Sunday, April 11, 2010

President Obama's new Nuclear policy

This guy never ceases to amaze me. When I am unable to conceive of any way he can further prove his naiveté, he confounds me by coming up with something new. Now, he wants to voluntarily tie one arm behind our back to make the fight fair, should another country attack us. Heaven forbid that we should respond to a biological or other attack killing Americans by being free to choose from our entire arsenal...Noooo, as long as they are not in violation of the non-proliferation treaty, we will leave the nuclear option out. Right...

Charles Krauthammer offered the best analogy:

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)

However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections."

This President has no idea what he is doing or...he wants to accelerate the demise of this country in favor of a new world order. You choose.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Beyond Obamacare...what it really portends

In 1961, Ronald Reagan delivered a speech about what socialized medicine really means. I offer it for your reading below, in full.

My name is Ronald Reagan. I have been asked to talk on several subjects that have to do with the problems of the day. It must seem presumptuous to some of you that a member of my profession would stand here and attempt to talk to anyone on serious problems that face the nation and the world. It would be strange if it were otherwise. Most of us in Hollywood are very well aware of the concept or the misconception that many people our fellow citizens have about people in show business. It was only a generation ago that people of my profession couldn't be buried in the church yard. Of course the world has improved since then, we can be buried now it's a matter of fact, the eagerness of somebody to perform that service gets a little frightening at times.
Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program. There are many ways in which our government has invaded the free precincts of private citizens, method of earning a living; our government is in business to the extent of owning more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to 1/5th of the total industrial capacity of the United States.
But at the moment I would like to talk about another one because this threat is with us, and at the moment, more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age, should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. This would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those that are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for social security.
Now Congressman Ferrand, brought the program out on that idea out , on just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the door philosophy, because he said, "If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can extend the program after that. Walter Ruth said, "It's no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance. And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American.
Now let us see what the socialist themselves have to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we can't say we haven't been warned.
Now Congressman Ferrand is no longer a Congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in the particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores that fact that 127 million of our citizens, in just 10 years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.
Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis and say, "What would you do? Throw these poor people out to die with no medical attention?"
That's ridiculous and of course no one is advocating it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mill bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works, they have introduced this King bill, which is really the Ferrand bill.
What is the Kerr/Mills bill? It is the frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens I have mentioned and it has provided from the federal government, money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the states to help those people who need it.
Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone regardless if they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they are protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.
I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time; socialized medicine.
James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, "Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
They want to attach this bill to social security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working.
Let's take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to another.
But let's also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. A doctor begins to lose his freedom, it's like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can't live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I'd feel if you my fellow citizens, that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theatre. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world's history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution just exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man's relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves, the God given right and ability, to determine our own destiny. This freedom is built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rules all that is needed. The "majority rule" is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minority.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
In Washington today, 40 thousand letters, less than 100 per congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking. Representative Hallock of Indiana has said, "When the American people wants something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want. So write, and if this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don't let him get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe government economy and fiscal responsibility, that you know governments don't tax to get the moneys the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say that he has heard from his constituents and this is what they want. Write those letters now and call your friends and them to write. If you don't, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other government programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don't do this and I don't do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free.

I suggest that if you do not like what it says, evaluate the contents logically and look for flaws...not emotionally, which misleads us generally, but with cold logic. Then, please consider the following:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism”, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” Norman M. Thomas

Thomas, a perennial candidate for president (1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948) also declared, “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

Quotes and facts from: ... ALISM.html

Friday, April 2, 2010

Who...really...should have the right to Vote?

Had a number of conversations recently about election results and why they turn out the way they do.There were no "light bulb" moments, but it started me thinking about our current national position that every adult, not convicted of a felony, has the right to vote.

I start with a question: Does this standard serve, support and protect the United States of America as a free democratic republic?

For the sake of this discussion, my answer is, "No."

Here is my reasoning. If the vote is "free", that is, your choice does not cost anything, then your vote will be more emotional than it is logical; it will be more self-serving than balanced; it will be ill-thought-through, because it doesn't cost, no risk, no consequences of note. I think a more logical position is that you must have a financial stake, an "ante" to put it in Poker terms, in the matter in order to vote. You should be a property owner, or a renter, or a tax-paying wage earner in order to vote...these requirements all in addition to a basic literacy test. Along with these requirements, I would require all rental leases to be Net, Net...that is, your rent would show the amount of your rent that pays Property Taxes separate from the rent that goes into the pocket of the Landlord, AND you would get to deduct that property tax on your tax returns. To vote, you would need to show a copy of your last years tax return proving that you have a "stake" in the outcome.

Those who are receiving government subsidies (welfare, grants of any kind, food stamps, etc.) would be ineligible to vote. After all, they have proven themselves unable, through bad luck or bad choices, to manage their own lives so as to at least break even so how can they be trusted to help make choices about running the country at any level?

This disability to vote is removed if and when they again become stake-holders who are positively contributing in the work force and helping to shoulder the cost of government.

OK...that is my reasoning. I do not declare it to be an ultimate answer or position, but to me it holds the promise of offering us the opportunity to get government that is selected on a balance of what we want and what we can afford, getting away from the efficacy of the "free lunch" promise that seems to have become so effective in electing officeholders for the past 30 years. But I would enjoy seeing criticisms that offer better ways of solving our present problem. What do you folks think?

(And lets stay away, for now, from the response that "we just can't change it." First we need a thorough discussion about what change might be beneficial before thinking about how, if at all, to get it done. Clearly if we can't arrive an a consensus about something that would be better, there is no reason at all to consider how to implement it.)