeping cuts. 'Across-the-board cuts will be harmful to everyone and we think it is particularly bad to penalize the high-value organizations,' said Jeff Korsmo, executive director of the Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center. 'We will have to violate our values in order to stay in business and reduce our access to government patients.'" (Phil Galewitz, "'Model' Health Systems Press Case For Medicare Fix In Reform," Kaiser Health News, 7/20/09) Rhetoric: President Obama Promises No Additional Taxes On Middle Class. "What I've said is, and I have stuck to this point, I don't want to see additional tax burdens on people making $250,000 a year or less." (NBC's "Today Show," 7/21/09) FACT: Democrats' Plan Imposes 2.5% Tax On Uninsured Individuals. "The penalty assessed on people who would be subject to the mandate but did not obtain insurance would equal 2.5 percent of the difference between their adjusted gross income (modified to include tax-exempt interest and certain other sources of income) and the tax filing threshold ..." (Douglas W. Elmendorf, "Preliminary Analysis Of The Insurance Coverage Specifications Provided By The House Tri-Committee Group," Letter To Chairman Rangel, 7/17/09) The Republicans want an honest and open debate about how to reform health care, but it is the Democrats who do not want to have a legitimate discussion on the issues. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their liberal special interest cronies are resorting to calling concerned citizens who have questions about their health care schemes "astroturf," "un-American," and even "political terrorists." One White House aide went so far to say "if you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard" when coaching Senate Democrats on the ways of "Chicago land politics." It's time for the President to practice what he preached on the campaign trail and respect all voices in the health care debate. Help the RNC spread the facts about the Obama Democrats' dishonest rhetoric and stop their efforts to silence dissent by forwarding this email to your friends, and if you can, make a contribution of whatever you can afford to the RNC today. And for more information about Obama's government-run health care experiment, go to www.BarackObamaExperiment.com. Matthew, there's too much at stake for Democrats and their left-wing allies to dominate the debate on health care reform with misinformation, name calling and scare tactics. Please help Republicans fight back today! Sincerely, Michael Steele Chairman, Republican National Committee

Debt For Clunkers

You have probably heard a lot about the so-called "Cash For Clunkers" program on the news, how it's so helpful and so popular, and going to do so much good for so many people, and for the economy, and so on and so forth. I have a different take. I think that this program is so idiotic that it's hard to know where to begin.

First, pitching the idea as "free money" toward the purchase of a new car, if you are turning in a qualifying car, with sufficiently poor gas mileage, which quite a few Americans do own, and then setting aside only a Billion Dollars for the program. I know, you're thinking, only a Billion? A billion is a ton of money, and you're right, it is, it's a ridiculous amount of money in fact, but bear with me. One billion dollars, at $4,500 a pop only goes as far as 222,222.2 cars. When people think they are getting "free money" you will have a lot more takers than that. So, thinking that they may have run out of money, although they don't know because they can't even process the claims that have been made so far, Congress has thrown in another Two Billion dollars, just to be on the safe side I guess, bringing the total amount of Cars that could be turned in to 666,666.6, but with no idea if even that will be enough.

Besides this, as I mentioned previously, the claims aren't being processed. The way the program works is that a person takes their "clunker" to a dealership, and the dealer determines, according to Government guidelines, if the "clunker" qualifies for the program, and if so, goes ahead and makes the deal, taking the $4,500 off of the price of the new car, and then submitting the paperwork for the deal to the Government, which, in turn, is supposed to cut the dealer a check for the $4,500. The problem is that while dealers are making deals and turning them in to the Government, the claims aren't being processed and the checks aren't being cut, so the dealers, already operating on the edge, are being forced to absorb a $4,500 hit on each car they sell on this program, at least in the short term.

Another problem is the simple fact that the Federal Government (quickly becoming a National Government, but I'll have to address that separately) is out of money. Even with no increase in spending, but just continuing the programs in place now, and leaving tax rates as they are today, we would continue going deeper in the hole. Of course, they are looking to increase spending by trillions of dollars over the coming years, and by comparison, three Billion dollars doesn't seem like much, but we are at the point were every single penny the Government spends is just more debt. So this program is yet another three billion dollars in debt, and that doesn't include the cost of processing all the claims, which will be significant because the Government never does anything efficiently.

Now we come to the claim that this program will have some positive impact on the environment. This is simply not true in the least. For starters a study has shown that supposed savings in gas, if in fact they were to be as claimed, would only amount to shutting down energy production in this Country for one hour per year. But that doesn't take a lot of other things into account. For starters, if paying less for gas, or getting better gas mileage, people will drive more, this is a studied and proven fact. Besides that, all of the cars that are turned in under this program will be destroyed, and therefore will need to be disposed of, which will have a negative environmental impact. Then there is a production cost (both monetarily and environmentally) of all the cars that will initially be produced to make up for the false bubble of demand for new cars over the short run, and transporting them to the dealerships. On top of that is the fact that some of these cars that are being destroyed would otherwise have been traded in and auctioned off to some junkyard or something, where people would have been able to pull spare parts off to use for their own vehicles that they are still driving, now those spare parts will not be available, causing new parts to be produced, having a higher environmental impact, as well costing the operators of the vehicles who need the parts considerably more than they would have paid otherwise.

Next we need to ask if this program is a good deal for people who participate in it. For the most part, people who participate will be purchasing new cars, the cost of which $4,500 will scarcely put a dent in, meaning that they will be taking out huge car loans to make up the difference. So, the great deal that they are getting means that they are trading in a car that they can afford in order to take $4,500 off of the price of a car that they can't even come close to affording, even with the discount, in order to save a couple of bucks a month in gas (remember they will also drive it more) giving them a huge pile of car debt, meaning that this "great deal" will be a net loss to their monthly disposable income. I suspect (and this is just me, I don't have a study on this) that a large share of these people will default on these loans (wow, what a blessing that will be to them). And besides, just a simple look at the math tells you how stupid this is. You take a car that qualifies as a Clunker under the program, which we will assume for the sake of this discussion is paid off (if it's not, things are even worse) and turn it in for the $4,500 discount on a new car. People are being encouraged to get Hybrid cars, because they get the best gas mileage. A new Toyota Prius starts at $22,000, but let's face it, most people won't go for the most basic model, so let's assume that they are somewhat reasonable and choose a model that is around $25,000, so they will be forced to finance around $20,500. They probably don't have triple A credit, and so, won't get the best interest rate, so, over the life of the loan, they are going to be paying back, on the conservative side, around $25,000. Even if we assume that gas goes up to $5.00 a gallon, roughly twice today's price, that $25,000 would have put 5,000 gallons of gas in their old clunker. Even at 15 miles per gallon, that would have taken them 75,000 miles. Now in their new Prius they will get roughly 50 miles per gallon (according to toyota.com/prius) an improvement of 35 miles per gallon, so that same 5,000 gallons of gas will take them 250,000 miles, but they still bought that 5,000 gallons, plus they spent $25,000 paying off the new car. To go the same 75,000 miles that the 5,000 gallons would have taken them in the old clunker would cost $7,500, so, apples to apples, to go the same distance, they will have paid $7,500 more with the new car. Adding that amount means that the old car would have taken them 97,500 miles for the same amount of money. So, they will have to drive this new car for 97,500 miles just to break even on the deal. Most people don't even keep a car that long, but assuming they do, let's remember that to this point they have not saved one single penny, that's just the break even point, assuming they haven't had to put any new parts on the car, which they would have and which would be considerably more expensive than on their old car, and service costs more also, so they'd have to drive a few thousand more miles to make up for that, but after they they should be to the good, right? Well, sure, but if they want to make back all of the money that the spent on this "great deal" they will have to drive that Prius for an additional 1,625,000 miles, and that doesn't include the increased cost given that they will drive more because they are getting better gas mileage. Some deal huh?

Worse still is what this will do to the new car market in the US. First, it will create a bubble in auto sales while the program runs it's course, followed by a collapse when people who would have bought a car later on now don't need one, and people who would have bought used cars can't because they have all been destroyed by Uncle Sam. Far from stimulating the economy, this program will be devastating.

So, what we get is a net negative environmental impact, significantly more debt, both for the nation, and for the suckers... I mean people... who participate in the program, and a significant net negative economic impact over the long term, especially as these people start to default on the car loans that they can't afford on cars that they could never afford and should not have purchased.

But that's not the worst part. As bad as all that is, it is nothing compared to this. The same morons who came up with this dud of a deal want to run your health care.

Response from Representative Bill Posey

July 30, 2009

Mr. Matthew Wiser
834 Bianca Drive Northeast
Palm Bay, FL 32905-5802

Dear Mr. Wiser,

The House of Representatives is planning a vote on comprehensive health care reform legislation (H.R. 3200) in September, and I want to share with you my concerns about this bill.

Washington has passed an unprecedented level of spending since January: $350 billion for the TARP bailout, a $410 billion omnibus appropriation bill, a $1 trillion stimulus bill, a record $3.5 trillion federal budget, and an $864 billion national energy tax. This spending level is unmatched in our nation's history. I voted against all of these bills. We will have a $1.8 trillion deficit this year and $1.5 trillion in 2010. This will increase our total national debt by 30% over two years – accumulating more debt in two years than between 1776 and 1991.

Unfortunately, I believe H.R. 3200 would only make this situation worse by adding trillions of dollars in spending and unfunded long-term costs and creating a new federal bureaucracy to run the nation's health care system. The President said that one of his top priorities was passing health care reform legislation that would control costs, yet the Director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office testified on July 17, that the proposed health care legislation "significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs."

Rather than curbing health care costs, Director Elmendorf said the costs would increase significantly. He added that "the federal budget is on an unsustainable path…will produce growing budget deficits… which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States." H.R. 3200 will further indebt future generations and cause serious harm to our overall economy. H.R. 3200 also greatly expands Washington's role in health care, but perhaps you might expect this given that the seven coauthors of this bill have spent a combined 205 years in the U.S. Congress. Washington has proven time and again that it is incapable of running effective, sustainable programs and Americans should expect more of the same from this bill.

This bill would move more than 100 million Americans from private health plans into the new government plan, where health care decisions will be decided by government bureaucrats whose chief aim is to control cost. This violates my primary principle: letting Americans keep their current health care plan if they so desire. 80% of Americans want to keep their current plan.

H.R. 3200 would put us on the path toward eliminating private health insurance choices. Here is how, as set forth on page 16. The bill sets up a new government-run program. Then after this program is established, insurance companies are prohibited from issuing any indiviudal policies outside of the new government programs. Americans without insurance would have no choice but to sign up for a plan under the government program that meets the govenment mandated benefits. Within the government program, the government plan (called the public option/government-run option) will pay providers 30% less than the non-government option. This lower price will entice millions of individuals and employers to drop current coverage and move to the government-run plan.

For those who remain outside of the government program, any change in jobs will end their existing coverage and force them into the government program. As fewer and fewer Americans are insured outside of the government program, the cost of medical coverage for those who remain in private plans will rise dramatically, and these plans will be unable to offer affordable coverage. At a health care rally earlier this year, Rep. Jan Schakowski, a leading national single payer advocate argued that this is a step toward a single payers system, stating: "This is a strategy about getting there and I believe we will."

In addition to the unsustainable costs and centralizing control of your health care in Washington, this bill harms the lifeblood of our economy: America's small businesses. Millions of small businesses are struggling to keep their doors open, yet H.R. 3200 imposes additional costly mandates and higher taxes. The U.S. unemployment rate is at a 26 year high of 9.4% and climbing. This is the worst time to impose costly mandates. According to a model developed by President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors Chair, Christina Romer, such a proposal could cost as many as 4.7 million jobs. This would be in addition to the 2.5 million jobs that may be lost due enactment of the National Energy Tax recently passed by the House.

Small businesses face several significant tax increases from the Congress and Administration: health care mandated pay-or-play or payroll taxes; new income taxes for successful small businesses; the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and resulting higher taxes; and cap-and-trade national energy taxes. All of these tax hikes and costly mandates would cripple our economy, hamper economic recovery, and lead to persistently higher unemployment. We need to free the engines of economic growth not saddle them the excesses of government.

My website, www.posey.house.gov/issues, has additional information regarding this bill and my ideas for solutions to the problem of the high cost of medical care. I will continue to advocate for reforms that focus on lowering costs, expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), and enabling small businesses to pool resources to lower costs for their employees. Please visit my website to learn more about the bill, my solutions, and to take my constituent survey.

Sincerely,

Bill Posey
Member of Congress

Confirmation# 1705718


DISCLAIMER
If this e-mail was not sent to you directly from my Congressional E-mail Account, I cannot guarantee the integrity of the text of this letter. If you have any questions about the validity of this message, please call my office: Representative Bill Posey, Washington, DC, 202-225-3671.

If you would like to reply to this e-mail or conduct further correspondences via e-mail, you can do so by selecting "Contact Bill".

What You Need To Know About Health Care

With all of the lies and hype in the media, there are some things that we need to make sure that people understand about what we will end up with if we allow a Government takeover of health care, and that they are lying in order to try to ram it through.

First of all, the number of uninsured that we hear about every day on various news outlets. Probably the number most often thrown around is 47 million, although you do also hear 50 million, 46 million, 46.5 million, and so on. You must understand somethings about this number to see that it is a complete lie. First of all, they use the 47 million figure to try to make you think that there are 47 million American Citizens that are chronically uninsured and simply have no hope of ever being covered. The truth is that some of this number, around 9 to 12 million, is illegal aliens, and not citizens at all. Another large chunk of this number comes from people who were without health insurance for less than four months while they were out of work, but had no serious long term lapse. Another large chunk is young people who can easily afford health insurance, but choose not to buy it, because they simply feel that they don't need it. So when the numbers are analyzed and understood, the fact is that there are somewhere from 10 to 15 million chronically uninsured American Citizens. Still an issue, but clearly something that doesn't require a Government takeover of health care to solve.

Another point is that in the United States being uninsured is not the same thing as not having access to health care. Because of laws in this nation, anyone who shows up at an Emergency Room must be evaluated and treated until they are stable, without regard to their ability to pay. By saying this I'm not trying to make a claim that the issue is solved, simply that we do not have millions of people dying in the streets because they don't have health care. Are there still some horror stories? Sure, but they do not arise from the fact that people are uninsured, and therefore, overhauling the insurance industry will not affect them in the slightest.

Furthermore, it must be understood that the claims made by the proponents of a Government takeover of health care are simply not possible. They claim that they will cover more people (47 million by their own claims) and expand services, while at the same time reducing costs. That is just utterly ridiculous on it's face. The only way that they can reduce costs is by rationing the care. That is to say that for each year there are X number of dollars available for each area of care, and once those dollars are gone, they are gone, and we don't do any more of that until next year. That means that they have to assign priority to different people to see who they will spend some of those precious few dollars on, and if you are old, or have some condition that renders you unable to hold down a job, and thereby pay taxes, you will not be the priority, you will simply be left to die, so that you won't burden the system for the "productive members of society." I'm not kidding, one of the main advisers on health care to the Obama Administration has stated in the past the Health Care dollars should not be spent on people with dementia or some other debilitating disease, and that he doesn't think that age discrimination is wrong because, now listen to this reasoning, everyone who is 65 was once 25.

If this plan gets pushed through, it will not be doctors and patients making choices about health care, it will be faceless, nameless, bureaucrats in cubicles, thousands of miles away, to whom you are nothing more than a number and a formula. These people who are pushing this plan accuse the Republicans of being the "party of No," claiming that we simply say no, and don't offer alternative plans. Of course this is another big lie, we have some plans that would actually work to make Health Care better, but even if we didn't, there would be nothing wrong with standing up and saying "NO" to making it worse.

How Much is $1 Trillion

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.

Trying To Understand Palin

Friday afternoon when I turned on the news to see what was going on in the world, I found out that there really was some big news breaking. There was Governor Sarah Palin announcing that she would not seek re-election as Governor of Alaska. My very first reaction to this news was just a little bit of excitement. I figured that this meant that for sure she was going to be running for President in 2012. I thought, hey, that's great, she's not going to be one of those that spends two years on the campaign trail while they're supposed to be doing another job, that's great! But she wasn't done. She went on to say that later this month she will be resigning as Governor of Alaska. Now, what to make of this? Honestly, at that moment, I just didn't know. I thought a lot about it. I wondered a lot of things. Certainly she has no duty to run for a second term, but, I wondered, doesn't she have a duty to complete the term that she was elected to? I had some serious thinking to do, and I needed to review what Governor Palin herself had said in her announcement. I did that, and I thought about it. I discussed it some over at the TalkWisdom blog, and Saturday morning I listened to "The Mark Levin Show" from Friday night. After all of this, I think I have some understanding of what is going on. At least based on the facts that are now before us.

It seems that we must understand that Governor Palin had some very specific things that she wished to accomplish as Governor of Alaska, many of which have been accomplished, and some of which she has been able to lay the groundwork for. Further, ever since John McCain asked her to be his running mate in last years Presidential election, she has been plagued with ethics charges, all of which have been totally false, but have still greatly impeded her ability to be a Governor. She said herself that there have been 15 ethics complaints against her since the announcement of her candidacy for Vice President, all of which have been dropped because they lacked any merit. Yet she and her staff have had to spend vast quantities of time addressing these false charges, not to mention a great deal of money that she had to spend on them. So, resigning now really is the best thing for the State of Alaska, because, even though she has been an excellent and effective Governor, all of these partisan attacks from the Democrats have mired the Governors office, and by stepping aside she can allow the business of the State to get underway once again. And besides, she is handing the job off to her Lt. Governor, who has worked side by side with her so far, and is totally on board with what she has been doing and trying to get done.

Furthermore, we have to consider the fact that Alaska is a long way from the rest of the Country. Now don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful State, I've been there once, and I've studied the State some, and I love Alaska, and would dearly love to go back there someday. Alaska is also a very important State for many reasons, and I don't wish to downplay or degrade the wonderful State in any way, or in any measure, but the fact remains that it is physically far away from the lower 48 (as we are all called up there). Besides being physically far way, Alaska and Alaska politics are far away from the minds of many of the American people. If Sarah Palin wants to have any chance of being elected President in 2012, she has to be on the minds of the people in the lower 48 States, and she can't do this effectively from the office of the Governor of the State of Alaska, and if she tried to, it wouldn't be right or fair to the people of the great State of Alaska, because they deserve more than a part time Governor, and Governor Palin understands this.

Sarah Palin stated that she intends to campaign for and support likeminded politicians anywhere that she finds them, and that that, to me anyway, implies that she intends to be making the rounds in our Nation, speaking at rallies, and being on the campaign trail for others. This would also be an important step if she does indeed intend to run for President. Not only would doing this keep her forefront in the minds of the American people, it would also build her a big network, and a lot of support, and a very solid base from which to launch a Presidential bid, if that is in fact her intention.

So, while I struggled with this announcement when it first came out, and while it really gave me pause, upon reflection, I have to say, it looks like it may be a very good thing. It would appear that far from declaring her Political career to be over, Sarah Palin may have just kicked it into high gear. What's certain is that this announcement doesn't put her out of the running in any measure, it's what she does over the next year or so that will tell the tale, and I for one am looking on with great anticipation.

Sarah Palin's Speech

Gov. Sarah Palin:

Hi Alaska, I appreciate speaking directly TO you, the people I serve, as your Governor.

People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing's more important to me than our beloved Alaska. Serving her people is the greatest honor I could imagine.

I want Alaskans to grasp what can be in store for our state. We were purchased as a territory because a member of President Abe Lincoln's cabinet, William Seward, providentially saw in this great land, vast riches, beauty, strategic placement on the globe, and opportunity. He boldly looked "North to the Future". But he endured such ridicule and mocking for his vision for Alaska, remember the adversaries scoffed, calling this "Seward's Folly". Seward withstood such disdain as he chose the uncomfortable, unconventional, but RIGHT path to secure Alaska, so Alaska could help secure the United States.

Alaska’s mission – to contribute to America. We’re strategic IN the world as the air crossroads OF the world, as a gatekeeper of the continent. Bold visionaries knew this - Alaska would be part of America's great destiny.

Our destiny to be reached by responsibly developing our natural resources. This land, blessed with clean air, water, wildlife, minerals, AND oil and gas. It's energy! God gave us energy.

So to serve the state is a humbling responsibility, because I know in my soul that Alaska is of such import, for America’s security, in our very volatile world. And you know me by now, I promised even four years ago to show MY independence… no more conventional “politics as usual”.

And we are doing well! My administration's accomplishments speak for themselves. We work tirelessly for Alaskans.

We aggressively and responsibly develop our resources because they were created to be used to better our world... to HELP people... and we protect the environment and Alaskans (the resource owners) foremost with our policies.

Here’s some of the things we’ve done:

We created a petroleum integrity office to oversee safe development. We held the line FOR Alaskans on Point Thomson – and finally for the first time in decades – they’re drilling for oil and gas.

We have AGIA, the gasline project – a massive bi-partisan victory (the vote was 58 to 1!) – also succeeding as intended - protecting Alaskans as our clean natural gas will flow to energize us, and America, through a competitive, pro-private sector project. This is the largest private sector energy project, ever. THIS is energy independence.

And ACES – another bipartisan effort – is working as intended and industry is publicly acknowledging its success. Our new oil and gas “clear and equitable formula” is so Alaskans will no longer be taken advantage of. ACES incentivizes NEW exploration and development and JOBS that were previously not going to happen with a monopolized North Slope oil basin.

We cleaned up previously accepted unethical actions; we ushered in bi-partisan Ethics Reform.

We also slowed the rate of government growth, we worked with the Legislature to save billions of dollars for the future, and I made no lobbyist friends with my hundreds of millions of dollars in budget vetoes... but living beyond our means today is irresponsible for tomorrow.

We took government out of the dairy business and put it back into private-sector hands – where it should be.

We provided unprecedented support for education initiatives, and with the right leadership, finally filled long-vacant public safety positions. We built a sub-Cabinet on Climate Change and took heat from Outside special interests for our biologically-sound wildlife management for abundance.

We broke ground on the new prison.

And we made common sense conservative choices to eliminate personal luxuries like the jet, the chef, the junkets... the entourage.

And the Lt. Governor and I said "no" to our pay raises. So much success in this first term – and with this success I am proud to take credit... for hiring the right people! Our goal was to achieve a gasline project, more fair oil and gas valuation, and ethics reform in four years. We did it in two. It’s because of the people… good public servants surrounding the Governor's office, with servants' hearts and astounding work ethic... THEY are Alaska's success!

We are doing well! I wish you'd hear MORE from the media of your state's progress and how we tackle Outside interests - daily - SPECIAL interests that would stymie our state. Even those debt-ridden stimulus dollars that would force the heavy hand of federal government into our communities with an “all-knowing attitude” – I have taken the slings and arrows with that unpopular move to veto because I know being right is better than being popular. Some of those dollars would harm Alaska and harm America – I resisted those dollars because of the obscene national debt we’re forcing our children to pay, because of today’s Big Government spending; it’s immoral and doesn’t even make economic sense!

Another accomplishment – our Law Department protected states’ rights – TWO huge U.S. Supreme Court reversals came down against that liberal Ninth Circuit, deciding in OUR state’s favor over the last two weeks. We’re protectors of our Constitution – federalists protect states’ rights as mandated in 10th amendment.

But you don’t hear much of the good stuff in the press anymore, do you?

Some say things changed for me on August 29th last year – the day John McCain tapped me to be his running-mate – I say others changed.

Let me speak to that for a minute.

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations – such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.

Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to “opposition research” – that’s money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction” … Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game.

It’s pretty insane – my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with THIS instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more “politics as usual,” but THIS isn’t what anyone had in mind for ALASKA.

If I have learned one thing: LIFE is about choices!

And one chooses how to react to circumstances. You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity. I choose NOT to tear down and waste precious time; but to build UP this state and our country, and her industrious, generous, patriotic, free people!

Life is too short to compromise time and resources... it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: "Sit down and shut up", but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and “go with the flow”.

Nah, only dead fish "go with the flow".

No. Productive, fulfilled people determine where to put their efforts, choosing to wisely utilize precious time... to BUILD UP.

And there is such a need to BUILD up and FIGHT for our state and our country. I choose to FIGHT for it! And I'll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and LIFE... I'll work for and campaign for those PROUD to be American, and those who are INSPIRED by our ideals and won't deride them.

I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don't care what party they're in or no party at all. Inside Alaska – or Outside Alaska.

But I won’t do it from the Governor’s desk.

I've never believed that I, nor anyone else, needs a title to do this - to make a difference... to HELP people. So I choose, for my State and my family, more "freedom" to progress, all the way around... so that Alaska may progress... I will not seek re-election as Governor.

And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks… travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade – as so many politicians do. And then I thought – that’s what’s wrong – many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and “milk it”. I’m not putting Alaska through that – I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! ? That’s not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old “politics as usual.” I promised that four years ago – and I meant it.

It’s not what is best for Alaska.

I am determined to take the right path for Alaska even though it is unconventional and not so comfortable.

With this announcement that I am not seeking re-election… I’ve determined it’s best to transfer the authority of governor to Lieutenant Governor Parnell; and I am willing to do so, so that this administration – with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future – can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success.

My choice is to take a stand and effect change – not hit our heads against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new environment. Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities – and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.

Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me – sports… basketball. I use it because you’re naïve if you don’t see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket… and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I’m doing that – keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities – smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it’s time to pass the ball – for victory.

I have given my reasons candidly and truthfully… and my last day won’t be for another few weeks so the transition will be very smooth. In fact, we will look to swear Sean in – in Fairbanks at the conclusion of our Governor’s picnics.

I do not want to disappoint anyone with my decision; all I can ask is that you TRUST me with this decision – but it’s no more “politics as usual”.

Some Alaskans don’t mind wasting public dollars and state time. I do. I cannot stand here as your Governor and allow millions upon millions of our dollars go to waste just so I can hold the title of Governor. And my children won’t allow it either. ? Some will question the timing. ? Let’s just say, this decision has been in the works for awhile…

In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous... well, in response to asking: "Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from OUTSIDE the Governor's office?" It was four "yes's" and one "hell yeah!" The "hell yeah" sealed it - and someday I'll talk about the details of that... I think much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently.) Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we ALL could learn so much from someone like Trig - I know he needs me, but I need him even more... what a child can offer to set priorities RIGHT – that time is precious... the world needs more "Trigs", not fewer.

My decision was also fortified during this most recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas, those who sacrifice themselves in war for OUR freedom and security… we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops… they’re bold, they don’t give up, they take a stand and know that LIFE is short so they choose to NOT waste time. They choose to be productive and to serve something greater than SELF... and to build up their families, their states, our country. These Troops and their important missions – those are truly the worthy causes in this world and should be the public priority with time and resources and NOT this local / superficial wasteful political bloodsport.

May we ALL learn from them!

*((Gotta put First Things First))*

First things first: as Governor, I love my job and I love Alaska. It hurts to make this choice but I am doing what’s best for Alaska. I’ve explained why… though I think of the saying on my parents’ refrigerator that says “Don’t explain: your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe you anyway.”

But I have given my reasons… no more “politics as usual” and I am taking my fight for what’s right – for Alaska – in a new direction.

Now, despite this, I don’t want any Alaskan dissuaded from entering politics after seeing this REAL “climate change” that began in August… no, we NEED hardworking, average Americans fighting for what’s right! And I will support you because we need YOU and YOU can effect change, and I can too on the outside.

We need those who will respect our Constitution where government’s supposed to serve from the BOTTOM UP, not move toward this TOP DOWN big government take-over… but rather, will be protectors of individual rights - who also have enough common sense to acknowledge when conditions have drastically changed and are willing to call an audible and pass the ball when it’s time so the team can win! And that is what I’m doing!

Remember Alaska… America is now, more than ever, looking North to the Future. It'll be good. So God bless you, and from me and my family - to ALL Alaska - you have my heart.

And we will be in the capable hands of our Lieutenant Governor, Sean Parnell. And Lieutenant General Craig Campbell will assume the role of Lieutenant Governor. And it is my promise to you that I will always be standing by, ready to assist. We have a good, positive agenda for Alaska.

In the words of General MacArthur said, “We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”

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.

Dear Miss Senator Ma'am

Does the Dwarf Senator from California really think that she worked "so hard" to "earn" the title of Senator? Personally, I don't think lying to people to get elected constitutes hard work, but maybe that's just me.

Further, did she show this General any respect at all? Did she call him General? No, in fact, if you notice, she doesn't actually address him in any way other than "you." How, exactly, does she think he became a Brigadier General? Does she think he was working the drive through at McDonald's (not that there's anything wrong with that) and somebody pulled up in a car and said, "hey, how'd you like to be a General today?" I would say it seems likely that he worked much harder and much longer in his Military career than she ever even thought of in working to be a Senator.

And one other thing. I'd like to point out that this General was not being disrespectful to the despicable Barbara Boxer in the least. Quite the contrary, he addressed her as "Ma'am" which is a term of respect. Had he been talking to a male Senator and addressed him as "Sir" there would not have been a word said about it. For anyone who doesn't get this, "Ma'am" is the feminine equivalent of "Sir."

Narcissism in a sitting US Senator is a disturbing thing to see displayed, but if people keep voting for slime like this, what else can we expect?

On Iran

It's tough to tell just exactly what is going on in Iran, but this much is certain, it is serious. It is at least possible that we are looking at a full scale revolution, though that may not like the most likely scenario, it is possible. Either way, there are a lot of young people standing up for freedom and liberty, and we need to show them our support.

I understand that this is a difficult and sticky situation for the US, but we need to make it clear that we support those who stand up and fight for their own liberty, and that if they succeed, we will do whatever we can to help them. I also understand that we can't send in troops and win this for them, but we do need to make it clear, both to the protesters and to the Iranian thugs in charge, that we support pro-liberty movements, and do stand with them.

I know that some people will say that we can't show our support because, if they protesters fail to make any gains, we still need to be able to work with the leaders of Iran. Hog Wash! The Islamo-Nazi regime that runs Iran today will never work with us, ever. Period. They despise the United States and everything we have ever stood for. They despise freedom and liberty, and will never be willing to give an inch to anyone. They are committed to the utter and complete destruction of Israel, and ultimately the US also. They will never work with us.

The only way that we can ever hope to have a good relationship with the wonderful, oppressed, people of Iran is to support them in their fight against tyranny.

This is what we need to do. This is what we should do. Indeed, this is what we must do.

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.

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.

I Really Feel Safe Now

Earlier this week in one of the over hyped press conferences concerning the over hyped swine flu bug... err... outbreak... err... epidemic... err... pandemic... err... hide the women and children! But don't panic! Anyway. I thought I would talk for just a moment about something that I saw on the news.

They were having a press conference with the new Secretary of Homeland Security, you know, the failed Governor of Arizona? Anyway, she was talking about all that the Federal Government is doing to help to get us through this potential pandemic, because, you know, we didn't know to wash our hands and steer clear of sick people until she spoke up... again, back to the point. She was talking about the distribution of some of the drugs that the Federal Government stockpiled under Bush, just in case this really becomes a major outbreak. Actually, I don't have a problem with that, it's probably smart. Anyway, in talking about the anti viral medications she said that these drugs helped to lessen the symptoms to make people feel better. Um... No. That's what some medicines do, like NyQuil and other such over the counter drugs, but most people can run down to the drug store and get that themselves, and there's not much chance of there being shortage of such things. The drugs that she was talking about are fairly new drugs that attack the viruses themselves and help your body to kill them, making you not sick anymore.

Honestly, we are supposed to trust in these people who can't even get the most basic facts right? Do you feel safe now?

That's The Argument?

The other night at President Barack Obama's most inane press conference to date he was asked a question about Abortion. I was utterly floored by the outright silliness of his answer. Now, as usual, he spoke for several minutes, running out the clock to avoid the possibility that someone might actually ask him a serious question, not that Abortion is not a serious issue, but everyone knows how radically pro-abortion Obama is, so you can't really say asking his position constitutes a serious question. Anyway, the point is, you have to learn to ignore the clutter words and cut to the relevant section of any quote when listening to Obama. So here it is, he said that Pro-Choice is the correct position on the issue of Abortion because, are you ready for this? Because the women don't take the choice lightly!

Seriously, that was his argument in defense of Abortion. Utterly stunning isn't it? So, let's take a look at it, since it is, after all, the defense of a position offered by the President of the United States.

If you've read much of my blog, and if not you always have the option of looking back at the archives, you will see that I have addressed the Abortion issue multiple times, and explained why it is murder, why it is taking the life of an innocent human being, and posted several excellent explanations of the horror of Abortion from the wonderful people from Stand To Reason (linked in the sidebar), but Obama simply dismissed all of that, saying that it's OK because the women don't take the choice lightly, so, therefore, we must conclude from what he said, that there is nothing wrong with it for that reason alone.

Of course, you simply can't apply that kind of "logic" to a single issue, if it's good enough for Abortion, it's good enough for pretty much everything, right? So, what happens if we apply this concept across the board. What you come up with is a system whereby any action is justified as long as the decision to undertake that action is well considered, and of course, not taken lightly, and the action itself cannot be questioned, and is not subject to judgements of right or wrong or ciminality, or anything else. Under a system like this crime could only be punished if the perpetrator took the choice to commit the crime lightly.

Therefore:
Carjacking, OK as long as the criminal doesn't take the choice to carjack lightly.
Murder, OK, as long as the murderer doesn't take the choice to murder lightly.
Armed Robbery, OK, as long as the robber doesn't take the choice to rob lightly.
Rape, OK, as long as the rapist doesn't take the choice to rape lightly.
Genocide, OK, as long as the genocidal maniac doesn't take the choice to exterminate millions of people lightly.
War, OK, as long as the warmonger doesn't take the choice to wage an unjust war lightly.
Adultery, OK, as long as the cheater doesn't take the choice to cheat lightly.
Assault, OK, as long as the attacker doesn't take the choice to attack lightly.

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.

In short, no matter what a person chooses to do is fine, as long as it is well considered, or not taken lightly. So said our President. Now, regardless if you like Obama or not, or if you are Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion, everyone has to see that this was about the silliest thing that could have been said, and nobody challenged him on it, now isn't that sad?

Take Your Big Tent And Stuff It

There are a lot of people in the media, as well as people who call themselves Conservatives, who are trying to tell us that the Republican Party needs to be more inclusive. They say that we need to have a big tent. What they really mean by this is that we must abandon all of our principles, accept all people, regardless of their ideas, and everything will be OK, as long as all the Conservatives in the big tent sit down and shut up. Their interest really lies in grabbing and maintaining their own power while furthering the Democratic agenda.

They tell us that we cannot win if we continue to hold fast to our core Conservative Principles, claiming that those principles are the reason why we have lost as much recently has we have, ignoring the fact that those who have lost the most have been those who have held our positions the least. But for the sake of this argument, let's go ahead and give them the (false) premise that we cannot win on our principles, what then? I say, fine, so be it. It's not a game, it's not about winning no matter what. It's all about which principles and positions will win out in the end. If we take a stand on our principles and lose, then fine, at least it's an honest defeat, but if we abandon our principles, and move left, and just go along with all of the Democrat agenda points, then we have lost already, even if we win.

Besides this, contrary to what some are trying to claim, Conservatives fully understand that we don't all have to be in agreement on every issue, but we are saying is that we must hold to those core principles that the Country was founded on. We can have the debate, we can argue our positions, in fact we welcome it, we love having the chance to explain what we believe and why, it's just that many people aren't listening. Many times this comes down to the fact that often the Statist position is easy to grasp, it's nearly always dishonest and virtually never does the good they claim it would do, but oh how it sounds good. Conservative positions usually take a little more work to explain and understand, but they actually work as advertised, and that's the difference.

I understand that the media keeps trying to tell Conservatives to sit down and shut up because they are committed to the leftist agenda, and want to further it at all cost, including the suppression of free speech. For those who call themselves Conservatives in one breath, while proving in the next that they are not, I can only assume that they are either narcissistic, hungering for the approval of the media and elitists, or power hungry, or just too dang lazy or stupid to articulate Conservative positions and principles.

So, back to my topic for this post, I mean it, take your big tent and stuff it!

100 Days And Other Stuff

I know that top on the list for many people today is the fact today marks 100 days that Barack Obama has been the President of the United States, and people want to talk about his accomplishments since becoming President. Of course, as Mark Levin points out, it's really not about him, it's about the American people, and frankly, we're all still struggling and trying to work our way through all that is going on, but if the Government will get their hands off of us a little bit, we'll make it. But really, what is it that the President has Accomplished? Trillions of Dollars in new debt that even our descendants may not be able to repay. The dismantling of our National Security apparatus that has kept us safe since 9/11. The release of top secret documents and the selling out of our intelligence community. Threatening lawyers with federal prosecution for giving legal opinions that differ from the policies of his Administration. Which of these things are laudable? I don't find any of them even remotely praiseworthy.

There are other things going on today. Right now we have an hyped up panic about Swine Flu, which the democrats are trying to manage and use to push us toward their disastrous plans for our health care system. Basically, people are getting the flu. The very young and the elderly, or those who are already unhealthy for some other reason are in real danger, just as they are from the "regular" flu, but all current indications are that nobody is in any more danger from this flu than they are from the "regular" flu. But of course, no matter what, we can know that we are in good shape because we have two idiotic failed Governors looking out for us.

And of course, people are still talking about the loser Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter bailing on the Republican party in favor of the Democrats. Of course, he went out there and claimed that the GOP has gone too far to the right. I've talked about this before, the truth is that the Republican Party has moved to the left, and the Democrats have moved hard left, and fast. Is the gap wider now than ever before? Yes, but certainly not because the GOP has moved right, but because they have not moved left as fast as the Democrats.

With a President that doesn't even like the American people, or the nation as a whole and spends most of his time talking down the USA every chance he gets in every Country he can, and denigrating any American Citizen that disagrees with him. With one party rule in the House of Representatives, and danger of the same happening in the Senate. With a majority of Federal Judges being leftist activists. If our fellow citizens don't start waking up, we are in big trouble.

One other thing, I just saw President Obama making a statement, again deriding those citizens that attended the TEA parties earlier this month, basically dismissing them out of hand, but what really stuck me was at the end of the video clip, when he said that some people want to blame all of his reckless spending (my paraphrase there) for our problems, but that the Stimulus and such are only a small part of the problem. He actually admitted that his actions are, in fact, part of the problem. Kind of stunning thing for him to admit don't you think? Must've been talking without his teleprompter.

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?

Didn't We Deal With This Once?

In 1776 anger with the British Crown in the American Colonies came to a head. The anger was over several issues, however, one of the biggest was Taxation Without Representation.

What this means is that the people who are being taxed have no say in how the money is spent, or, in the case of a democratically elected Congress (Or Parliament in Britain's case) have no vote in electing the people who decide how the money will be spent, and do not have the opportunity to advocate for more responsibility or lower tax rates.

This was not a side issue in the American Revolution, it was central to it. Apparently power mad elitists don't learn lessons well.

What the US Congress, and the President, are doing now is euphemistically referred to as deficit spending. In plain English, that means racking up debt. Loads and loads of debt as a matter of fact. In fact, they are racking up so much debt that we will not be able to pay it off in our lifetimes (and I'm fairly young).

Aside from the Two Trillion Dollar deficit this year, set to grow to Ten Trillion Dollars over the course of the next Eight to Ten years, there are also the Tens of Trillions of Dollars in the form of unfunded obligations for Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare. This is crushing debt, and we will soon find ourselves paying nearly a Trillion Dollars a year in interest alone, besides spending on the budget, and new deficit spending. It is completely impossible for current tax payers to ever pay this debt off, no matter what. What this means is that future tax payers are going to get stuck with the bill. That is to say, they are going to be taxed to pay for spending that is going on today.

The people getting stuck with this bill are our children and grandchildren, both those that are already here, and those who have not as yet been born. Including those to be born many years hence, that is the magnitude of this crushing debt that we are racking up today.

What I'm saying here is that those future Americans are not represented in the current Congress, and yet they are being taxed by it. They do not get a vote, they don't get to select our leaders, and yet their money is being spent by those leaders. This is Taxation Without Representation in it's worst form.

Of course it is currently at the highest levels that we've ever seen, but it's nothing new. Thankfully people are starting to wake up to the reality of what is going on, but I really wish it had happened sooner, then maybe it never would have gotten this bad. I really wish that people had gotten this fired up last September when President Bush blew Seven Hundred Billion Dollars on the first "TARP" program, or earlier in the year when the Bush Administration put out the worthless 2008 so called stimulus program.

Of course, none of it would have been as bad as it is if we had not made a practice of using debt to run the national budget, making deficit spending seem a normal activity, or like it was nothing to worry about. In my opinion, nations, especially ours, should not incur debt except in the most extreme of circumstances, and then as little as possible and over the radically short term. Other than that the budget should always be balanced, or, better yet, carrying some amount of reserve funds so that debt is not required to deal with every unexpected issue that might arise.

In order so that I might not be misunderstood, let me say, in referring back to the American Revolution, I am not suggesting a new revolution, I am trying to remind people of the reasons why the United States of America was founded, and why we are not still British Colonies at this time. I want people to remember and return to the principles and ideals our Founding, and to understand some reasons why we need to stop going down this road.

Remember that just because something might be a good thing to do, that does not mean that we should, or even can do it.