I wrote this blog, not from the perspective of an expert, or from a place of arrogance, but as an exercise of us learning together more about these systems. We hear many assertions being thrown around about whether we are becoming a Socialist nation, whether the President is a Socialist or Marxist, and I think most of us aren't sure what is accurate. Unless you earned a degree in Political Science, you likely only spent a couple of days on “isms” then moved on.

For starters, let us examine the definitions of each courtesy of Merriam-Webster.com


Main Entry: so·cial·ism 
Pronunciation: \'so-sh?-?li-z?m\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done



Main Entry: com·mu·nism 
Pronunciation: \'käm-y?-?ni-z?m, -yü-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively



Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism 
Pronunciation: \'ka-p?-t?-?liz-?m, 'kap-t?-, British also k?-'pi-t?-\
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.


So, basically, Socialism and Communism are predicated upon the elimination of private property, and the notion that results of work are equalized for all. And government controls the means of production, sets prices, wages, etc.
While the idea of the State owning and administering the economy seems like a good idea to some, this notion is fraught with fallacy. Do we really want the same entity (government), which has proven to be so inept and corrupt, running our economy? The same government which has stolen money from the Social Security fund time and time again to cover their losses in other areas; the same government which has presided over programs, Medicare and Medicaid, that have trillions in unfunded liabilities; the same government that runs the DMV; the same government that, through the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie and Freddie, was largely responsible for the housing market collapse; the same government that has top level executives watching porn at the SEC instead of doing its designated job of regulating Wall Street.
There is something mystifying about this naïve faith some people have in government. Some people actually believe that government is by its very nature good and benevolent, always acting in the best interests of the people. This is a misguided, utopian dream that is not founded in any study of history. George Washington described government as a “necessary evil.” The founders feared a strong centralized government because they had studied history and learned that a strong centralized government always ended bad for the people. Our founding fathers created a nation unlike any ever seen on the planet. Were there some flaws, such as slavery? Certainly. But the free market capitalist system created in this nation set in motion the greatest influx of prosperity and individual standard of living in the history of man. Is it perfect? No. But a perfect system in this world is a utopian dream; it can't be achieved. The problem with Capitalism is flawed human beings; the problem with Socialism is a flawed system (Socialism).
What's wrong with Socialism? For a more in depth study on this question, I refer you to the following article on Americanthinker.com:

(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/whats_wrong_with_socialism.html )

This article lays it out better than I can. My general conclusion is this: the problem with Socialism is that its intentions seem good, but its outcome is always bad. We need look no further than Greece. That country is bankrupt, and is turning to a group of other nations (including the USA) to bail them out. We are basically giving them money to continue their failed system of ever-increasing entitlements (welfare, public sector salary/benefit packages, guaranteed vacation time and early retirement age.) What happens when all the Socialist nations (including the USA if we go down that road) reach the breaking point that Greece has reached? Where does a bankrupt nation turn when everyone else is broke?
Beyond the example of Greece, we need to look back at the results of Socialism in the 20th century. While the examples from the 20th century are extreme and brutal, they must be considered, not because Socialism will necessarily lead to the extreme, but it has in some cases, and so the potential is there. As the American Thinker article points out, the brutalities committed by the Nazis and the Soviets, were partially a result of policies instituted by adherents to various forms of Socialism. Unlike a free market, where competing companies can exist side by side, for Socialism to succeed, it must be the only game in town. The brutalities committed in Russia and Germany were necessary to eliminate anyone who opposed Socialist policies. But the form of Socialism that America is marching toward, some would say, is not that brutal type of Socialism. This is true, but the possibility exists for us to end up there. I'm sure that in the early years of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, conditions were not brutal either. In his “Road to Serfdom”, Friedrich Von Hayek asserted that in order for a system like Socialism to succeed, there must be universal acceptance. Eventually, if you cannot get everyone to accept voluntarily, you must force them to accept.
I don't think anyone would argue that President Obama's policies are full-blown Socialism, but that does not mean that his ultimate goal is not Socialism. The goal of most Socialists has always been to make the transformation bit by bit. They know that if Socialism were foisted upon a free-market Capitalist nation all at once, it would be rejected violently. But if you make the transformation in baby steps, “never letting a crisis go to waste,” as the Chicago thug Rahm Emmanuel said, it will be accepted by most people. It is the old frog-in-the-pot analogy. If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump out immediately, but if you put a frog in a pot of cold water, and then turn on the heat, by the time the water boils him he won't know what hit him. The water is getting very warm.
For all its faults and shortcomings, Capitalism is the best system yet devised for the individual. People have been streaming to this country from all the nations of the world for over 300 years. Why? Because America is the land of opportunity, that is why. Why is America the land of opportunity? Freedom, liberty, and independence. A major part of that freedom, liberty, and independence are the freedom to pursue the career or business that the individual desires, without cumbersome interference from government, and without the disincentive of having everything they work for taken away and given to lazy, unmotivated deadbeats. Capitalism provides that opportunity and freedom, Socialism and Communism do not. Socialism and Communism squash opportunity and initiative. Capitalism provides an atmosphere in which hard work and dedication and vision can enable a person to achieve anything; a man's (or woman's) dreams are only limited by his/her imagination. In Socialism and Communism, there is no incentive to work hard or create, because the end result for the individual is the same whether they work hard or slack off.
I am not saying that we should not have any social programs. I believe we need some form of welfare, but it should be limited and only for those who are truly helpless, not for people who are clueless. We have far too many people on public assistance who are full capable of working, but who don't want to. I believe we need a public safety net for seniors, like Social Security, to ensure that none of our elders ever have to live in squalor. However, in my opinion there should strict limitations, so that if a senior or a senior couple make $100,000 a year or have more than a million dollars in the bank, they do not collect Social Security.(Those numbers are purely arbitrary and would of course be adjusted for inflation/cost of living.) Many people would balk at this provision, because they would say, “I pay into Social Security, I should get my money back,” yet very few people balk at paying income tax that goes to paying for welfare programs for able-bodied (non-senior) adults. I believe that Social Security should be a welfare program for seniors, only going to those who have no retirement. And of course, we should have medical coverage for the poor and needy and seniors. I don't think there is much disagreement in this country that we need to take care of our poor and our elderly, but we need to apply rationality and reason. We cannot continue on a path that will bankrupt our country by funding entitlement programs for people who should be providing for themselves.
I find it humorous that wealthy celebrities are often the most vocal supporters of one type of collectivism or another. Individuals that have become wealthy in a Capitalist country bemoan the Capitalist system and wax philosophic about how wonderful it would be if everyone were guaranteed equal results for their life. Not equal opportunity for their efforts, but equal results whether they work hard or lay around all day doing nothing. I wonder if all these celebrities would really enjoy collectivism if it were instituted unilaterally tomorrow. Would Sean Penn be happy if all his money and houses and cars were taken away and put into a pool for everyone to share in? Would George Clooney be willing to surrender his $10-20 million per movie so that everyone from the lowliest extra to the biggest star got an equal cut? Would a top rap star be willing to have his “crib” taken away so that every lazy do-nothing could have a bigger house? Funny thing about collectivism, it sounds all good and benevolent in theory, but the only ones who really want it put into practice are lazy deadbeats who are not willing to work hard and make their own way.
People have not been pouring into France or Russia or Cuba or Mexico for centuries to achieve their dreams; they have been coming to America: the land of opportunity. Mexicans risk their lives to cross the southern border to come to America. Cubans risk their lives in ramshackle rafts and boats across open seas to come to America. Citizens of India, China, Japan, European and Middle Eastern countries come to America in a steady stream to work and apply for citizenship. America is still the Great Melting Pot. America is still the greatest nation on Earth: “The last best hope of man on earth.”
Barack and Michelle Obama, when Barack was running for President of the United States, could not get their fill of running down America, talking about what a downright mean country it is or how it needs to be fundamentally changed. The same mean, in-need-of-fundamental-change America in which these two African-American citizens were able to obtain law degrees from Harvard Law School, arguably the most prestigious law school in the United States, and then go on to lucrative jobs after graduation. America provided a pretty good opportunity for them; yet it seemed that all they could do was point out the flaws of their country.
President Obama and his Progressives are taking this country down a road that leads to Socialism, bankruptcy, and ruin. Americans need to wake up, realize what is happening, and get involved and turn this thing around. History will record our actions. The future does not belong to the fainthearted, but the future belongs to the brave. Will history show that we were fainthearted and that we meekly accepted the fate that progressives laid upon us, or will history show that we were brave, that we had the courage to stand up for and regain the independent republic that our founding fathers gave to us?
What will history record?

 

For years, starting with Al Gore, we have been hearing that the emissions from energy sources used by humans are heating the planet at an alarming rate, and if we don't reverse it, the seas are going to overflow and temperatures are going to rise to the point where life on earth will be threatened. Major news channels and the Weather Channel championed this cause every chance they got. Many politicians joined the crusade. Many teachers in public schools became environmental crusaders. And celebrities, from the music industry to Hollywood, spent more time talking about the climate than anything else. Man-Made Climate Change became a cause celebre (of course it started out as Man-Made Global Warming, but when it was shown that overall global temperatures had stopped rising, they had to change the name).

While Al Gore was telling everyone, that if we didn't reduce carbon emissions, we would likely die in a few decades, he was traveling everywhere in his private jet (an older model that is very inefficient in regards to fuel.) If Al Gore really believes what he preaches about the climate, why doesn't he take commercial flights? Why not buy a seat on a plane that is already going to be spewing all that carbon into the air.

Many celebrities fly personal jets when they travel. Harrison Ford (an outspoken critic of carbon emissions) has seven personal airplanes. When asked recently about his personal airplanes (in reference to Climate Change), he said, “I'll stop flying them when they stop.” (referring to those who deny Man-Made Climate Change.) If Harrison Ford really believes what he preaches about the climate, why doesn't he take commercial flights? Why not buy a seat on a plane that is already going to be spewing all that carbon into the air.

President Obama talks about Man-Made Climate Change in alarming terms, yet he took a trip last fall to Copenhagen to lobby for the city of Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics. The fact that the health care debate was raging and the issue of troops to Afghanistan were of the utmost priority notwithstanding, President and First Lady Obama traveled to Copenhagen, becoming the first president to personally lobby for an American city to be awarded an Olympics. I guess paying back friends in Chicago was more important than the climate, or health care, or our troops in Afghanistan.

A conference was held in Copenhagen in December 2009 to discuss Man-Made Climate Change. President Obama had to go to the conference, or did he? Did any of the nations have to travel to Copenhagen to attend this conference in person? Have these people not heard of videoconferencing? There is this wonderful technology, where everyone can meet together in real time, see and hear each other, and discuss anything in the world. No one has to fly a jet halfway around the world, then travel in a motorcade with all the requisite security, burning up untold quantities of carbon emissions along the way. I wonder what the combined carbon emissions of all the countries that attended the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen was. Do these people not see the irony, or the rank hypocrisy? “We all need to travel to Copenhagen, from all over the world, burning up enormous amounts of carbon emissions, to meet and discuss ways to save the planet from Man-Made Climate Change!” Either all these people are really stupid, or they are lying and don't believe what they say about Man-Made Climate Change. Maybe they do believe what they say, are aware of all the carbon emissions, but have some kind of messianic complex that leads them to believe their very presence will lead to enlightenment and policies that could not be ascertained by mere videoconferencing.

The title of this article is somewhat misleading. I am not saying that the issue is settled, and that Climate Change doesn't exist, although I definitely do not believe in Man-Made Climate Change. The reason I am putting the debate to rest is this: those who are most vocal about Man-Made Climate Change, do not live in a manner that indicates they believe the things they say. “If you're not going to live green, stop telling everyone else to!”

If Al Gore really believes the planet is in peril, then he needs to fly commercially when he needs to fly, and shutter his mansion and live in a grass hut.

If all these celebrities who love to get in front of a camera and pontificate about the need to stave off Man-Made Climate Change really believe what they say, let's see them live it.

If President Obama really believes in Man-Made Climate Change and that we need to address it, why doesn't he lead by example? Isn't that what presidents do? President Obama didn't have to fly to Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympics in Chicago. President Obama could have called on all the leaders of the world to have a video-conference on climate change to reduce carbon emissions. And should someone, who believes we are bringing about the end of the world with our emissions, be flying all over the country, speaking to groups of people to drum up support for his health care bill and disparage Tea Party protestors. Can't the President ridicule (those of us who want limited constitutional government) via satellite?

What we see, time after time, is rank hypocrisy by the most vocal critics of Man-Made Climate Change. If these people really believe what they are saying, and continue to live the way they do, they are the worst of all people in regards to Man-Made Climate Change, because they are living in a way that they believe will contribute to a worsening of the problem.

Several revelations over the last six months have debunked the myth that man is causing global temperatures to rise and the climate to change catastrophically. Emails revealed that the scientific data has been manipulated. Then there was the astonishing admittance by Phil Jones, a central figure leading the Man-Made Climate Change charge, that global temperatures might very well have been warmer during medieval times. I guess that was due to the Hummers that all those knights were riding around in, while they were rescuing fair maidens and searching for the Holy Grail. Yet the Climate Gate scandal has not slowed down the rhetoric of Man-Made Climate Change alarmists. Despite these revelations, many people, including the President of the United States, are still spewing this lie of Man-Made Climate Change.

There is only one person I will listen to on Man-Made Climate Change. His name is Ed Begley, Jr. Ed Begley Jr. is an actor. He lives in a self-sufficient home powered solely by solar power, and rides a bicycles almost everywhere he goes. While I don't agree with Ed on the issue of Man-Made Climate Change, I respect him for his sincerity and commitment and therefore will listen to him when he speaks on the issue.

It would benefit all of us to be less dependent on energy. We would all save money, and the less dependent we are on foreign oil, the less vulnerable our economy would be to conflicts around the globe. However, it should be a personal choice, no government should have the power to tell us what kind of car we can drive and where we can set our thermostat. And certainly no one should be feeding us, and our children, a lie and engaging in fear-mongering in order to coerce us to go green.

 

 

 

 

First, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

Why are you here today?

Many of you have been involved with the Tea Party movement from the beginning. Some of you have just recently become involved. Some of you are here out of curiosity: you want to check this Tea Party thing out for yourself.

A couple of the claims, that critics of the Tea Party movement make, is that we hate government, and that we don’t want to pay any taxes.

First of all, we don’t hate government, we just want limited government that follows the constitution and derives it power from the consent of the governed. And we want representatives that listen to us and read bills and know what is in them before voting on them.

Secondly, we don’t oppose all taxes; just excessive and unnecessary taxes. Things like slapping an extra tax on tanning salons to help pay for the health care reform bill. We want to pay taxes, but only for those things that the constitution authorizes, not a bunch of unconstitutional, bloated, wasteful programs and agencies.

And we want a government that understands the American Legacy: which is, “Leaving our children a better America than the one our parents left us,” NOT saddling them with a debt they can’t repay and shrinking individual liberties.

There is a lot of speculation out there as to why Tea Partiers get involved. Let me tell you what I think is the main, driving force in the greatest grass roots movement since the American Revolution. I have an 11 year old son. Most of you have children, some of you have grandchildren. I think the reason you are involved is that you want your children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities and blessings that you had. You see the direction this country is headed, and you don’t like it, and you’re not going to sit back and let it happen anymore.

From the beginning of the Tea Party Movement, the liberal media, and many politicians have engaged in smear tactics in an effort to discredit us and discourage us. A funny thing though, everything they do to try to bring down our movement only makes it grow stronger and fans the flames of passion and discontent among those of us who want our country back.

They figured if they disparaged us, belittled us, and attacked us enough we would just…give…up.

They counted on us to run off, with our tail between our legs. Well, in the words of Ronald Wilson Reagan, THEY COUNTED WRONG!

They underestimate our heart and our resolve.

They don’t understand how important our freedom is to us.

They don’t understand how important it is to us to leave our children a better America than the one our parents left us.

They don’t realize that we will never, ever give up, until they give us back our country!

Sometimes it seems that all this legislation is not random, that there is a system designed to fundamentally change this country.

The Stimulus, Health Care Deform, Cap and Tax.

Back in the years leading up to the American Revolution, British Parliament imposed a series of laws that took power away from the Colonies and centralized it with the British Crown. The Intolerable Acts, as they came to be known, were described by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia as, "a most wicked System for destroying the liberty of America". A most wicked System for destroying the liberty of America.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

There is a line from the Declaration of Independence, that we have all heard, hopefully:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Our quality of life is being eroded by progressives in government.

Our Fortunes, our wealth, is being taxed away at ever increasing rates to pay for out of control government spending.

Finally, our sacred honor, our reputation is constantly under attack. Maybe family members or coworkers talk about you behind your back or roll their eyes at you. To be involved in this movement, you have to be willing to pledge your reputation: your sacred honor.

But I ask you this, is your reputation more valuable to you than the country you will be leaving to your children and their children? I say NO!

Is your life, or lifestyle, more important?

Is your wealth more important?

Is there anything more important to you than leaving for your children a better…stronger….freer… America?

In closing,

Ronald Reagan, when asked what his strategy was for winning the cold war, replied very simply, “We win, they lose.”

“We win, they lose.”

It seems that we have lost the last two battles. We said, “don’t pass the stimulus bill.” They passed it anyway. We said, “don’t pass the health care bill.” They passed it anyway.

This victory will not be easy, the media is against us, many representatives have stopped listening to us, and there is a lot of work to do. But as Ronald Reagan said in one of his speeches, “we have the right to dream heroic dreams.” Our heroic dream is that we will turn this country around, it is not lost. The future does not belong to the fainthearted, it belongs to the brave. We must be brave and keep the faith.

We will win this battle! Don’t give up! Don’t ever give up!

Thank you, and God bless America!

 

 

In regards to Iran, candidate Obama approached the issue from the false assumption that the United States just hadn't reached out to Iran. Obama asserted that if we would just extend an open hand to Iran, they would enthusiastically reach out, grab our hand, give us a big hug, and show the world how good they really are. Many people bought into this idealistic, but naive approach. People bought into the lie that Iran was only hostile towards America because of George Bush. Once Bush was out of office, and the great Barack Obama was our leader, Iran would suddenly become a peace loving nation that cared about human rights.

I guess the Iranian government’s handling of the election protests of 2009 refuted that notion.

Some have asserted that people in the Middle East hate America because of our meddling in the region, over oil, for the last 50 years; this thinking indicates an ignorance of history.

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, merchant ships were being attacked in the Mediterranean Sea, by Muslim pirates. If a nation paid protection money to the pirates, they would be spared. Initially, the American position was to pay the tribute, perhaps because it seemed preferable to fielding the naval forces that would be necessary to protect her merchant ships in the Mediterranean (after all, we had just finished fighting the Revolutionary War). When the price of these “treaties” became prohibitive, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were sent to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

While it is true that these pirates, and the rogue nations they represented, did not necessarily represent the religion of Islam, it is important to note the motivation for their terrorism. In two words, it was: the Koran. It was not western Imperialism. It was not Western nations occupying Muslim nations for the purpose of controlling the slave trade (which was begun by Muslims). The motivation of these Islamic extremists for carrying out terror upon innocent people was the Koran, and more specifically what they believed the Koran instructed them to do.

Many Muslims simply hate America. They hate our way of life. They hate us because of what we believe. They just hate us. In addition to other positions, Barack Obama rose to popularity spewing the misguided far-left assertion that Muslim nations hated us because of George Bush’s cowboy diplomacy. Once he became president, Obama claimed, the world would love us because we would act differently toward them. With the exception of many liberal, socialist European nations, that has not been the case. Islamic radicals hate us just as much now as they did then (when Bush was president). There is at least one difference however: When Bush was president, our enemies at the very least feared us and respected our power. Now, they see America as weak and accomadating, not as the reasonable friends that Obama envisioned they would see us as.

Iran began enriching uranium to a higher level on Tuesday (February 9, 2010), raising fears that the process could eventually be used to give the Islamic republic nuclear weapons.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Obama White House has gone further than any administration to reach out to Iran, and called the move "disappointing."

There again is that false assertion that other administrations have not been diligent enough in reaching out to Iran. What this administration (and many of the ignorant liberals that helped carry it to power) missed is that previous administrations were very reserved in their diplomacy with Iran because they understood the nature of the leaders in Iran. Previous administrations knew that Iran is an extremist, terrorist supporting nation; they understood Iran’s intentions. This adminstration is now finding out why previous administrations did not extend a warm, open hand of friendship. It is not that the Obama administration didn’t have all the facts; the problem is one of philosophy. The Obama administration believes that all evil acts of other countries are a reaction to evil actions of the United States. Most reasonable people understand that there are evil people and evil nations in the world, driven by internal (not external) motivators, and that someone has to stand up to them. Whether that be by military force or by strong speech.

From: Breitbart.com (Jan 31, 2010)

US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the (Iranian) government spokesman said on Saturday.

"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.

"Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.

This illustrates why previous administrations have withdrawn negotiations with Iran; Iran’s position is that we must change 180 degrees and align with their way of thinking. Either Obama is too naïve to see this, or he wants to change our philosophy to align with Iran’s. Either option is disturbing and dangerous.

Barack Obama wants to make it possible for gays to serve openly in the US military, yet he has nothing to say about a country that hangs homosexuals for being homosexuals. He had nothing to say (until political pressure forced a response) about protestors in Iran being injured and killed for speaking their minds. He wants to extend an open hand to that nation and sit down and have a chat with their radical anti-Semitic leader. When policemen from Cambridge, MA arrested a black professor who appeared to be breaking into a home, President Obama weighed in on the situation immediately, even though (in his own words) he didn’t know all the facts. Said President Obama, “I don’t know the facts, but the Cambridge police acted stupidly.” Apparently, it is okay to talk about ridding the earth of Jews, but if there is even an apparent hint of discriminating against a black man; President Obama will step in and let us know how he feels.

Our president needs to drop his ideology, and open his eyes and see the world the way it is. He needs to start saying and doing the right things, not what will please the political correctness police or the radical left in this country.

To borrow from Obama’s own playbook, “I don’t have all the facts, and I am not an expert on foreign policy, but in regards to Iran - President Obama has acted stupidly.”

 

With the results of the special senate election in Massachusetts, the current health care reform bill is probably dead. We are certain to hear attacks from the radical left: “Conservatives don’t want health care reform”, “Conservatives are satisfied with the status quo”, "Conservatives want people to die in the street". This is one conservative who is NOT satisfied with the current health care system in this country. I just don’t want the “health care reform” bill that the Democrats have been trying to push through. A "health care reform" bill that will increase our debt, give special favors to certain groups and politicians, and won't ensure health care for all is not the kind of change I want to see.

You hear from the liberal media that conservatives have not offered any solutions to health care reform. That is an outright lie: there have been many proposals put forth by conservatives. The truth is that Democrats in congress have completely ignored Republicans and refused to include them in discussions (because from the beginning the Democrats knew they had a majority and didn’t need any Republican votes to pass their bill). Perhaps the Democrats will include the Republicans in negotiations now.

 

Emergency health care is already available to all. Legally, hospitals cannot turn down an individual needing emergency treatment for any reason (including an inability to pay). Doctors and nurses, for the most part, are compassionate people and wouldn't turn anyone away even if it were legal. So no one is dying in the street because they lack health care insurance (that is a lie propagated by some individuals to argue their case for universal health care). When I had cancer in 2000, I had no health care insurance. Thanks to a Catholic Hospital, and a state program in Florida, I came out of a long battle with cancer owing just a couple thousand dollars in medical bills.

 

1        I did not have health care insurance.

2        I was not denied care and left to die in the street.

3        I was not relegated to financial ruin.

 

Health care insurance is not a constitutionally guaranteed right; it is not a civil right. Health care insurance is a service, and it is a choice for many people. All senior citizens are guaranteed health care insurance. All people under a certain income are guaranteed health care insurance. That just leaves citizens under the age of 65, who make more than a certain income (a figure the government sets), and whose job doesn’t provide health care insurance, without health care insurance. The vast majority of the people who “can’t afford” health care insurance are making a choice to "not afford" it.

1        Do they have a cell phone? How much do they pay per month?

2        Do they have cable or satellite TV? How much do they pay per month?

3        Do they smoke or drink? How much do they spend per month?

4        Do they go out to eat or to clubs often? How much do they spend per month?

5        Have they eliminated everything from their budget that is not a (true) necessity?  

I am not judging these individuals for having these luxuries (we all have things in our lives we don’t need), but the point is: they are making the personal choice to have these things instead of health care insurance. Furthermore, using taxpayer dollars to pay for health care insurance for these individuals is tantamount to paying for the luxuries in their life: their cell phone, TV, cigarettes and/or alcohol, night life. Individuals should have the freedom to choose these things, but the fruit of other people’s labor should not be stolen to pay for them.

 

So what do we do to reform health care in America? I’m glad you asked. Here are a few ideas from a common citizen.

 

Changes to Current Health Care 

• Tort Reform. Let’s get this one out of the way first. Why? Because most people agree that this one (which would actually help lower costs) won’t ever happen. Whether things are as sinister as the movie “The Firm” (where anyone opposing these greedy lawyers will end up becoming shark food in the Cayman Islands), or because most politicians get big payoffs from trial lawyers; I don’t see tort reform happening. Therefore, doctors will still have to pay HUGE malpractice insurance premiums; and doctors will continue to order unnecessary tests to cover their butts in case of a lawsuit. President Obama promised things would be different if he were elected president. He promised an end to “business as usual” in Washington. Why doesn’t President Obama demand that tort reform be included in any health care reform legislation?

 

• Portability. Do not allow health care plans to be tied to employers. You should be able to take your health care insurance with you when you leave a job (while continuing to pay the same premium: like car insurance). Anyone who has ever lost a job knows that the Cobra option is a joke. How is someone supposed to pay over a thousand dollars a month for health care insurance when they just lost their job? If health care insurance were not tied to employers, people would be free to choose the health care plan they want.

 

• Pre-existing conditions: there should be some allowance for someone with a pre-existing condition to get health care insurance. Of course, a higher premium (and possibly deductible) would be appropriate, since there is an implied cost of care going in, but it should no be so high as to be prohibitive.

 

• No restrictions along state lines. People should be able to shop for health care insurance without limitation: this would lower cost through competition.

 

• There should absolutely be no taxes on health care plans (whether you belong to a union or not).

 

• No requirement to carry health insurance. This is one issue which rankles more people than any other issue. This sounds like something from 20^th century communist Russia. No unconstitutional laws requiring health care insurance. No penalty or tax on individuals who do not carry health insurance.

 

• We need changes to FDA regulations regarding alternative/holistic drugs and treatments. As someone who almost died from cancer (more specifically the chemotherapy used to treat cancer), but then turned to an alternative treatment and is alive and well nine years later, I believe there needs to be a loosening of the restrictions on alternative treatments. Let the individual decide how they want to treat their illness. I funny it curious that chemotherapy (which poisons the body) is just fine with the FDA, but alternative methods that don’t poison the body are not allowed.

 

 

I would say there are very few people in this country who believe the current state of health care is acceptable. Most of us agree there need to be changes. However, that does not mean that we need to send our country deeper into debt and invoke massive federal government expansion. It is true that the rising cost of health care needs to be addressed. The current proposed legislation does not address the rising costs of health care; in fact some argue that it will contribute to rising costs. The current proposed legislation does not guarantee coverage to everyone. Wasn’t that the point? The current proposed legislation strips citizens of basic freedom, gives special favors in order to garner votes, fails to insure all citizens, and adds a trillion dollars to our national debt (that is just the estimate, wait until reality kicks in and we see the actual impact).

To quote Senator-elect Scott Brown, “We can do better!”

In the first Star Wars movie, “Episode IV”, Yoda makes the following remark about the young Luke Skywalker, “All his life has he looked away… to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing. Hmph. Adventure. Heh. Excitement. Heh.”.

Doesn’t that describe most of us? Time travel movies, psychics, even the Weather Channel bear this out. We look to the future for adventure, excitement; those things that our lives lack. We are bored with our lives, so we look to the future and imagine what it might hold. Maybe we’ll win the lottery and retire in style. The single person imagines meeting that perfect mate, getting married and living happily ever after. (Unfortunately, some married people do this as well.) The disgruntled worker dreams about getting that perfect job that will make him happy.

I often complain to my wife (much to her dismay) about the Weather Channel and their forecasts. I wonder why the Weather Channel is so popular and successful when they are wrong so much of the time. Is it because of our desire to know the future? We want to know what the weather is going to be like next week. Will we have snow? How much? Is it going to rain the day I want to play golf? It doesn’t matter how often they are wrong, we still go back looking for our local forecast. As late as Wednesday (the week before Christmas), here in western North Carolina, they were calling for a rain/snow mix on Friday, nothing to get excited about. By Saturday morning we had 14 inches of snow. It’s a good thing I didn’t make plans based on their forecast.

One of the most sure-fire formulas for a movie premise is time travel. You can have bad actors, poor production quality and cheesy special effects, but if the story is about time travel, people will watch. People love the idea of being able to know the future (or going back to the past and changing things so that they will have a different present). There have been many movies made about time travel, but one of my favorites is an independent film you may not have heard of. The movie is called “Primer”. “Primer” was made by a first time, independent film maker, on a budget of $7000; yet it is one of the most imaginative, well made movies I have seen. Basically, it is about two engineers who invent a time machine by accident while trying to invent a marketable electronic device. While the movie is interesting on many levels, perhaps the most intriguing aspect is the portrayal of the two main characters and how they react to this newfound power. In this movie, the time travelers are not able to travel into the future, but they are able to go back in time (as long as their machine has been running) and essentially alter their present until they get it right. (Reliving each day, or several days if the machine has been on that long.) As you might expect, this has progressively more disastrous results. As things unravel, one character recognizes the folly of controlling one’s future (playing God if you will) and opts out, while the other character continues on this path, thinking he will eventually “get it right”.

I think the lesson to be learned here is that we aren’t supposed to know what happens next. We are supposed to live in the moment. Learn from past mistakes (as well as successes)? Yes. Establish goals and dreams and work hard to achieve them? Yes. But leave the rest up to the One who hung the stars and created life. Jesus said, “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for today is its own trouble.”

We all want to be prescient: we want to know where we are going, what life holds in store for us. Sometimes we get so preoccupied with that focus that we forget to live in the moment. Life passes us by while we dwell on what we will be doing tomorrow, or next week, or next year. While it may seem very strange, I think the time in my life when I was most focused on living in the moment was when I had cancer. I did not know what my future held (only God knew), and I was too immersed in the present to dwell on the past. Each day I was completely absorbed with that day: my treatment, my wife, my son. I didn’t make a conscious decision to live in the moment, I feel like my situation forced me to do that. Or maybe it was God’s grace, freeing me from worries while I went through that ordeal. Whatever the reason, there was a real peace in my heart as I completely trusted God and just lived in the moment. I think we would all do well to live in the moment at all times. Enjoy your family, your friends, your job; enjoy today, tomorrow will worry about itself.

 

 

Let me say first that I am not condemning anyone who is divorced, and I know that divorce will continue to happen. These are just my observations on the issue of divorce and it's consequences. While I can't say what the divorce rate is and whether it is on the rise or decline (divorce statistics are harder to find than a positive review of a Ben Affleck movie), it is safe to say that divorce remains a major problem in this country. My observation on this issue is not about the ethics or morality of divorce, but it's effects on the children, and by association, it's effects on all of us (as it effects society).

The following is a commentary by Alexis de Tocqueville about American public life (in comparison to European public life, circa 1835). His comments are very interesting.

 "Agitated by the tumultuous passions which frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience which the legislative powers of the State exact. But when the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace. There his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys are innocent and calm; and as he finds that an orderly life is the surest path to happiness, he accustoms himself without difficulty to moderate his opinions as well as his tastes. Whilst the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs."

It would be reasonable to substitute "home marred by divorce" for "European", and "home not marred by divorce" for American, in regards to the above commentary.
"the (child from a home marred by divorce) endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society"
The contrast is stark. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that youth from a stable home are going to be better behaved than youth from a home that is racked with strife. But the point is that a stable home is just one where mom and dad are there, committed to one another, committed to their children. It doesn't have to be Ward and June Cleaver (from "Leave it to Beaver"). It doesn have to be perfecct. Having worked with troubled youth and their families for nearly 20 years, I think I can comment with some degree of credibility on this issue. The vast majority of teens we have worked with that are "troubled", juvenile offenders, struggling in school, come from broken homes. There have been scant few troubled teens that have come from a home where the original mom and dad are still together and in the home. These kids either live in a single-parent household, or they live with mom and the live-in boyfriend-of-the-month. Of course my experience is not exhaustive (I have not worked with every single troubled teen), but it is a valid sample.

We have even worked with youth, whose parents were together, but in and out of separation/talking of divorce. These youth would do well when mom and dad were working it out and together, but when mom and dad would separate or things would get heated, the youth would struggle. Then, when mom and dad would start to work things out again, the youth would exhibit positive behaviors. The effects of the tranquility of the home on the children cannot be overstated. Of course all couples have good days and bad days, and no marriage is going to be like a fairy tale, but a home where mom and dad are present and committed to staying together is always better than a broken home. Kids get their sense of self from their family. If their family is fractured, they feel it. Kids need that sense of wholeness in their home as a base for them to discover who they are. Lawyers and Psychologists will tell parents, “the kids will be okay, kids are resilient, they're better off in a broken home than one where the parents fight all the time”. I have heard people who got divorced say they regret listening to that kind of advice. Kids are always (99% of the time) better off with mom and dad together.

Marriage is not an easy thing. If it were, the vows would say "for better, richer, and in health, I will stay with you". But that's not the way the vows read, is it? "For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health....til death do us part".

I think part of the problem is expectations. People have unrealistic expectations of marriage in a lot of cases.

I am reminded of a Don Henley song (End of the Innocence), where he says,

“And happily ever after fails,

and we've been poisoned by these fairy tales,

the lawyers dwell on small details,

since daddy had to fly”

I think what he is saying is that people listen to songs or watch romantic movies (fairy tales) and get this impression that when they fall in love and get married, they will live in this fairy tale of bliss and harmony. Then, when they find out that real life is not like that, they give up, assuming that they just married the wrong person. People need to go into marriage with the right perspective and expectations. People need to realize going into marriage that it takes work, commitment, and a willingness to forgive one another. I think if public schools spent time educating kids about marriage and responsibility (instead of how to have sex), our society would be much better off (but don't get me started on that soap box). (This could be done without teaching from a religious perspective)

Another factor contributing to the divorce rate is the fact that people are so mobile anymore (moving from place to place), that they no longer have the parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles nearby to counsel them when they begin to have marital problems. The advice of an older person who has been there, experienced tough times (but worked it out and can honestly tell them that it is worth the effort to make their marriage work) is priceless. That is something most of don't have any longer. Without the advice and modeling of family, people are left to take their cue from others in their community, tv, movies. And in these cases people are inundated with the message "Everyone is getting divorced, you might as well get divorced too."

This commentary is not about the morality of divorce, but the destructive effects that we all feel. From troublemakers in school, to juvenile offenders, to adult crimes, so many of the things that disrupt us from enjoying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could be reduced simply by repairing the family unit. So many of the ills of our society could be cured simply by returning to a commitment to family..."til death do us part".

 

"when _________ retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace"

And this is NOT, a democrat problem or a republican problem, it is a result of corrupt politicians, people who have not been educated adequately in the heritage of this nation, and......human nature. Congress, and presidents (past and current) have overstepped their constitutional authority and done things, that while they may have seemed like "good things" to do, were in principle, WRONG!

Alexander Tytler, a Scottish-born British lawyer and writer, wrote about the phases a democracy usually goes through, and it usually ends, after about 200 years, in bondage such as a dictatorship.

 

Tytler listed the phases as follows (source wikipedia)

 

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.

 

Now of course, this is the opinion of a man, based on his study of history, and is therefore not exhaustive nor absolute truth, but it is useful for discussion. Going by this list of progression, I would say we are somewhere in the "apathy to dependence" phase. With all of our accomplishments in the 20th century we became complacent. That has been followed in the last 30 years with a march toward apathy. People have come to the place where most feel their vote doesn't count and the representatives don't listen to their voice. We are at a critical juncture in our history. We can beat this "inevitable?" progression to bondage, and it appears that many people are ready to rise to the challenge. The Tax Day Tea Parties are evidence of that. Despite the efforts of the lunatic left wing fringe on some networks to discredit good people getting out and making their voice heard, these tea parties have stirred (or shown evidence of an already existing stirring of) that indomitable American spirit that is unique in the history of human government. People are meeting all across this nation to find ways to change the course of this nation, and help stave off tyranny. Some states have starting passing gun legislation and daring the federal government to overstep it's constitutional limits to undo the legislation. Some states have talked about secession. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but I think there needs to be a willingness to take that direction if the federal government refuses to stay within the constitution. I don't think anyone wants a violent revolt, most people just want this government to be once again, "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people".

 

Let's hope that Lincoln was right, and this wasn't just wishful thinking:

 

"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. "