A picture worth a thousand words

Brevity is the soul of wit. This picture illustrates the story of America's last two years brilliantly.

The donkey meant well, but the job is just too big. Perhaps an elephant will do better.

By the way, since the donkey is the symbol for the Democrats, it seems it would be appropriate on several levels to assign a different title to Nancy Pelosi's Lame "Duck" session.

Until a lie becomes the truth?

For nearly two years now it's become a familiar mantra with a variety of metaphors: "I'm just mopping up their mess and they complain about the mop." or "They drove the car into the ditch and now they want the keys back.", etc.
I'm referring to Pres. Obama insisting that he's just trying to fix a mess left to him by "the Republicans" caused by their "failed policies". Few details are ever offered as to which policies he refers, and certainly the mainstream press never challenges him to be specific.
The error in this statement is that "the Republicans" weren't in charge when the economy began its descent. Sure there was a Republican president, but what is interesting to note is that the economy grew for years under that president despite some unprecented challenges. So what changed? Congress.
Check the timline above. Whenever the Democrats are given full power, they reveal their true agenda and the voters quickly dismiss them.

Wouldn't it be liberating to not care?

This election could have dramatic and wide ranging consequences. Every citizen should be interested and involved. And isn't that a shame?
I listened to an interesting exchange several days ago. One person was asked by another about the upcoming national election. The man responded with the opinion that he is a busy man and doesn't have time to worry about politicians. Taken aback the 1st man declared that we all need to be engaged because we will all be greatly effected by the results of this election. It became clear that the man had baited his interviewer when he responded, "Ah yes, and isn't THAT the issue?"
The point the man was trying to make was that, if the federal government was bound by the limitations intended by or founders, those of us that are busy raising families, running businesses, serving others, etc. would have the luxury of being disengaged from politics and following our passions without worrying about what the federal government would be up to. Actually, I shouldn't even need to refer to that as a 'luxury'.
The federal government has consistenty, systematically, grown beyond its intended charter regardless of which political party has been at the helm. Perhaps most of us are guilty of accepting increased intrusions so long as they impose a view with which we agree. The paradigm by which we've been conditioned to view elections is based on whether we will be governed from the right or from the left.
I wonder, from where we stand is it possible to return to the founding principles that we should largely be free to govern ourselves?

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.