I am a 65 year old Yakima Washington resident. My wife (43 years of marriage) and I have two grown children and are negotiating the turning fortunes of our lives. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." My desire is to know Him.
I remember when I was a young adult, I would do or say things for the simple purpose of standing up for a principal. I think that the process of maturity is one where as a child, you don’t stand for anything accept, maybe your friends. Then you learn to stand for principal. This is the first step in adopting an “ideology”. My definition of an ideology is a set of beliefs that are adhered to even in the face of reality that shows them to be fallacious. If you mature further, then you realize that you need to line up with and stand for truth and reality and you discard your ideology if it conflicts with it.
Take for instance a young man, Justin Surber from Arlington, WA who belongs to the high school debate team. He obviously believes in the free exchange of ideas, even to the point of being controversial. He got all the attention he wanted when he showed up for the official debate team photo with the words, “God is dead” emblazoned on is T-shirt. His school refused to put the picture in their yearbook and that is when the notoriety of the issue increased across the Internet.
Of course young Justin Surber is quoting the famous existentialist Friedrich Nietzsche I remember in the 70’s when I was in college, Nietzsche’s claim was widely adopted by radical counter-culture people of the time. It was popular to pick up and run with that ideology. But the thing about ideologies is that they can be undone by the truth, if you allow truth to shatter the walls of your ideology. I know that because this happened to me.
I remember I was at a pub on campus one time and I had to go use the men’s room. In this particular pub, the graffiti on the wall of the men’s room was very different than your typical graffiti you see in the men’s room at the Shell Station. Some people who must have had a lot of time on their hands did some of their best philosophical work in there. But one thing caught my eye. Someone had chiseled into the paint of a stall the words “God is dead!” - Nietzsche. And just below that, in pen, another person wrote, “Nietzsche is dead!” – God.
For the past 3 months there has been an amazing avalanche of truth regarding AGW (anthropological global warming, or global warming caused by humans). From several sources it has been uncovered that not only had the data been selectively culled to produce results that support their theory, there had been a cover-up to perpetuate it. The press has still put a blanket of secrecy over it. You may have gotten wind of it. If you never venture outside of the main stream, then you will have only picked up on just a few ABC stories. Check with sites like CFACT and the Institute for Energy Research to get past the yellow truth police tape.
So, after you check, then I want you to ask yourself something. Do you agree with President Obama that “the debate is over’ concerning AGW? Do you believe that in spite of strong factual evidence, the case for global warming is solid and incontrovertible? If you do then concerning this topic, you are an ideologue.
An ideology is a very sophisticated belief system. It is at the top of the processing order. Now ideologies are not all evil. Some are. The Muslim “faith” is not a faith like Christianity, it is an ideology. In the face of facts Muslim terrorists default to believe in the ideology and perform horrific acts. They are quintessential ideologues as are religious zealots of any variety.
In my last post, I labeled President Obama an ideologue. He showed that he is sensitive to the issue when he brought up the subject with the Republican Congressmen.
Chuck Roger submitted a really well written article to American Thinker last week. It is worth reading because he identifies some beliefs that have been perpetuated by progressive ideologues.
Progressives endlessly hype disproved fallacies, among them:
Human-caused "climate change."
More guns, more crime.
Handouts improve the plight of the poor.
Raising taxes in a down economy doesn't impede recovery.
Playing nice-nice with violent scumbags pacifies them.
Raising self-esteem begets achievement, not the other way around.
He also points out something that is very interesting. You do not change an ideologue’s mind with data or facts. The ideologue has already made the choice to believe what he does in spite of facts.
Reality then is this: President Obama and the Progressives who are running the country believe these things and are shaping this country’s future to perpetuate them. Confronting them with facts will not work. The only way to change that is to change the leadership.
Ideologue – a person who steadfastly embraces a false belief or concept even when faced with the reality of facts to the contrary.
After the State of the Union address, President Obama accepted the challenge of Republican Congressmen and came to their retreat for a toe to toe conversation. Admire him for his courage in doing that. Actually, he would have never done that if he rung up a few victories over the past year. The fact that he was basically 0 for 2009 for his agenda probably forced him to play an away game.
One of the most amazing things about the liberals in control of our country right now is their “tell.” You know what a “tell” is. It is that signal that a person is unaware of, but is never-the-less there to let you know what is going on behind the mask. The best poker players are experts at recognizing the tell in their opponents. The funny thing is, liberal politicians are no good at disguising the tell. Martha Coakley did a masterful job of broadcasting her tell to her opponent, Scott Brown. Her impromptu remarks revealed that she had nothing in common with her constituents. She spoke out her tell very plainly when she ridiculed the notion that she should shake hands with people in front of Fenway Park. She did it again when she gaffed about Kurt Schilling. Brown used it to his advantage and did everything possible to identify with the people.
At the meeting with Republican Congressmen, Obama put up a fierce defense of himself. The most curious and telling remark he made was, “I am not an Ideologue!” Something should have happened at that point. The crowd should have gasped or perhaps broken out into spontaneous laughter.
Think about it. Where did that comment come from? There is an old saying that you know you are over the target when you start getting the flak. President Barack Obama, you are nothing but an Ideologue. When people look up the word in the dictionary, they should see your picture. The fact that he blurted out this “tell” shows that this is squarely on target. It wasn’t part of the discussion. It just came out of his mouth. This is the key. He knows he has clung to his false ideologies in the face of facts and reality. His mind is at war with itself in coming to grips with it.
I am going to develop the topic of Ideologue in future posts. I believe we need to recognize the ideologue in all of us. What’s more, I believe we are entering into a time where understanding the concept will be crucial to our future as Christians and citizens.
I thought about whether or not to post this video. It is getting to be several days old now. I think I will. Jon Stewart is brutally honest and does a tremendous job of explaining the reality of the recent win of Brown over Coakley in Massachusetts. This should win him an Emmy. But I doubt if any liberal will ever show it again. Question to think about as you watch it: Is he acting or is it real?
This is just one Senate seat. It is just one flip from Democrat to Republican. But you know how things can get projected. According to some people, the world has ended for the Democratic Party. I want to bring back some perspective.
Republicans have to be sure they understand: We cannot allow this to just be the start of a repositioning of people at the trough. It cannot simply be a change in who gets their pork. It has to be a change in how representative government is working in Washington.
A very astute pollster took readings on just when Coakley started losing in the polls and when Brown started gaining. It coincided with the disclosure of Ben Nelson’s Nebraska reward for changing his vote on Health Care. Even the predominantly Democratic people in Massachusetts had heard enough. Hats off to them for rising up and rejecting that kind of politics.
It is extremely ironic that Democrats have disparaged the tea party movement but in reality, participated in reenacting it in Massachusetts. This movement is not a stealth Republican movement. It is true to the original movement and true to the notion that representative government is what we demand from those we send to Washington be they Democrats, Republicans or independents.
The politics of buying political support has to be squashed. I guess that if you are from Chicago, you do not know any other way of doing politics. Kind of like how people in Tokyo like to eat dried squid. They just grew up with it. But it cannot be the way things are done in Washington anymore. This idea of getting something for me if I give my vote to you has to be purged from Washington. This system in its simplest form can cause bills to be passed that have no benefit to America on their face, but have enough perks for the magic number of supporters to get them through. That is what the Health Care bill had become.
A recognizable pattern of legislation under the Obama Administration has emerged. The title of the bill makes the public believe it is beneficial for them. The bulk of the content of the bill births and grows expensive bureaucratic agencies formed to watchdog the private sector. And the remainder of the content rewards individual Senators and Congressmen for their votes. It happened with the Stimulus Bill passed soon after Obama came into office. Americans because they aren’t all from Chicago, or Las Vegas recognized the game for what it was and got this bill stopped. Call us naïve’ or simplistic, but that is not the way we want to see politics work.
Perhaps we will see Democrats join in the tea party movement. The members of the original movement were their ancestors, too. Everyone wants representative government. No one wants to learn that their grandmother will not get the surgery she needs because New Orleans got an airport.
I started out today to write about the importance and the irony of the Massachusetts election this Tuesday. Then I saw this video. It is very short, very succinct, and very good. Enjoy.
Starting now, expect to read or hear very little from the major news outlets about the international UN Copenhagen Conference on climate change. Major news networks will now give the story the official ignore status. Why? Because it was a disaster. President Obama, risking his personal cred made an 11th hour journey to Copenhagen to exert influence on China to accept the agreement that was hammered out over the previous week. You don’t have to be a professional at reading body language to see how that went. It is sad that the picture below was taken. It is even sadder that it is the Administration’s official picture of Obama’s frank discussion with Wen Jaibao.
When Obama said China's stand on accountability would consign any deal to "empty words on a page", Wen walked out of the conference centre and went back to his hotel.
He later delivered an additional snub by sending a protocol officer to talk to Obama.
That is how you say in Chinese, "Cred? You don't have any cred!" What they were looking for was an agreement that the industrialized countries would pledge $100 billion annually to the rest of the world for their use while trimming their own productivity. They didn’t quite get there. The official agreement that the countries approved is the mutual feeling that someone should do something someday. And, the agreement was nonbinding. China’s President Wen Jiabao called the conference a success. For those global warmers who wanted each leader to give a positive spin, then there you go. To those who know the whole event, much less the cause is a total waste of time, then his remark works too.
So that is why it will have only the briefest of mention from the American Pravda from here on out. What also won’t be mentioned by them? Russia has just uncovered evidence that the geniuses who compiled the temperature data to prove global warming forgot to use all the data available from Russia (Siberia). Since they know the data, they know what should have been in the calculations. Ok, so Russia stole the British scientist’s hard drive. Someone should have been able to see their work to verify its accuracy years ago.
The Climategate scandal is another thing that American Pravda is avoiding. Google the word Climategate and you will see that while the issue is growing, the main news outlets haven’t uttered the word in two full weeks. The evidence is getting worse for the Inconvenient Truthers. It is getting to be that there is more news that the mainstream media is told to ignore than there is that they are allowed to report on.
About 10 days ago, the littlest member of our family came up lame. The vet told us that Charlie tore an ACL in his right rear leg. We hoped that it wasn't a comlete tear and that he would heal. But last Sunday, his left rear leg suddenly completely failed him. It was too much for it as he tried to make it do all the work. He was now virtually immobile and obviously in pain. The vet said Charlie couldn't go on without surgery and the nearest doggie surgeon was in Spokane.
Our son called long distance to make sure I was in agreement to take Charlie up there for the surgery. (Having been raised on a farm I guess I have a reputation of taking a more traditional and economic approach). But I also knew not to force a Charlie or me vote in the family.
So, yesterday Jill and Helen took Charlie up to Spokane. We prayed for a break in the weather and the snow and freezing rain subsided for their trip. Today, Charlie got his operation on his left rear leg, the worst one. The surgeon said ligaments on both sides were gone. He attached a tendon and said the operation was successful.
His football playing days are over, but we have hope he will still be able to play the piano.
Sarah Palin visits Richland! Wow! I might drive the 100 miles to go to her booksigning. Kind of funny when you think about it. If President Obama showed up in the empty lot across the street from my house I wouldn’t cross the street to see him. My dog would bark from the front window. But to see Sarah Palin, 100 miles is not too far.
This polarization of our society is very interesting. It is best reflected in an LA Times book review of her Going Rogue. The author of the review, Andrew Malcom does a great job of making an incredibly important point. He begins his book review talking about Palin’s life and history. He refers to her family life, her political life, and her strong moral compass. He talks about her difficult and trying 2008 campaign. Then he finally admits that he has yet to open the book to read it.
The amazing thing that he points out is that everyone is already convinced of what is in her book. Conservatives will tell you that it is down home, simple but profound in its portrayal of her bedrock beliefs. Liberals will tell you it is a compilation of clichés, “golly gee’s” and “you betcha’s” ; 413 pages of “conservative pop garbage”.
All of this says something really important about our society. We are all too busy to know the details. Malcom’s book review is great for his not having read it. It is also very profound in that no one cares if he read it. We just don’t want to be bogged down by the details of anything anymore. We have already made up our minds.
Malcom has exposed a very dangerous transition that our society has made. And those who understand that transition have done better in politics that those who still fight against it. Who would have thought that any President could send 1,300 pages of a spending bill to Congress, the largest spending bill in the history of our country, and get it passed without any Congressman or Senator actually bothering to read or understand what was in it and not receive the immediate wrath of the people for doing it? We need to understand what that means. We need to think about the implications of who we have become as a society. Are we so numb that we don’t care about the details of real life anymore? To make matter worse the Senate is about to pass a Healthcare Bill that makes no sense. Harry Reid gives us the summary: It will cost us less, save taxes.and provide better health care coverage. No need to read the contents, just vote yes. There is a great amount of opposition to it by people who want to read the content. But the understanding is that if the Senate passes it anyway, before the end of the year we will morph back into the we-don’t-really-care-about-details mode by next November.
I hope we do care. I hope we come alive and stay alive. We need to get real and not allow others the responsibility of our lives. What is printed behind the title page of the book or the bill really does matter. We are too quick to allow someone else to tell us what all these things really mean, not realizing that the person talking to us has an agenda to disguise the truth. The book, the bill, the Bible, . . . we end up trusting what other people tell us without opening them up to see for ourselves.
Sarah Palin's book is about her quest to get real. She discovered that she could not trust the "good old boys" even the ones in her party to look out for her interests. You may not like her as a person or a potential candidate, but to her, Going Rogue means reading the fine print, making up your own mind and not blindly going along with what others want you to believe.
If you want proof that the world is looking for a savior, you need no more proof than what has happened this week. The events are ironic. You may think they are unrelated but I know God allows us to look at ourselves because He want us to understand ourselves better. He wants us to understand what we fear and what we want.
The week started out by the Obama Administration making a tough decision to dis-invite the Dalai Lama. That wasn’t easy. Previous Presidents for the past 18 years have welcomed him at the White House. President Obama’s team., hypersensitive to criticism from the Chinese chose not to.
Who is the Dalai Lama? He is a person who woke up one day as a child only to discover that everyone in his world looked to him for ultimate guidance. It must have been a shock. From then on, he was surrounded by people who would write down every utterance. How long did it take for him to realize the power that he wielded? How long did it take for him to understand the responsibility? His words are like spiritual light sabers. A careless word in an unintentional direction could change a life. To the Tibetan people, he is the connection to the source of life and its path to the future. His role is to illuminate the way.
The Dalai Lama is not chosen, he is anointed. When the previous one died, the faithful Tibetan Monks set about to search for the child on whom the anointing had fallen. It is interesting that in anticipation of that occurring again, the Chinese Government recently made a law that he cannot be born in China.
Just think of the responsibility one has to be the anointed one. It makes you wonder. Being anointed where every word you say is taken so seriously must be hard on you. But then being rejected by those who are not part of the faithful must get to be even harder on you.
Barack Obama rejected the Dalai Lama. Then he woke up and found that a Norwegian Panel gave him the Nobel Prize, not for what he has done, but for what they hope he is. It turns out that they have been pouring over the words he has spoken. Do his words have the weight of anointing? They recorded them and studied them. Is this the anointed one? Perhaps he is the one. Oh I am not criticizing President Obama here. I am pointing out that like the Tibetans, western civilization is just as earnestly looking for that anointed one.
I think Obama should have invited the Dalai Lama in. I think that behind closed doors the Dalai Lama could have had a good talk with him. It would have done President Obama good. The Dalai Lama could have given him his little smile and they could have agreed that the world is a desperate place. It definitely needs a savior. And they aren’t it. Then they should have pulled together the old band Ten Years After and had them address the press on the Rose Garden.
"People of the world - Mr. Lama and I have something to share with you. And we have decided to let Alvin Lee do it."
A young lady, a very quiet young woman with a small child has been coming to church lately. She gave a testimony today that really took me by surprise. It was a testimony about how she came to know that God loves her. She had originally considered Him as a rule enforcer, lacking love. But she came to know Him as the One who loves her. He was with her in an ambulance ride when she died from complications of an asthma attack. He saved her.
But her testimony was not about that as much as it was about the fact that she is alright with the parts of her life that he hasn’t touched. She still has asthma. She still works hard and lives from paycheck to paycheck with her little son. She implored all of us to continue to let others know what He has done and what He is capable of doing. Perhaps he hasn’t done everything that we want, but He has done much more than we could have ever asked for. She encouraged us to live a life going forward as people who not only never give up, but as encouragers to others for the very same thing.
I felt convicted of my easy-believism. Thank God that He isn’t impatient with me. I have used some bad excuses for not coming through for Him. I have had many “important reasons” why I have postponed decisions to lay down something for Him. He has not given up on me even when I have taken an offense and threatened to give up on Him. The message, if it came from a Super Bowl Champion would mean very little to me. But the fact that an impassioned exhortation to never give up came from a small little lady who is believing that someday she will not have to have her inhaler, well, that impacted me. If she can encourage us to stand strong, then I can stand strong. If she can encourage us to continue to keep going and to praise Him every step of the way, then I can do that.
During the Iraq war, a Senator who was writing a highly controversial pro-war bill became concerned about his opposition. A private company, at the request of its customers researched how the bill would be bad for Americans and provided that information to the public. The Senator, upon hearing that, went to President Bush and complained about the company. The Administration then started an investigation of the private company, an action that served to intimidate and silence the company. Please note that simultaneously, the CBO came out with results that the company was right. The bill’s goal would be harmful to Americans.
How many ethics problems do you see? How oppressive has our government gotten? What does this say about freedom in America when people who oppose the government get the wrath of that government. Probably the biggest question is where was Press to tell on the government when all that happened?
Well the answer to the last question is easy. The Press was on the side of the President and so it covered up the news of the oppressive government agency retribution.
Do you believe that? Well actually I lied. That did not happen. But it just happened under the Obama Administration regarding its own war; Health Care. And Obama’s storm troopers have indeed jumped all over a private company that dared to publish information for the benefit of its customers that was critical of a Senator’s plans. This should be a headline. No matter what your party affilitation, you should be outraged. We are Americans and we have a right to freely express our opinions about any Senator’s or President’s proposed legislation without fear of retribution by government agencies. Ten years ago this would have been all over the headlines. It would have been exposed in the halls of our Capital. It is un-American. And it is being done without shame by our Government.
Just keeping tabs on the Health Care Reform efforts. Obama's team, including leaders in the House and Senate at one time thought they could muscle their Reform Bill through before the August recess. Opposition rose from the ordinary citizens.
In my April 29 post I mentioned Ghandi’s statement about real grass roots protest. He said, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
What has happened is fitting the pattern exactly. They chose to minimize the efforts of citizens who started turning out to protest their effort. Then they chose to vilify them. Then they chose to use violence against them. Now it appears that President Obama is going to come up with yet another plan that either eliminates, hides, or disguises the public option. His chances of getting it are slim at best. The reason is that daily, things are happening that show us that this issue is reaching its tipping point. Here are just a few of the latest developments.
Remember the black man who was beaten in St Louis on August 6 by Union members because he dared to protest the governments Health Care Reform plan? The thugs were caught red handed and arrested. One of the union men who is charged with the assault has applied to the union for Workman’s Comp! What? He got hurt on the job? Is their a thug union or something? So are there apprentice and journeyman thug designations? Do they stop beating up innocent people to take coffee breaks? People are outraged and unions are losing popularity again.
President Obama plans to take his new plan directly to the people. But as he snapped his fingers for the 4 big networks to provide prime time coverage he learned something. He can’t out-perform “America’s Got Talent”. Dana Loesch reports that all four are telling the Obama Administration the same thing they told “Dirty Sexy Money”, “My Name is Earl”, and “Harper’s Island”. “We are done losing money showing your dog and pony show on prime time!”
Now that the August recess is over the gatherings to protest the Administration’s Health Care proposal are on the decline, right? Today in Cincinnati 7,000 people were predicted to show up. Oops! It turned out to be 18,000! This being the beginning of college football, they were concerned about a small showing. The reality is that the phenomenon is still growing.
With each day, with each development like the ones above, more and more people are scraping Obama stickers off their bumpers.
There were many town hall meetings across the land this past week.Some estimate that there were over 1,000.(I am sticking to that modest number because it is perhaps better to understate the size and velocity of the anti-Democratic Healthcare Plan movement).I know in Yakima there was a 2nd gathering in the space of two weeks.
In Clark County, Washington, Congressman Brian Baird got name recognition a few weeks ago when he used the words “brown shirt tactics” and “lynch mobs” in describing town hall attendees.To his credit, he held another Town Hall meeting after those remarks.It created another unforgettable moment that hopefully brought clarity to the topic Baird spoke of.
The speaker in the green shirt, David Hedrick said afterword, "I was one questioner out of 38, that was called at random from an audience that started at 3,000 earlier in the evening. Not expecting to be called on, I quickly scratched what I wanted to say on a borrowed piece of paper and with a pen that I borrowed from someone else in the audience minutes before I spoke. So much for the planned talking points of the right wing conspiracy. "
Congressman Baird supports a bill in Congress that is being written by lawyers who were elected by no one. Was he elected to represent the wishes of Washington DC lawyers? At another Town Hall meeting, a Congressman tried to explain that he didn't write the bill even though he was supporting it. Someone from the crowd yelled back for him to go get the lawyers who are writing it then. "Apparently that is who we need to be talking to!"
As you know, there was a collection of people with signs in front of your office in Yakima recently. They showed up to make their feelings known about the Health Care bill you are considering. They knew you were not going to be there but they took time from their busy schedules to come anyway. Why weren’t you there?
If any American were to list the duties of our elected officials in Washington, somewhere at the top of the list would be the purpose of listening to your constituents so as to better represent them in Washington. THAT IS YOUR JOB. It may be unpleasant for you. It may be bothersome for you, but it is clearly something we are paying you to do. Every person who showed up set aside their busy schedules to be there. None were paid. You are paid for precisely that and you conveniently avoided the scene. If you would have shown, it appears to me that you would have been the youngest one there. Are you afraid of facing people decades older than you?
Part of the profound frustration of people today is your refusal to stand in their midst and listen to them. You have been a leader in slick website propaganda, and the phone “teleconference” meetings that sound just like the slick AARP teleconference meetings. But we have come to the point that we are extremely tired of being manipulated by this full court press to pass what you have been told to pass concerning our health care. It is clear that you represent the Washington DC lawyers’ interests and your purpose is to tell us what we get. Have you grown so “professional” that you have lost site of the fact that your job is to do just the opposite?
The fact that you are just too busy to come here on your recess and listen to your own constituents in front of your own office is the answer to that question. On your website you try to portray that you are “fighting” for health care reform. Your rejection of the opportunity to hear your own people’s profound frustration tells us clearly who you are fighting against.
There are no facts, there are no figures, there is no history that could ever lead us to believe that the public option insurance plan is workable. History is full of facts and non-partisan experts have many figures to show us that a federally created and run health insurance option is unworkable, unsustainable, costly, and ruinous. Please join us to reject such an ill-conceived notion.
One of the best criticisms of the whole Health Care debate involves the unbeleivably high pressure put on Congress to get the bill approved.With 20% of the economy all wrapped up in this issue, people are wondering why they are insisting on the frenetic pace to get to the bill approved.I am paraphrasing, but one man remarked, “It took President Obama 6 months to choose the White House dog.Why do we have to have this monumental plan done in 6 weeks?”
The Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.They introduced a horribly complex bill that would impact every person in the country in the most profound way and then tried to rush the approval process. Fortunately, the citizens of this country are not serfs but are educated human beings.Given just a little time, they can read the bill.
What follows is very long.You may not want to read it all.I don’t blame you.Our Congressmen and Senators have not read their own versions of the bill and they certainly do not want to read these 20 questions.President Obama hasn’t read the bill and doesn’t want to answer specific questions about it.These questions come from Robert Tracinski by way of Pamela Geller’s website, Atlas Shrugs.They both encourage us to go to our own Town Hall meetings and ask questions such as these.
1. The government has been "reforming" health-care for sixty years—tax breaks for employer-provided health-insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, encouraging HMOs and managed care, and government health-insurance at the state level in Massachusetts, Maine, Oregon. Government health-care has expanded until it is now more than 50% of all health-care spending. Yet after sixty years of government "reform," the problems with health-care are just getting worse. So why should we believe that even more government is the solution?
2. President Obama keeps telling us that he's not trying to get rid of private health insurance. But the bill being debated in Congress would require all new insurance policies to be offered through a government-run exchange, in which the rates that can be charged and the coverage that has to be provided will be dictated by the government's so-called "Health Choices Commissioner." Employer-provided health-insurance will fall under the same regulations in five years. How is this insurance going to be "private" if the government controls everything about it?
3. A video on YouTube shows Barack Obama back in 2003—only six years ago—saying that he is in favor of a "single payer" system. The "single payer" is government, so this means he was in favor of socialized medicine. And just a few weeks ago, Barney Frank—one of the Democratic leaders in the House—said that he considers the current bill a step toward "single payer." So when Obama and the Democrats tell us this bill won't lead to a government takeover of health-care, why should we believe them?
4. Medicare is broke. Social Security is broke. Federal tax receipts are falling, and Congress has already voted on trillions of dollars of stimulus and bailouts in the last year. The national credit card is maxed out. So how can you justify voting for a bill that will require even more money that we don't have?
5. The health-care bill that is being discussed includes huge taxes on businesses to force them to provide more health insurance for their employees, as well as a whole set of mandates telling health insurance companies who they have to cover and what they have to cover them for. This is an enormous increase of costs for businesses and insurers. Have you considered how they're going to pay for all of this, or whether they will even be able to pay for it? How many of these companies will go out of business or lay off more workers after the government forcibly increases their expenses?
6. One of the main demands of the health-care bill is that insurers are required to cover people with "pre-existing conditions." That's like getting insurance on your car after you crash it. It's just a way of getting someone to bail you out for something that has already happened. This isn't insurance, it's a handout. So doesn't that mean that the rest of us will have to pay more for our insurance to absorb the cost of those handouts?
7. The health-care bill will mandate what costs insurance companies have to cover. For example, they will have to pay for routine check-ups and physicals, or they will have to provide every woman with maternity coverage. But what if you don't want to pay for that extra coverage? Right now, if you're young and healthy and don't need frequent check-ups, you can save money with a high-deductible insurance that doesn't cover them. Or if you don't want children, or already have children, you can save money by dropping the maternity rider on your policy. By taking those choices away from us, won't this bill actually make our insurance more expensive, not less?
8. A lot of people have been upset about Congress passing bills that they haven't had time to read—and they haven't even finished writing the health-care bill yet. But what I want to know is, with a bill this big and complex, have you taken the time to read it and understand it? Can you really say that anyone has had the time to figure out how all the parts will work together and what all of the consequences will be? With a bill this big, is it even possible to figure out all of that and really know what you're voting for?
9. President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making us a lot of promises about what we will get and what we won't get from this health-care bill. But what is or isn't in this one particular bill is not the end of the story. For example, how many times has Medicare changed over the last forty years? As more and more of us become dependent on the government for our health-care coverage, won't we have to worry about what some future Congress or some future bureaucrat will decide to cover or not cover?
10. The defenders of the health-care bill claim that it's going to lead to all sorts of savings, not by actually cutting any services or denying care, but just by finding "inefficiencies" that will save money. Do you think this is remotely plausible? When has anybody ever said, "This project has to be lean and efficient—let's get the government do it"?
11. One of the ways that has been proposed for government-provided health insurance to save money is by substituting Medicare reimbursement rates for market rates when paying doctors and hospitals. But many private hospitals and medical practices have said that if they have to accept these lower rates, they can't cover their expenses, and they will go out of business. So doesn't this bill guarantee an immediate shortage of doctors and medical services?
12. Medicare cuts costs by paying lower rates to doctors and hospitals, who then shift these costs to those of us with private health insurance, who get charged higher rates. But if the government takes over and starts dictating Medicare reimbursement rates for everyone, who will the costs get shifted to then?
13. When the government starting portraying people in the financial industry as villains and started limiting their pay and subjecting them to more regulations, banks reported a "brain drain" as smart and well-educated people left the industry or went overseas looking for better pay and less stress. But the term "brain drain" was originally coined in the 1960s when doctors and medical researchers left Britain to escape socialized medicine. Aren't you afraid we might see the same kind of brain drain from the medical profession here in America?
14. Do you know the meaning and significance of the term "quality adjusted life year"? (For this question, you will need the answer, which you can supply if your congressman is forced to admit that he doesn't know it—preferable after some stammering and a long, awkward pause. "Quality adjusted life year" is a term used under socialized medicine to determine whether elderly patients are allowed to get expensive drugs or treatments, depending on some bureaucrat's calculation of how many good years they have left. You should ask your congressman: Can you assure us that the same thing won't happen here?)
15. One of the proposals for how the government is going to save money is that it's going to have a panel of medical experts who will dictate from Washington, DC, what the proper medical practices are that should be paid for, and what practices are supposedly "wasteful" and "unnecessary." Won't this mean interfering with decisions that would normally be made by me and my doctor? And won't this discourage innovation by requiring any new idea to get approved by a board of establishment "experts" before a doctor can even try it out?
16. Government-run health-care is not some new, untested idea. In Britain, it has led to a "postcode lottery," where the medical procedures you are allow to get depend on where you live. In Canada, it has led to a shortage of doctors and waiting lists for major surgeries. In America, Medicare ended up costing far, far morethan anyone expected. Massachusetts and Maine spent enormous amounts of money to extend government coverage to very few people. The Oregon Health Plan may not cover your cancer treatment—but it will cover assisted suicide. Given all of this experience, what makes you think that somehow this will be the exception that will avoid all of the problems that government health-care has always led to?
17. Why does "reform" always mean more government? Are you aware of proposals that have been put forward for free-market reforms of health care? Congress has already approved Health Savings Accounts, where individuals buy their own high-deductible health insurance and save money tax-free, which they can use for their out-of-pocket health-care expenses. This gives people more control over their spending on routine medical treatments while keeping them covered for a serious illness, and it allows them to keep their health insurance if they change jobs. But this program has been limited in size. Are you open to ideas like this, for free-market reform of health-care?
18. A lot of doctors say that medical malpractice insurance is what is really driving up health-care costs. Doctors have to charge more to cover their expenses, and they also have to practice "defensive medicine," ordering unnecessary extra tests just to make sure they can defend themselves in court if something goes wrong. So why isn't tort reform—for example, limiting excessive jury awards in malpractice lawsuits—being considered as part of health-care reform?
19. What part of your decision on this bill, if any, is affected by a consideration for liberty, individual rights, and the Constitution? Would you consider opposing this bill for no other reason than because it gives more power to government at the expense of the freedom and property rights of private businesses and individuals? Would you consider opposing it simply because it grants powers to the government that are not authorized anywhere in the Constitution?
20. Thomas Jefferson said, "A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." Notice what is not on his list: government-provided housing, or government-provided food, or government-provided health care. And Jefferson's views on the role of government were widely shared by America's Founding Fathers. So my question is: Please explain where you disagree with the vision of our Founding Fathers, and why.
If every Congressman and Senator took the time to answer these questions, their intelligence, love for the people they are supposed to serve, and integrity would become absolutely clear to all of us.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Groucho Marx once said "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
Both President Obama and Senator Patty Murray emailed me tonight.Both emails came within 10 minutes of each other.Both had the same message.Their health care plan is good for you.The lead off good thing they both are excited about and are are offering America is this: Senator Murray:“insurance companies would no longer be able to refuse coverage to individuals due to preexisting conditions.” President Obama told me this: “No discrimination for pre-existing conditions.”I wrote back to pose this question:
Wow.That is good.But let’s think about that.Let’s say we got the same deal with auto insurance.Let’s say that auto insurance companies couldn’t turn us down for our automobile’s preexisting condition.Sweet!That means I can drive uninsured and then go get insurance after I wreck my car!Let’s apply the same principal to life insurance.And let’s apply the same idea to fire insurance for our houses.I wonder how long it would take before insurance companies would go broke.Why would you sign up for insurance before you needed it if there was no downside to waiting until after you needed it?
Sarah Palin has again diverted all attention towards her. Remember during the campaign when Barack Obama was going to do his big speech in Denver? All eyes were on him. Then out of nowhere, McCain announced his new running mate. She immediately took center stage. You know that Obama’s team was stunned by the fact that she was stealing attention away from him like they had never seen before. Well, she is back.
Yesterday’s announcement was calculated to have a similar affect. It was another out-of-the-blue moment. Just when the people who hate her had been put on their heels, she took center stage again. This time she doesn’t have just a few short months to gain support. She has three full years. And during that time, Obama will have to get used to the fact that he will be sharing the front page with her. What does that mean? There will now be a countering voice that will make it to print and will be heard on mainstream TV.
Oh, the radical left will not be on their heels for long. You can already feel them gearing up. Make no mistake, they hate her. They have already announced that her quitting her job in Alaska has somehow disqualified her from going on. Well, let’s see. That decision is best made by people who will vote, not by people who hate her. And, ironically enough, if she runs, Obama’s best criticism of her is her lack of experience. All he has to do is point out how his lack of experience has really messed things up.
One of the themes that I keep coming back to is the one where the Main Stream Media has willingly allowed the Obama Administration to use it as its own tool to reshape truth and reality.There are deniers in my audience, which is curious because the fact is not hidden anymore by the media, itself.Anyone who continues to deny this is most likely practicing an extremely high degree of personal censorship, choosing only to access media that stays within the confines of the approved party-think .So much for freedom.
What is great about these times is that no sooner do I post my concerns about something than something happens out there that documents it better than I ever could.Such is the case here.Doubly so.
First is the case of Helen Thomas.She is the Grand Old Dame of the Washington Press Corp that goes all the way back to the Nixon years.Her seniority with this group has been something that has been honored for decades by Democrat and Republicans alike.She is the one who signals the end of the Press Conferences by saying “Thank-you, Mr. President.”Obama changed the event format by selecting a planted blog reporter who was armed with a known question.Then, when he grew weary of answering questions, obviously skipping over Helen Thomas, one of his own staffers rose and said, “Thank-you Mr. President.”I hope this is a wake-up call for her. With past Presidents she was known for asking the question that he didn't want to be asked. Wouldn't that be a change for President Obama?
Second, we have the Buy Your Influence Right Here event fully sponsored by the Washington Post.Powerline gets to the essence of the matter.WAPO, upon discovering that its slip was showing, has done some serious back-tracking since they broadcasted the flier for the event. It is so blatant in its unabashed effort to formalize and galvanize a WAPO/lobbiest/Administration group for the purpose of policy making that its own Editors were shocked and horrified. I am impressed that some in their organizatoin are still fighting for a remnant of intgertiy. Why bother? Just change your name to PRAVDA and go with it.
A couple of interesting observations about the WAPO fiasco. First, it was an "evil " lobbiest who recognized the ethics problem and broke the story, not newsmen or Administration people. Second, apparently the New York Times has made it a front page story. Wow, so much for professional courtesy. That means it might even get to the networks. Do I detect cracks in the armor?
