Has anyone done the math?

There have been many numbers and statistics that have been used in the debate over health care reform. They are used individually to bolster view points or elicit emotional responses.
It doesn't seem anyone has put them all together to see what they add up to. When you do so I believe it leads to one inescapable conclusion.
Here are some of the stats: (All used by health care reform supporters)
*If excluding illegal immigrants, there are roughly 20-24 million uninsured Americans.
*It is estimated that 3-5 million of these are younger, healthy people that can afford health insurance but have opted against it. (Part of the plan is simply to mandate that they purchase insurance)
*The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bills currently being considered in the House and Senate would each result in approximately 95% of Americans being covered.
*The Congressional Budget Office puts the cost at either to be just under or over $1,000,000,000,000. That cost, by the way, is for the first several years. Experience with governmental programs practically guarantees that costs will rise dramatically with time.
*Each COMPLETELY reforms the current health care system and includes a "government option" that many experts believe would eventually lead to government run, single-payer health care. The proverbial "throwing out the baby with the bath water".
*There are approximately 300 million citizens. 5% of 300 million is 15 million. That's the amount that would remain uncovered.

So we are talking about a complete reformation of the largest industry in our nation's economy, with huge (and likely underestimated) costs, and negligible increases in the number of citizens being covered.
How can anyone believe this is anything less than an attempt by the government to control, not improve, health care?

Amazing contradiction

For years the mantra for the Pro-Choice movement has been "Keep your laws off my body". The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in America is based upon a woman's right to privacy, especially from the government, regarding medical decisions. Abortion rights advocates oppose even such modest proposals as Informed Consent as an unacceptable governmental interference in the doctor/patient relationship. Last night I heard two Pro-Choice advocates repeat what I have heard others say hundreds of times, "I'm not pro-abortion, I just don't think the government should be making decisions best left to doctors and patients".

Question: Why are all these same activists and politicians in favor of universal health care?

Dinosaurs of ideas

The "progressive" push for nationalized health care (if you think the end game is anything less than that you are hopelessly naive) is not really progressive at all, but actually regressive and a rehash of the tired old liberal mindset of womb-to-tomb government control. One might even call the idea a dinosaur.
Given that metaphor, I thought it appropriate to seek wisdom for the ages from someone well acquainted with dinosaur encounters, Dr. Ian Malcomb of Jurassic Park.
Says Dr. Malcomb "Yeah, but your scientists (politicians) were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
Dr. Malcomb understood that there are principles that should never be subverted, even by those that think they are well intended. One of those similar principles is that of limited government. How ironic it is that the progressives love to refer to us as the richest nation on earth, trying to make their claim that nobody should lack health insurance, without any apparent understanding of how we got to be the richest nation on earth. Freedom stimulates resourcefulness, innovation, creativity, and excellence. Remove freedom and there is nothing special about America anymore.
How appropriate that Dr. Malcomb's field of specialty was as a "chaotician", the study of chaos. For that is surely where we are heading.

Fundamental Transformation

In the final run up to the election last year Pres. Obama, speaking at a campaign rally, said "We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America". At the time it sounded like typical, soaring campaign rhetoric.
If only we had known.
His campaign of 'change', with few specifics given, was widely interpreted to refer to the policies of George W. Bush. Now we see that he was also referring to the policies of Madison, Jefferson and Washington.
When he said fundamentally, he meant it.
Fundamentally, America has always been defined by freedom. Freedom from overbearing government. If you're over 40 you were taught in high school of the principle of "Laissez faire". Merriam-Webster defines it "a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights". (If your children attend(ed) public school they have likely never even heard the term.) This guiding principle has been fundamental in America.
Obama's philosophy believes the government's economic role is to forcibly apply his version of fairness. It's a philophy that attempts to manipulate outcome rather than opportunity. It's a philosophy that believes the government is benevolent and individuals cannot be trusted. 180 degrees out of phase with the Founders.
Fundamentally the federal government was intended to have very limited powers, with the House of Representatives representing the people and the Senate representing the Several States.
Obama's vision is top-down government where the people and the states are controlled through mandates, regulation and taxation.
Our Founding Fathers had a vision of a nation that, through Laissez faire, would foster excellence, ingenuity, innovation, self determination, individual responsibility, natural accountablity, perserverance, etc by releasing the natural inclination of man to survive and prosper.
Obama's vision for America stands in stark contrast, fundamentally.

Let's see. 2 + 2 = ??

Are we really still talking about Congressman Joe Wilson?
Critics (on the left, surprise surprise) of his outburst last week would now have us all believe that they can read Wilson's mind. Of course their conclusion is that his outcry was motivated by racism. There is of course no evidence of that, but that's never stopped them (lefties) from similar smears before.
To get to the bottom of this incredibly important issue I've watched the clip numerous times. I listed all the pertinent facts. I come to a different conclusion. Let's see if you agree.
Fact 1- Congressman Wilson yelled out the words "You lie" at Pres. Obama (he's black you know) during his speech last week.
Fact 2- He did so immediately after the president had inarguably told a clear lie about a controversial subject.
After careful consideration, and in the spirit of giving the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to presume that Wilson was more annoyed by the president's lie than he was his race.
Now, in the spirit of judging people by their own standards I must conclude that every time the liberals leapt to their feet to give Obama a standing ovation, they were doing so not because they were reacting to what he had just said, but because he's black.

Everything old is new again.

Have you noticed the latest 'new' strategy being used by the left wing? Apparently "socialism" has become the new "N" word. So have "Marxist", "liberal", and now "liar". In fact any word used to criticize Pres. Obama is tantamount to dropping the "N" bomb.
Fortunately, truth always being the ultimate defense, these words all have well established definitions which Obama seems to personify.
Actually, this is not a new strategy. It's just the latest incarnation of a liberal staple. This very tired trick is their pathetic attempt to be on offense.
On the surface it would seem that the enlightened left, arbiters of all that is inclusive, are the ones unable to see past race. And that is actually true.
But this is so much more. In this case the race-baiters themselves don't even believe the charges they levy. They simply want to change the debate from Obama's wreckless policies to the motives of his detractors. And to minimize the opposition by making good people afraid to speak out, lest they have a scarlett 'R' imprinted on them.
I know the press is on their side. And the libs have the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the unions, the 'community organizations, yada yada yada. It would seem, as it were, that we are surrounded by Syrians.
"Fear not: they that be with us are more than they that be with them". Keep working and soon the armies and chariots of fire will be clearly visible to all. (See 2 Kings 15-17)

Get your Obama care here.

Does anyone think the SEIU goons that are busily assaulting and intimidating voters at town hall meetings understand the details of Obama's health care plans?
Or that the malcontents protesting outside Whole Foods' stores comprehend the catastrophic unintended circumstances of single-payer ANYTHING?
What they do know is that they like Obama. And they know that they don't need to know anything else.

Another clunkers program

We need a program where politicians can turn in their clunker programs to be demolished.

Hypocrisy abounds

Sometimes there is nothing like acquiring power to expose one's true colors. There are some ideals of which leaders of the Democrat party and the political left in general have always claimed to be the guardians. And a few upon which Pres. Obama specifically based his campaign for president. I thought I'd list a few, off the top of my head, and see how they're doing so far since getting a complete stranglehold on the federal government.
1. Dissent is not only acceptable but is a hallmark of democracy and the highest form of patriotism.
2. Freedom of speech is sacrosanct.
3. The will of the people is preeminent. Government is to be responsive to the governed. Hence the name "Democratic".
4. Transparency in government is very important.
5. President Obama campaigned on the need to be "post-partisan", which implies being even more inclusive than bi-partisan.
6. He also campaigned on being a united the people around common causes and "healing" the nation.

I suspect you can see where this is heading. Let's see how they're doing so far, based on their own standards.

1. After relentlessly pushing one liberal policy after another, attempting not to simply 'change' policies of the Bush administration but to remake America in his European socialist vision, Americans have largely said "Whoa" to universal health care. Immediately upon realizing the tide had turned against them Democrat leaders began an effort, coordinated with the media, to declare protesters "un-American". A despicable move designed to intimidate dissenters.
2. The left has used verbal and physical intimidation to prevent people from speaking out against the health care plan. "Political correctness" and its associated intimidation tactics have long been the means of squelching free speech.
3. Democrat leadership is now trying to convince moderate Democrats that the protesters and polls are illegitimate and to be ignored for the 'greater good'.
4. This has been the most secretive administration since Richard Nixon.
5. House and Senate Republicans have been attempting to introduce their own solutions to health care, unemployment, economic recession, etc. They can't even get committee hearings on their bills. They keep this hidden while they brand Republicans as obstructionists. Now Obama has made it clear that if they don't get Republican support (to do it THEIR way) they should pass it through without them.
6. Campaigning as a uniter, Obama has turned out to be the Divider-in-Chief. For every problem there is someone to blame. For most things it has been a continuation of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Of course there are the evil wealthy. More recently it was executives. Now it's the insurance companies. Always there is someone to demonize.

Mayan code cracked!

I confess this could be just wishful thinking on my part, but I've got a new theory about the Mayan calendar.
For years there has been research, discussions and debate about the meaning behind the fact that the Mayan calendar comes to an abrupt end on Dec. 21, 2012. Were the rest of their records lost? Does it mean the end of the world? Did the Mayans know something that we don't? I have a new theory.
Many of the glyphs found in Mayan ruins depict apparent human sacrifice. They seemed to be a blood-thirsty and ruthless people. Which means, of course, they were Democrats.
My theory aligns nicely with present day signs. Scientists are off just a little in their calculations. The Mayan calendar actually ends on November 6, 2012 and predicts the end of the modern Democrat party.
There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Aesop's lost fable

Does anyone else feel like we're watching the stage production of Aesop's lost fables?
This one takes place in a large and beautiful village. It has more than its fair share of village idiots, most of whom work in the news media.
In the distant past the biggest tribe had treated the one of the smaller tribes very badly. That was a long time ago, and the laws of the land now not only prevented such abuse, as a means of repentance the laws granted favorable status to the smaller tribes.
In fact the villagers even selected a member of the small tribe to be their leader.
This village had a long history of speaking out when they objected to their leaders' decisions. Then the people that didn't like the policy and those that did would have vigorous debates.
It was during one of those debates that the supporters of the leader became very desperate because they were losing the debate, because they were stupid poo-poo heads.
They decided to start saying that any of the good townsfolk that happened to be from the big tribe only disliked the leader's idea because he was from the little tribe. They knew this wasn't true but hoped to make the good townsfolk be quiet so they wouldn't be called tribists. And it always got the attention of the village idiots in the press. This strategy had worked in the past.
It had worked too often in the past, and this time it was obvious to everyone that it was just a strategy. The good townsfolk kept debating and eventually won. All the village was so tired of the strategy that nobody would pay attention to real tribism. So their strategy backfired on them. People of the village decided it would be easier to stop selecting people from the little tribe to be leaders so that the debates could stay on the issues. All the village thought this was a shame. The stupid poo-poo heads and village idiots had ruined it for everyone.
(Some villagers were reminded by this of a shepard boy in their village that liked to yell "wolf".)

Where is the intellectual honesty?

I bet you know some rabid sports fans that are blindly, irrevocably loyal to their favorite team even when that team stinks. You might even be one yourself. And why not? Loyalty is an admirable trait, right? And it's just a game.
Sadly that same attitude seems to prevail in the arena of public policy. People support and defend "their team" jealously. Anxiously exploiting and exaggerating any misstep or miscalculation made by the 'enemy', while willingly overlooking or rationalizing their own teams misdeeds.
But this isn't a game. The stakes are enormous.
This is the flaw, potentially fatal, of the two party system. It too easily becomes a game. Victory trumps values. Partisanship replaces principle.
This is a bad long term plan because the very nature of 'principles' is that when we violate them, regardless of intentions, bad things happen.
Both of the major parties have supporters that fall into this trap.
I can understand why many people were attracted to Pres. Obama during the campaign. His rhetoric was soaring and inspirational. With so many citizens suffering from Bush fatigue, whether real or created, Obama offered a refreshing reprieve.
In the past 7 months it's become clear that his vision for America differs from the one he presented during the campaign. I suspect many that voted for him do not believe that the federal government should take ownership roles in banks and auto manufacturers. Or get further into the insurance providing business. Or guarantee future confiscatory taxes and inflation by devaluing the currency with enourmous debt. After all, economic principles are just that, principles. When we violiate them, regardless of intentions, bad things happen.
This presents those supporters with a dilemma. Do they support their team or their principles? Either way they feel disloyal.
To me it seems obvious. Presidents come and go. Principles persist.
With so wide a variety of issues facing us we can't expect to agree with anyone about everything. It is not contradictory to claim to support a party or individual while opposing this policy or that when intellectual honesty requires we do so.
Our country, our families, and our individual integrity will be better served.

The best defense is a strong offense.

PROJECTION: Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts. - Encyclopedia Britannica
All across America citizens, alarmed by the federal government's attempts to nationalize our health care system, have been making their anger known. Despite soft-petal reports by a fawning press they are demanding real answers and accountability from elected officials. And they are in no mood for platitudes and arrogance.
Rather than acknowledge that they have stepped in it, the Democratic leadership is firing back. They pronounce the protests to be illegitimate and the protesters to be pawns of Republicans and the insurance industry. (Although if challenged they can offer no evidence of either.)
Clearly this is their strategy. As the movement grows, in their desperation they need to dissuade others from joining the fight. Ridicule, scorn and intimidation (report your 'fishy' neighbors) are their weapons of choice.
But I think it's more than that. I think many of them really believe what they're saying. From their paradigm angry and boisterous protests are manufactured products. Their community organizers rouse the rabble, bus in rental protesters (union hacks), and call it 'grass roots'. They've never been part of a legitimate, home grown, real-people protest.
Combine that with the arrogant belief that only "special interests" could possibly disagree with them, and only for nefarious motives, and you have a textbook example of projection.

He who frames the debate wins.

Conservatives and Constitutionalists have already lost the health care debate.
As much as I hope that congressional conservatives will be able to slow the march to Socialism, that's all they can do now is slow it. They've missed their chance to stop it.
They have allowed the debate to be framed by the Socialists. The debate is now about the details, costs, and revenues. It's about the speed of the march, not the direction.
Where are the arguments about the proper role of government? About the constitutionality of becoming an insurance broker?
The first question any legislator should ask themselves about proposed legislation is "Is this the proper role of government?". If the answer to that is NO, there's no reason to move onto the next question.

From my blog to his teleprompter?

Wow, did I ever call that one? I listened today, against my better judgement, to Pres. Obama's news conference. At one point he actually used the phrase "what's in it for me?", referring to what he was sure people were asking about his healthcare plans.
But I was waiting to hear the phrase "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".
He really is gifted on the podium. All his 'goals' and 'intentions' sounded really logical and good. What they weren't is honest.
It is not true that they have identified savings that will pay 2/3 of the cost. It is absolutely not true that they can raise the other 1/3 with the surcharge on evil rich people. It is not true that 49 million people are uninsured. (turns out that number is devised by counting everyone that was ever uninsured in a given year. If you changed jobs, and were uninsured for 24 hours between jobs, you're one of them)It is not true that the Republicans are being given a chance to have input. It is not true that......etc, etc, etc.
I sincerely hope that people are not bamboozled by this extraordinarily gifted orator, smooth politician, and devoted Socialist.
Can you even wrap your mind around the magnitude of the malfeasance of pressuring congress to pass the most sweeping and expensive government takeover in American history without even taking time to read the legislation? Or to even allow the minority party's ideas to be heard in committee?
Pass the Advil please!

Yeah, but what's in it for me?

I had a lot of time to listen to news/talk radio today.
I came to 2 important conclusions.
1) Listening to the news lately could very well be the reason my blood pressure has been high.
2) President Obama is using language designed to appeal to the very worst in people. If you listen to his rhetoric concerning health care, it is clear that he wants Americans to support his program based on what is in it for them, without regard for the burden it will unarguably place on our children, and their children, etc, etc, etc. Burdens in the forms of higher taxes, rampant inflation, and constricted freedom.
The sad thing is that, based on our history from the last 50 years, the strategy of appealing to greed is very often successful.

Resistance is futile.

It came to me yesterday as I pondered the president's apparent disregard for the destructive impact of his agenda on an already fragile economy. It hit me as an instantaneous rush of pure understanding, and now everything is so clear.
I know the real reason we can't see the president's birth certificate.
OBAMA IS BORG!
I'll explain for the readers that are not fans of Star Trek:The Next Generation. (As if there are any)
The Borg is an interstellar 'race' of humanoids that are fitted with bio-electrical components, all linked together in one great 'collective'. Some of their defining characteristics are: *There is no individuality. Borg serve, and are, the collective. *They are laser-focused on their primary purpose which is to 'assimilate' others into the collective. *The wishes of those to be assimilated are irrelevant. *They are ruthless and remorseless in this purpose, with no regard for any collateral damage they cause. There is no room for compromise. All are either assimilated or destroyed. ("You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile,") *They accomplish this purpose through overwhelming power. *When confronted by an adversary not considered to be a substantive threat, they simply ignore them. *They produce nothing of themselves. They simply strip those they assimilate of their resources.
President Obama has a vision for this nation that stands in stark contrast to that of our founding fathers. It seems that we are to be assimilated, like it or not, into the president's vision of central control, universal healthcare, nationalized industry, and 'wealth equalization'. In other words, The Collective.
Sometimes truth really is stranger, and more frightening, than fiction.
(Disclaimer: I am unaware of any Borg use of a teleprompter.)

'MILE'stone

My little Dodge Dakota had a big day today. On the way home from work this morning it rolled past 200,000 miles. Pretty darn good for a truck that still has the original plugs, wires, etc. Never been tuned up and still runs like a champ.
Admittedly it looks its age. But then again, so do I. :-)

Uh oh!

When does this, equal this?


I'm just making a point. Some people say we're on our way to greatly devaluing our currency. I disagree.
Of course there's really no comparison between our currency and Monopoly money.
First of all Monopoly money is only worth something because your fellow players agree that it is. So at any given time the other players could simply decide they don't want it anymore. It is not backed by any tangible asset such as gold like our currency, umm....., used to be.
Ok, but Monopoly money will never have any real value, like our currency does, because of the Law of Supply and Demand. Any time the makers run short of it they just print more and more. But our government exercises strict restraint in print.... ummmmmm..........,
This isn't going like I wanted it to!

The Unstimulating Stimulus

And you thought the stimulus package wasn't working!
Well, it is. Just ask the Obama team. They wouldn't make things up, would they? (see post below)
They report that the stimulus package has "created or saved" 1.5 million jobs. Of course they also say, now, that the intent was to save the jobs of teachers, firefighters, etc. and that it has done so. That's not the "shovel ready" mantra I remember. But I digress.
I don't how how you quantify 'saved' jobs, but even if we presume their numbers are accurate (stop laughing) that comes out to roughly $380,000 per job. I wonder how much of that the teachers and firefighters get.
Let's make something clear. The ONLY thing that government can do to stimulate the economy with any lasting effect is to GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Relieving burdens on business, either tax or regulatory, would help. ANY and EVERY attempt to micromanage the economy or any segment or industry therein can only hurt in the long term.
The Free Market is the economic equivalent of Darwin's Natural Selection.
Fiscal liberalism is a species that should be allowed to become extinct.

Then, or Now?

During the presidential campaign last year the Obama campaign often repeated that our economy at the time was "the worst economy since the Great Depression". (Is Obama too young to remember the Carter administration?)
Now, under pressure to rationalize their 'stimulus' package, Veep Biden says they just didn't realize how bad things were. This laughable contradiction means one of three things: 1-They were lying (ok, greatly exaggerating) during the campaign. 2-They are lying now. 3-(this is my favorite) BOTH!
No surprises there though. Eagles have to fly, fish have to swim, and Dems have to lie. It's the natural order of things.

Sarah Palin a quitter?

Sarah Palin shocked the nation Friday by announcing her resignation as governor of Alaska. While the circumstances were quite unusual and surprising, I don't quite understand some of the criticism.
Gov. Palin was immediately attacked by Republicans and Democrats alike for "quitting on Alaska", "leaving Alaska high and dry", etc. And on the surface I understand the sentiment. But forgive me for expecting highly paid analysts to look beyond the superficial and obvious.
In principle, how is resigning this way any more "leaving them high and dry" than politicians that resign to take higher office? Did Pres. Obama not "quit" on Illinois the moment he decided to run for president without first finishing out the senate term to which he was elected? Which he, by the way, ran for without first finishing out the state senate term to which he'd been elected.
Politicians resign mid-term all the time. Apparently doing so is more noble when it is opportunistic and self-promoting.

Why States' Rights?

It has been my observation over the years that few people truly understand why "States' Rights" were first instituted. Once that is understood it becomes a crucial principle, as opposed to just a concept that feels good because we tend prefer more local control.
Remember first the government that our founders and citizens had fled was enormous, and centrally controlled. These were the days of "The sun never sets on the British empire". They had witnessed, and suffered under, the corruption that ensued.
That said, we need not look much further than the name of our nation to understand what they were attempting to accomplish. The definition of the word "state" at that time was a sovereign government body. Noah Webster's 1828 edition defines it "A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government." The premise under which this nation was formed, and named, is that we we would be individual sovereign governments forming a sort of Co-Op for specific purposes, such as common defense, commerce regulation, negotiating with foreign nations, etc. We were to be a group of sovereign states, united together for protective strength and position. (The electoral college is a fascinating tangent to this discussion. It creates a delicate balance in which it is the 'several states', not the people, that actually elect the president.) It's interesting to note that the term "States' rights" is actually a Civil War era creation, in response to the federal government expanding beyond its intended parameters. To our founders the concept was axiomatic.
The Constitution does not give rights to individuals. It gives very limited powers to the federal government with the presumption all others remained with the several states. The Bill of Rights was added later, only after intense debate. Proponents wanted to delineate some of our most important rights in order to protect them. Opponents feared that listing any rights would leave the impression that the list was all inclusive. The 10th amendment is the compromise between the two arguments.
Somewhere along the way most of our citizens lost track. Proposals made by elected federal officials began being debated on the merits of the idea, rather than on whether it is a legitimate federal function. As a result we now have, in practice, the type of government that our founders most feared. They foresaw that a powerful, centralized government would be a breeding ground for corruption.
I think time has proven them correct.

I hope I'm wrong, but....

I hate to be pessimistic, but as I look on the horizon I think I see some hyper-inflation in our future.
There are many factors that can contribute to economic inflation. The most pernicious is the devaluation of currency. There are also many factors that contribute to devaluing a currency. The two most common are listed here. See if they sound similar to our current economic conditions.
* Oversupply of money - In keeping with the basic law of supply/demand, when a government prints currency, particularly currency not backed by anything, the increase in the money supply creates a decrease in the value of that currency.
* Creditor confidence - As a nation's debt load increases, potential creditors (bond purchasers) confidence that the debtor will be able to repay it decreases. This has the two-edged effect of devaluing the currency and forcing the debtor to pay higher interests rates on debt. The long term effect of the higher interest rates will be even higher debt. Which will mean even further devaluation of the currency. (note- we have record deficits, record debt, and diminishing international interest in purchasing our treasury bonds)
Increased costs in the production of goods is another major contributor to inflation. These costs are passed along to the consumer in higher prices. Given the priorities announced by the administration it seems quite likely, in fact inevitable, that there will be initiatives that will make the cost of current forms of energy rise sharply, and that corporate taxes will be increased. These costs will be passed along.
Inflation then can begin to feed upon itself. Prices rise, including those associated with production of goods and services, which in turn causes prices to rise again. The traditional methods for attempting to stem inflation (increasing interest rates to slow down the supply of money) has its own deleterious side effects.
The wise solution it would seem is sound economic policy. Reduced governmental spending to prevent current and future debt. Reduced taxation to encourage economic activity and growth. Unfortunately it appears we are heading in exactly the other direction.

So now I know you're reading.

As I look down the list of previous posts to this site, and some of the weighty issues I've brought up, I have to confess surprise that it took a comment about Facebook to inspire comments from readers.
Fascinating!

Wow! An hispanic woman. Who would have guessed?

I'm a little disappointed that after less than 5 months in office President Obama is already SOOO predictable.
In keeping with his 'politics of identity' he has selected Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to the Supreme Court. An utterly predictable, political move.
While I could take up much space criticizing this nomination, (and may do so later) suffice for now to make the most cogent of all the arguments.
We've forgotten the most basic principles upon which our nation was framed by our inspired Founding Fathers. One of which is the apolitical nature of the judicial branch. The reason federal judges are not elected, and once appointed cannot be removed, is to prevent their appointments from becoming politicized.
Yeah, I know, sounds funny today.
There is not supposed to be any political litmus test for nominees. (Despite what you've heard from Sen. Schumer.) It shouldn't matter if a Justice is conservative, liberal, or anywhere in between. It shouldn't matter because a Justice is supposed to check those biases at the door. When the robe goes on, the politics and ideology go out.
Which brings us to the only legitimate litmus test for nominees to the courts. Are they able to elevate themselves above their biases and let justice truly be blind?
And it is this test which Sotomayor, based on her record and her own words, fails miserably.

Quick Hit

I now proclaim that anyone with a Facebook account has waived their right to complain about waiting in line, poor service, traffic congestion, etc.
You have, by your own actions, declared your time to be of little worth.

At what price freedom?

You may be following the story of young Daniel Hauser. He's the 14 year old boy, diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma, that went missing with his mother last week.
They ran to escape a court order mandating that he begin chemotherapy. His family objects to the procedure for religious reasons.
I would certainly make a different decision if it were my child. And a part of me is glad Daniel will now be getting the life saving treatments.
But I'm flabbergasted at the court's intrusion.
I imagine some of you reading this post agree with the judge's decision to issue the court order, overriding the wishes of Daniel's parents. After all, doctors say he'll die without the treatments. Surely any religious belief that causes parents to risk their child's life is irrational. Right?
But I think there is a higher principle at stake. Perhaps a couple. Religious freedom and parental rights.
How long will it be until a judge somewhere rules one of your religious practices to be irrational?

The Frog in the water

We all know the metaphor. A frog put in a pot of boiling water would jump right out. But a frog put in comfortable water will enjoy his jacuzzi while the heat is increased and the frog boils to death.
We have enjoyed the nice warm bath of freedom and free enterprise most of our lives. For those that have not noticed yet THE WATER IS GETTING HOT!

Our great-grandparents would have wretched at the idea of entrusting the government with the education of our youth.
Our grandparents would never have believed our parents would be dependent on the government for their healthcare in their senior years.
Our parents would not have believed their children would witness the nationalization of the banking and automobile industries. Or the use of every aspect of the tax codes to redistribute wealth from producers to non-producers. Or the diminishing of quality of life for 'global climate change' that may or may not be happening, may or may not be our fault, may or may not be bad, and may or may not be reversible. Or the degredation of our strength and position in the world at perhaps its most dangerous time in history.

What of freedom will be left for our children?

Barrack Corleone?

As a case in point of my previous post, "Shock and Awe", here are 3 items that have hit the news cycle in just the last 24 hours.
1. Chrysler executives, in the midst of bankruptcy and facing the poor public relations that generally accompany it, decided to spend $134 million in advertising over the next 9 weeks. But the federal Auto Task Force, chaired by President Obama, (who incidentally has never run a business and held only one private sector job) concluded that was too much and will allow Chrysler to spend only $67 million. That's right, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is making executive decisions for a a major corporation in the private sector. Apparently only tax dollars are suitable for squander.
2. President Obama is personally speaking with the credit card industry and "urging" them to make specific changes that he has outlined to their practices. He wants them instituted by Memorial Day.
3. Administration officials have proposed controls and caps on salaries paid to banking industry officials. Even those that have not received any money from the government.
Obama must be making them "offers they can't refuse".
It reminds me of a famous poem that I have slightly revised here:
They first came for the schools,
I didn't speak up because it was convenient.
Then they came for the wealthy,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't wealthy.
Then they came for big corporations,
I didn't speak up because I wasn't an executive,
Then they came for the gun owners,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a gun owner.
Then they came for our religious heritage,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't religious.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Shock and Awe!

We were first introduced to the phrase "Shock and Awe" at the beginning of the war in Iraq. It described the strategy of our military forces. We would go in with such overwhelming power that the enemy would be stunned and unable to effectively respond. It would seem that Pres. Obama has adopted a similar strategy.
Last year Obama ran for the presidency presenting himself as a centrist. I always knew he is very liberal, perhaps even crossing the line into Socialist. My anticipation was that after the election he would gradually reveal his liberalism through his proposals.
I was not prepared for the onslaught we are witnessing. Obama has revealed as much of himself in just over 100 days in office as I thought would take him 3 years. Perhaps he is emboldened by the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, and in the press. I think it may be his own "Shock and Awe" strategy.
Moderates and conservatives are finding it difficult to know where to engage. The ideas for tax hikes, government take-over of industry, weakened foreign policy, 'stimulus', bailouts, regulation, global warming, etc., are coming at us too fast and furious. Don't think that Janet Napolitano's warning that anyone to the right of Karl Marx is an "extremist" and potential domestic terrorist isn't part of this strategy. They are attempting to disarm the enemy. (That's us.) Many average citizens have simply surrendered, believing they can't make a difference. This explains why I've not been posting here. I withdrew into my shell.
I believe there is a time coming when it will have gone too far and the citizens will say "enough". I hope it will happen before it's too late to save our republic.

No experience required.

President-elect Obama has selected Leon Panetta to be CIA director. While Mr. Panetta is a very smart man, and by all accounts a very good one, he has no experience in Intelligence. There are many cabinet posts that simply call for men or women of good caliber and leadership abilities without necessitating any specific expertise. But the Intelligence department is one that calls for a professional with knowledge of the industry.
You wouldn't select a non-doctor to be Surgeon General or a non-lawyer to be Attorney General. Likewise CIA director is not the place for a purely political appointment.

Nation's biggest Ponzi scheme ever???

By now you are certainly aware of the swindler Bernard Madoff. He has confessed to operating a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is defined as follows:
When the organizers of the scheme use the assets of new investors to make profit payments to the old investors. The scheme typically has no other source of revenue other than from the new investors. Ponzi schemes, often called pyramid schemes, progress geometrically until they reach the point that the operators cannot find enough recruits (victims) to continue the payout.
Some in the press have described Madoff's crime as the the biggest Ponzi scheme in American history. I suggest they make themselves familiar with our Social Security system.
To be fair, there are some differences. Madoff tricked investors into voluntarily participating, and was actually using their money rather than investing it. For this he will certainly go to prison for the rest of his life.
Our government mandates that we participate, like it or not, and "invests" it into their own deficit spending. For this they are repeatedly reelected.
The differences are clear as mud.

Apocalypse Now- quick hit

Can there be any doubt that Al Franken being elected to the U.S. Senate is a sign of the Apocalypse? Thanks a lot Minnesota!
There is a silver lining. It is a testament to the American Dream that the nation's worst comedian, then the nation's worst radio personality, has the opportunity to become the nation's worst politician.