This post is a brief comparison of a few select presidents. I compare the pre-presidential governmental experiences of a few past presidents with that of Barack Obama.
George Washington:
- Major, military district of Virginia (1752)
- Lieutenant Colonel in the French and Indian Wars (1754-58)
- Commander in Chief, Virginia Forces (1755-58)
- Virginia House of Burgesses (1758-1774)
- Justice of the Peace (1760-1774)
- Member of the First Continental Congress (1774)
- Member of the Second Continental Congress (1775)
- Commander of the Continental army (1775-1783)
- President of the Constitutional Convention (1787)
- First President of the United States (1789-1796)
Thomas Jefferson:
- Member of the Virginia House of Burgesses (1769-74)
- Member of the Second Continental Congress (1775-76)
- Primary Author of the Declaration of Independence (1776)
- Member of the Virginia House of Delegates (1776-1779)
- Governor of Virginia (1779-1781)
- Member of Confederation Congress (1783-1784)
- Minister to France (1785-1788)
- Secretary of State (1789-1793)
- Vice President of the United States (1797-1801)
- President of the United States (1801-1809)
Abraham Lincoln:
- Short military service: enlisted man in the Black Hawk War, captain of a company of volunteers, private in the mounted Rangers, and member of the Independent Spy Corps
- Postmaster of New Salem (1833-36)
- Served four terms in the Illinois legislature (1834-1841) as a Whig
- Opened his own law firm in Springfield, Illinois with several partners (1837)
- US House of Representative (1847-49)
- Received a patent for a device “to buoy vessels over shoals” (1849)
- Appeared before the Illinois Supreme Court 175 times, 51 times as sole counsel and of which 31 were decided in his favor
- Accepted the Republican nomination for Senate in 1858
- Elected 16th President of the United States (1860)
Theodore Roosevelt:
- Wrote and published The Naval War of 1812 (1882); published a total of 13 books before becoming President of the United States
- New York State Assemblyman for three one-year terms (1881-1884)
- Deputy Sherriff in the Dakota Territory
- U.S. Civil Service Commissioner, Washington (1889-1895)
- President of the board of New York City Police Commissioners (1895-1897)
- Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1897); prepared the Navy for Spanish-American War
- Formed the First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, known as the “Rough Riders,” and served as its Lieutenant-Colonel earning himself a posthumous Medal of Honor in 2001
- Governor of New York (1898- 1900)
- Vice President of the United States (1900)
- President of the United States (1901-1909)
Barack Obama:
- Attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years; transferred to Columbia University in New York and graduated in 1983 with a degree in political science
- Community organizer with low-income residents in Chicago’s Roseland community and public housing developments on Chicago’s south side (1985-1988)
- Attended Harvard Law School (1988-91); first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review
- Civil Rights Lawyer for Miner, Barnhill & Galland in Chicago (1993-96)
- Lecturer of Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School (1992-96), and a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004 during which he worked part-time teaching 3 courses per year
- Organized “Project Vote” for the voter registration drive for the 1992 presidential campaign (April to October)
- Won a Grammy for the audio version of his 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
- Elected Illinois State Senator (1996) after the only other candidate dropped out of the race; served three terms (1997-2004)
- United States Senator (2005-08); missed 82 of his chamber’s 346 (23.7%) votes during the two-year session while campaigning for the office of president
- Published The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (2006)
- Elected 44th President of the United States (2008)
It is not necessary to highlight the steady diminution in patriotic and governmental service of those seeking the office of the president, even though this list is quite brief. But what I do attempt to explain, though trying to avoid oversimplification, is the significance of knowing exactly who you are voting for. President Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and all the others did not know what would be encountered during their years in the White House. But in a providential way, their early governmental experiences prepared each for the challenges they encountered. The collective governing record of Barack Obama is an unfortunate harbinger of social, economical and legislative rulings to come, and it is we the voters who will pay the price. And nine months into his reign, it is already a historically lavish price tag for us and future generations.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Where's The Letter Czar When You Need Him?
The Department of Health and Human Services placed a gag order preventing private health insurance companies from communicating to their Medicare Advantage customers how the pending health care legislation, if passed, could impact them. Last week, Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Chairman, ordered Medicare regulators to investigate and likely punish Humana Inc. for sending out a mailer to its Advantage plan customers (senior citizens) that mislead and “confused beneficiaries.”
Mr. Blum, the acting director of a regulatory office in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), informed Humana of its investigations, and further banned all Advantage contractors from informing their customers what Congress is currently debating and discussing regarding health care.
But it gets better. Who is Mr. Blum? The former senior aide to Mr. Baucus, former health care policy adviser on Obama’s transition team, and now the acting director of the CMS. Mr. Blum’s former boss, Max Baucus, is the one who originally asked the CMS to investigate the companies critical of the health care bill.
Wait…better still. The letter Humana sent to its customers warned that Democratic plans to reform health care could result in benefit cuts, conclusions that the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) supports with its own assertions made to Max Baucus’ committee. On Tuesday, the CBO director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Finance Committee that its plan to cut $123 billion from Medicare Advantage (the program that gives almost ¼ of all seniors’ private health insurance options) will result in lower benefits and almost 2.7 million seniors losing their coverage.
Baucus believes that Humana is purposefully misleading seniors in just another scare tactic. I’m sure it has nothing to do with Humana, a private insurance company, tending to the needs and interests of its own customers, and honestly informing them of the damaging democratic plans to overhaul health care. Since the Obama administration has been so welcoming to opposing points of views, not only meticulously reviewing the Republican versions of health care reform, but also responding to the concerns of millions of American citizens, I’m sure the recent gag order coming from his own appointee to silence unfavorable statistics is simply a coincidence.
And then we have the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP) who has spent millions of dollars on its TV ad campaign and newsletters to its members, including eight million direct-mail letters sent over Labor Day. On its own website, AARP claims that the proposed health care reform will not in any way cut benefits or increase expenses for seniors. AARP markets its version of the Advantage plan, through United HealthCare, and boasts 1.7 million customers. And by the way, AARP happens to be one of the most powerful lobbying groups on Capitol Hill.
I’m sure their letter from Mr. Blum just got lost in the mail, even though our post office is an exceptional example of government funds well managed and budgeted. Just ask Obama.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574431212166204156.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/24/hhs-1997-prohibiting-hmos-informing-clients-pending-legislation-viola
Mr. Blum, the acting director of a regulatory office in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), informed Humana of its investigations, and further banned all Advantage contractors from informing their customers what Congress is currently debating and discussing regarding health care.
But it gets better. Who is Mr. Blum? The former senior aide to Mr. Baucus, former health care policy adviser on Obama’s transition team, and now the acting director of the CMS. Mr. Blum’s former boss, Max Baucus, is the one who originally asked the CMS to investigate the companies critical of the health care bill.
Wait…better still. The letter Humana sent to its customers warned that Democratic plans to reform health care could result in benefit cuts, conclusions that the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) supports with its own assertions made to Max Baucus’ committee. On Tuesday, the CBO director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Finance Committee that its plan to cut $123 billion from Medicare Advantage (the program that gives almost ¼ of all seniors’ private health insurance options) will result in lower benefits and almost 2.7 million seniors losing their coverage.
Baucus believes that Humana is purposefully misleading seniors in just another scare tactic. I’m sure it has nothing to do with Humana, a private insurance company, tending to the needs and interests of its own customers, and honestly informing them of the damaging democratic plans to overhaul health care. Since the Obama administration has been so welcoming to opposing points of views, not only meticulously reviewing the Republican versions of health care reform, but also responding to the concerns of millions of American citizens, I’m sure the recent gag order coming from his own appointee to silence unfavorable statistics is simply a coincidence.
And then we have the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP) who has spent millions of dollars on its TV ad campaign and newsletters to its members, including eight million direct-mail letters sent over Labor Day. On its own website, AARP claims that the proposed health care reform will not in any way cut benefits or increase expenses for seniors. AARP markets its version of the Advantage plan, through United HealthCare, and boasts 1.7 million customers. And by the way, AARP happens to be one of the most powerful lobbying groups on Capitol Hill.
I’m sure their letter from Mr. Blum just got lost in the mail, even though our post office is an exceptional example of government funds well managed and budgeted. Just ask Obama.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574431212166204156.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/24/hhs-1997-prohibiting-hmos-informing-clients-pending-legislation-viola
Monday, September 14, 2009
Do Your Homework
Van Jones stepped down as the “green jobs” czar last week. Great, he should leave. Jones is a radical liberal and self-professed communist who was exposed largely because of independent thinkers with a microphone. With Jones out, it’s time the other czars indisputably chosen for such prominent positions by Obama and his administration are exposed for their worldviews. Expose their character and their beliefs, and if needed, take action once again to protect the interests of Americans.
Don’t wait for someone else to look into these czars. Do your homework. My choice for the next target: Cass Sunstein. On September 9th, the same day as President Obama’s speech to congress on health care, Harry Reid (D-NV) pushed for cloture (a method used to close a debate and cause an immediate vote) for the confirmation of Sunstein as the “regulatory czar.” Conveniently, while the media and much of the informed public focused on Obama’s Trojan horse, the senate rushed into voting on a man they probably know little about. How can I be so sure they don’t know who he is? Because this is Cass Sunstein:
- In a speech at Harvard University in 2007, Sunstein expressed his animal rights views. He stated that hunting should be banned, and that subjecting animals to such unjustified suffering is akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.
- He believes the Second Amendment does not protect and individual’s rights to bear arms.
- He believes that animals should have the right to bring suit against human beings, with a human as its attorney, because animals are not property to own. (No, I’m not making that up.)
- He does believe, however, that animals should have the right to own property.
- In his 2001 book, “Republic.com,” he argued that the Internet weakens democracy because it allows citizens to isolate themselves within groups of like-minded individuals, thus cutting themselves off from information that challenges their beliefs, also known as “cyberbalkanization.” Further, he said that the internet must be regulated for “democratic principles.”
- He believes we should have a second bill of rights because no one really opposes government intervention. This “second bill” would advocate citizens’ rights to an education, a home, health care, and a right to protection against monopolies because the Constitutional framers didn’t give thought to social and economic guarantees in the Bill of Rights.
- In his 2004 book “The Second Bill of Rights,” he stated that citizens’ rights exist only to the extent that the government grants them.
- He is a believer in the concept of “libertarian paternalism,” which promotes the concept that regulators will gently “nudge” citizens into making choices they (the regulators) deem are appropriate, thus rewarding citizens for those appropriate choices (a theory he wrote about in his 2007 booked called “Nudge”).
This is America’s regulatory czar; the head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Every piece of major regulation will sit on his desk until he takes a red pen to it. The internet, television and radio will be well within his realm of jurisdiction. This former Harvard Law Professor will be in the back pocket of radical groups such at PETA who salivate with the idea that animals are equal citizens with you and I.
Hours before Obama’s health care speech, Sunstein was overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate in a 63-35 vote. Numerous republicans and all but three democrats voted yes. Our senators voted for a man who has so perverted the original intent of our founding documents and has every intention of influencing society to an extent that could become principally unrecognizable.
Richard Epstein, a liberal law professor at University of Chicago and co-editor with Sunstein of a book about the 2000 elections, supported his confirmation “notwithstanding the many substantive disagreements between us.” Glenn Reynolds, the libertarian blogger and law professor remarked that Sunstein’s confirmation “shows that the Obama administration is perhaps willing to look at new and less intrusive approaches to regulation … there are a lot of people worthy of more concern than Sunstein. If I were advising Republicans, I’d tell them to focus their attention elsewhere.” Too many of the Republican Senators did just that.
Place a frog in boiling water and it will jump out, but start with luke warm water, raise the temperature slowly, and eventually you’ll have frog legs for dinner. This simple concept is what too many extremists within our government understand and are implementing, and what too few conservatives fail to recognize.
It is time for the principles and morality that has served this country (and the world) well for over 200 years to make a quick comeback. The temperature is rising. Jump out of the pot… and fight.
Sources:
http://washingtonindependent.com/58152/attacks-on-sunstein-frustrate-conservative-fans
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2156473/is_cass_sunstein_the_next_van_jones_pg2.html?cat=9
http://stopsunstein.com/
Don’t wait for someone else to look into these czars. Do your homework. My choice for the next target: Cass Sunstein. On September 9th, the same day as President Obama’s speech to congress on health care, Harry Reid (D-NV) pushed for cloture (a method used to close a debate and cause an immediate vote) for the confirmation of Sunstein as the “regulatory czar.” Conveniently, while the media and much of the informed public focused on Obama’s Trojan horse, the senate rushed into voting on a man they probably know little about. How can I be so sure they don’t know who he is? Because this is Cass Sunstein:
- In a speech at Harvard University in 2007, Sunstein expressed his animal rights views. He stated that hunting should be banned, and that subjecting animals to such unjustified suffering is akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.
- He believes the Second Amendment does not protect and individual’s rights to bear arms.
- He believes that animals should have the right to bring suit against human beings, with a human as its attorney, because animals are not property to own. (No, I’m not making that up.)
- He does believe, however, that animals should have the right to own property.
- In his 2001 book, “Republic.com,” he argued that the Internet weakens democracy because it allows citizens to isolate themselves within groups of like-minded individuals, thus cutting themselves off from information that challenges their beliefs, also known as “cyberbalkanization.” Further, he said that the internet must be regulated for “democratic principles.”
- He believes we should have a second bill of rights because no one really opposes government intervention. This “second bill” would advocate citizens’ rights to an education, a home, health care, and a right to protection against monopolies because the Constitutional framers didn’t give thought to social and economic guarantees in the Bill of Rights.
- In his 2004 book “The Second Bill of Rights,” he stated that citizens’ rights exist only to the extent that the government grants them.
- He is a believer in the concept of “libertarian paternalism,” which promotes the concept that regulators will gently “nudge” citizens into making choices they (the regulators) deem are appropriate, thus rewarding citizens for those appropriate choices (a theory he wrote about in his 2007 booked called “Nudge”).
This is America’s regulatory czar; the head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Every piece of major regulation will sit on his desk until he takes a red pen to it. The internet, television and radio will be well within his realm of jurisdiction. This former Harvard Law Professor will be in the back pocket of radical groups such at PETA who salivate with the idea that animals are equal citizens with you and I.
Hours before Obama’s health care speech, Sunstein was overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate in a 63-35 vote. Numerous republicans and all but three democrats voted yes. Our senators voted for a man who has so perverted the original intent of our founding documents and has every intention of influencing society to an extent that could become principally unrecognizable.
Richard Epstein, a liberal law professor at University of Chicago and co-editor with Sunstein of a book about the 2000 elections, supported his confirmation “notwithstanding the many substantive disagreements between us.” Glenn Reynolds, the libertarian blogger and law professor remarked that Sunstein’s confirmation “shows that the Obama administration is perhaps willing to look at new and less intrusive approaches to regulation … there are a lot of people worthy of more concern than Sunstein. If I were advising Republicans, I’d tell them to focus their attention elsewhere.” Too many of the Republican Senators did just that.
Place a frog in boiling water and it will jump out, but start with luke warm water, raise the temperature slowly, and eventually you’ll have frog legs for dinner. This simple concept is what too many extremists within our government understand and are implementing, and what too few conservatives fail to recognize.
It is time for the principles and morality that has served this country (and the world) well for over 200 years to make a quick comeback. The temperature is rising. Jump out of the pot… and fight.
Sources:
http://washingtonindependent.com/58152/attacks-on-sunstein-frustrate-conservative-fans
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2156473/is_cass_sunstein_the_next_van_jones_pg2.html?cat=9
http://stopsunstein.com/
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Step Up and Lead
In a previous post, I asked the reader if they had the fortitude to step up to the plate and lead their neighbor or neighborhood for the sake of truth and prosperity.
To be a leader, you must:
"Be" ~ practice what you preach; be the person you say you are"Know" ~ have knowledge. This includes the integrity to hold only to truthful knowledge, not propaganda"Do" ~ put your beliefs into action
First things first, let us discuss the "Be" and the "Know".
It is my opinion that if you are to be a leader at this stage in the game, you need to come to the table already an embodiment of someone who practices what they preach. Very simply, I cannot help you with the "Be" portion; you either 'are' or you 'are not'.
While the overall intent of both this blog and the resource links contained within this post is to educate, as a potential leader it is inherent that you already possess at least some degree of knowledge relating the Constitution, the system of Government and the proper role of Government thereof. It need not be a vast and total understanding, just a basic grasp of some history and a few of the concepts in play. Again, at this stage in the game, you must already "Know" some of the basics on your own.
My purpose as the author of this post is only to develope the "Do" portion of this three part leadership philosophy - how to properly put your beliefs into action. First off, I proudly proclaim and admit that you exceed this author in your potential to shape the cause! I have never been one to micro-manage; I am no Wizard of Oz. All I can do is hopefully gain your attention, and show you a few resources to aid you in your pursuits.
I can tell you something, however, that is non-debatable: you must understand that as a leader in a cause such as the survival of our Republic, there are factors that must always be present if we are to accomplish any objective that contributes to the overall endstate:
1. Be prepared to question with BOLDNESS2. Once you find the TRUTH, hold to it3. You must speak without FEAR
There is something else as well: you must always accomplish your goals "by, with, and through" the American People. While this may seem obvious, always keep in mind that you are not part of some 'fringe' group. You must understand that you are only facilitating and carrying out the vision what the Founding Fathers intended some 233 years ago.
The below links will hopefully help you shape your discussion. In addition, please take note of the recently updated list of links to the right-hand side of this page. Use them as you see fit, or don't use them at all and make your own way. If you choose the latter, if you would please take the time to make a comment and let us all know what resources you used to aid your path in leadership.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
My Moral Obligation?
On Wednesday, August 19th, Mr. Obama reached out to liberal and progressive religious figures to help spread the “good news” about health care reform and to set the record straight. During that conference call, he addressed those who were “bearing false witness” and spreading lies regarding his heath care plan. He remarked that the numerous false claims were “fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation…I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, and in the wealthiest nation on Earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.”
A moral and ethical obligation…really? Is it a right of every American to have affordable and quality heath coverage? I would argue, no. It is not a moral right for all Americans (or those living in America) to have health coverage. It is a privilege to live in the wealthiest nation on Earth, and with that privilege comes an opportunity to receive the world’s best heath care.
(First of all, there is a difference between heath care and health coverage. Heath care is the treatment and management of illnesses, as well as the preservation of your health through services offered by medical professionals. Health coverage, or health insurance, is insurance that pays for medical expenses. Individuals pay either a premium or taxes to help protect themselves from high or unexpected heath care expenses. Mr. Obama believes it is the moral obligation of government to provide affordable, quality health coverage.)
Those in support of health reform have been asking questions…what about the young couple who have to take out a loan to pay for the birth of their first child because they can’t afford the cost? What about the recently laid-off father who now has to pay for a sudden and unexpected surgery of a sick child? What about the single mother working three part-time jobs and cannot afford to get her own heath insurance? Why should I have to pay for the upgraded cochlear implant that I want, but is too expensive?
According to Obama, I am my sister’s keeper, and it is my moral obligation to help pay for her surgery, health insurance and any future coverage that is too expensive for her or her children … all while paying for my own. But I see a glaring problem with this. I cannot control how my sister lives her life. She may choose to smoke for forty years or maintain a steady diet of Red Bull and Krispy Kremes while working as a crab fisherman off the coast of Alaska. How she lives and the risks she takes are her choice. It is not, then, my obligation to pay for her when she gets sick or injured. Nor is it her responsibility to cover my medical expenses if I decide to go mountain biking around the edges of a quarry in the rain (which is very risky…believe you me).
As my sister’s keeper, I would encourage her to quit smoking, eat a healthy diet and exercise regularly. Or to wait to have children until she and her husband have a steady job that provides heath benefits, or to get rid of her monthly cable (gasp!) and internet bill in order to pay her monthly premium. The point is, I would do a much better service for my sister by encouraging her to make better financial and health decisions.
Of course not all health care needs are a result of food choices or job-related accidents. The cost of prescription medications are high, employers sometimes drop coverage for their employees, some individuals have pre-existing conditions which insurance companies are not willing to cover, and many doctors practice defensive medicine which quadruples your hospital bill. To all of that, I would say TOUGH.
Did I just say that? It sounds so…heartless.
We do not have a perfect medical system in America. No one, including myself, is arguing for the status quo. But what I cannot get passed is the amount of people interviewed on television, showing up at townhall meetings with signs, and writing on blogs who have their own problem. Or they know of Sally Smith’s problem that lives down the road.
I truly believe that in America, given the chance, people will figure out a way to take care of their own. Once upon a time, Americans did this. Previous generations lived through two world wars and the Great Depression. America survived the Jimmy Carter years which produced a worse recession than the one we have today (including unemployment rates that neared 16%). But Americans rose to the challenge each and every time. And we are still – still - living in the most prosperous country in the world.
So I say again, TOUGH. As Thomas Paine said, these are the times that try men’s souls. Find a way. The government must not intervene to fix every problem we encounter. If citizens believe it is the obligation of the government to pay their hospital bills, there is no end to what the government should, and will, control.
Where is the passion to make it on your own? To find a way, when there seems to be no way? To go from rags to riches, without a government handout? In the words of George Washington, “perseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages.” And in this age, I put my trust in the average American to find their way rather than trust the government to find the way for us. I take that as my moral obligation.
For a great article:
The Claremount Institute, "Is Heath Care a Right?"
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1607/article_detail.asp
A moral and ethical obligation…really? Is it a right of every American to have affordable and quality heath coverage? I would argue, no. It is not a moral right for all Americans (or those living in America) to have health coverage. It is a privilege to live in the wealthiest nation on Earth, and with that privilege comes an opportunity to receive the world’s best heath care.
(First of all, there is a difference between heath care and health coverage. Heath care is the treatment and management of illnesses, as well as the preservation of your health through services offered by medical professionals. Health coverage, or health insurance, is insurance that pays for medical expenses. Individuals pay either a premium or taxes to help protect themselves from high or unexpected heath care expenses. Mr. Obama believes it is the moral obligation of government to provide affordable, quality health coverage.)
Those in support of health reform have been asking questions…what about the young couple who have to take out a loan to pay for the birth of their first child because they can’t afford the cost? What about the recently laid-off father who now has to pay for a sudden and unexpected surgery of a sick child? What about the single mother working three part-time jobs and cannot afford to get her own heath insurance? Why should I have to pay for the upgraded cochlear implant that I want, but is too expensive?
According to Obama, I am my sister’s keeper, and it is my moral obligation to help pay for her surgery, health insurance and any future coverage that is too expensive for her or her children … all while paying for my own. But I see a glaring problem with this. I cannot control how my sister lives her life. She may choose to smoke for forty years or maintain a steady diet of Red Bull and Krispy Kremes while working as a crab fisherman off the coast of Alaska. How she lives and the risks she takes are her choice. It is not, then, my obligation to pay for her when she gets sick or injured. Nor is it her responsibility to cover my medical expenses if I decide to go mountain biking around the edges of a quarry in the rain (which is very risky…believe you me).
As my sister’s keeper, I would encourage her to quit smoking, eat a healthy diet and exercise regularly. Or to wait to have children until she and her husband have a steady job that provides heath benefits, or to get rid of her monthly cable (gasp!) and internet bill in order to pay her monthly premium. The point is, I would do a much better service for my sister by encouraging her to make better financial and health decisions.
Of course not all health care needs are a result of food choices or job-related accidents. The cost of prescription medications are high, employers sometimes drop coverage for their employees, some individuals have pre-existing conditions which insurance companies are not willing to cover, and many doctors practice defensive medicine which quadruples your hospital bill. To all of that, I would say TOUGH.
Did I just say that? It sounds so…heartless.
We do not have a perfect medical system in America. No one, including myself, is arguing for the status quo. But what I cannot get passed is the amount of people interviewed on television, showing up at townhall meetings with signs, and writing on blogs who have their own problem. Or they know of Sally Smith’s problem that lives down the road.
I truly believe that in America, given the chance, people will figure out a way to take care of their own. Once upon a time, Americans did this. Previous generations lived through two world wars and the Great Depression. America survived the Jimmy Carter years which produced a worse recession than the one we have today (including unemployment rates that neared 16%). But Americans rose to the challenge each and every time. And we are still – still - living in the most prosperous country in the world.
So I say again, TOUGH. As Thomas Paine said, these are the times that try men’s souls. Find a way. The government must not intervene to fix every problem we encounter. If citizens believe it is the obligation of the government to pay their hospital bills, there is no end to what the government should, and will, control.
Where is the passion to make it on your own? To find a way, when there seems to be no way? To go from rags to riches, without a government handout? In the words of George Washington, “perseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages.” And in this age, I put my trust in the average American to find their way rather than trust the government to find the way for us. I take that as my moral obligation.
For a great article:
The Claremount Institute, "Is Heath Care a Right?"
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1607/article_detail.asp
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Un-American?
From a good friend of mine and a good man. He said:
"I just read an article wherein Nancy Pelosi said that people who were crying out about the health care package were 'extremist' and 'mob-like'. She actually described them as 'Un-American'."
A few other thoughts in the form of questions:
*Isn’t the way we are rising up against a political agenda actually the way that we became AMERICA??
*Is Nancy Pelosi so far out of touch with reality that she doesn’t know about the Boston Tea Party?
*To compound matters, the MSM (Main stream Media) is reporting her comment without a proper rebuttal. If a republican had made a statement like that, wouldn’t the press feel obligated to put a negative spin on it?
*Why are regular people, who are speaking highly articulated concerns at town halls, being referred to as 'astroturf' by Ms. Pelosi?
*How is it that a mere concerned citizenry is being labeled as 'radical' and accused of practicing 'mob tactics'? Are they suggesting that any dissent, even if it is a well-spoken logical question, is a 'mob tactic'?
*If you get a little frustrated and visibly perturbed when someone with a microphone at a town hall meeting is repeating things that logically do not make sense, over and over, does that justify your comparison to a 'mob'?
*Have we forgotten the silence of Ms. Pelosi in years past when her anti-war activists were performing mash-pit-rave-concert-style rushing of political stages, meetings, and conventions? Did she ever comment on the blood pouring on war memorials? Where was her press release when 'progressives' burst into sessions of congress to throw blood on anyone who didn't move out of their way? How about the disrespect shown at military funerals by anti-war protesters? Where was her 'leadership' then?
*Where was Ms. Pelosi when a plot was uncovered (people were actually arrested in a raid before they could carry out the attack) to throw acid on members of the 2008 Republican National Convention as they made their way into the convention center in Minneapolis? Was that un-American Ms. Pelosi?
So let's get this straight: if we get mad - at all - about the current health care debate (or the fact that the Obama administration essentially wishes not to have one), we are un-American?
This reform was pushed on us so fast, we hardly had a chance to say "what?" Why does it take years to prosecute known felons or months to overturn a speeding ticket, but a trillion dollar plus health care bill must be passed in a few weeks? Why the rush?
Also....uh...where is the logic here? That's right: there isn't any.
"It is error alone that needs the support of government. The truth can stand by itself."~Thomas Jefferson
Speaking of quotes, my #1 quote of all time is this:
"The true task of leadership is not to put greatness into humanity, but to elicit it, for the greatness is already there."
~John Buchan
As a young Marine, I read this quote in a classy pamphlet about becoming a Marine Officer. I remember the day precisely. My first thought, after a brief reflection, was that it represented an approach to leadership drastically different from a ram-it-down-the-throat style.
In my youth, at times I felt fairly unproductive and that my life was just a repeating cycle of frustration. I wasn't directing my energies (and maybe a little aggression) at the right things, or at least in the right way.
Knowing the context of leadership, the real stuff in how to define it, would have allowed me better focus. My problem was that I didn't know that I was broken. Not only was I not a leader, I didn't even have some of the basic principles down pat - some of them I had never even discovered.
But I will say this, when I saw others practicing good leadership, I seemed to gravitate toward them. It felt right. Wherever they were going seemed to make sense, and being associated with them not only felt good - it was good. They were always sucessful.
On the flip side of that, many times though as a youth I was just mad at people or things that were attempting to control me. I couldn't stand being controlled by people who didn't seem to stand for anything that seemed to be meaningful. In high school I hated the 'everyone wins-don't-ever-get-mad' ideology, where essentially nothing was worth fighting for - the only great idea was always to just do as you were told.
The Marines changed that in me (except I did as I was told, at least most of the time). From day one I saw that when Marines said something, they backed it up. Outside of my parents and a handful of inspiring adults who influenced me for the better, it was hands down 100% different leadership than anything I had ever seen. It meant something to me, and it was quite a profound thing when I stepped into their recruiting office. Now, that lesson means the world to me. It always will.
I think most people have the instincts for sensing when there is an injustice taking place. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights just defines what the standard is. And now, through this health care debate, Citizens are re-discovering what that standard is. I think many people are shocked at the disparity between what the Founding Fathers intended and what we now see on TV.
Most importantly, what we do based on our discoveries and how we continue our efforts to define the problem through research, and how we continue our research in order to figure out how to fix the problem - that is what defines us! We are defined by independently applying our principles!!! Peaceful action!!!
The recurring thing I find in life is that people will always surprise you. Old ladies you might meet on a plane actually have a great head for leadership. Old men, who are humble as can be, can tell you at story - and they will let you learn the lesson from it.
The point is, listen to the wisdom of our Fathers and stay involved. It must be a constant thing! If recent times seem like a painful and scary awakening, it could have been avoided if we had just kept a rotating 'fire-watch' schedule that kept us all alert 24/7 since 1776. We must all realize that we are our own protectors - always!
As these recent times have taught us, if you belong to any sort of defined group - a workplace, a neighborhood, whatever - stay connected to people who seek the truth in life and who have shown you the ability to think for themselves. Learn from those who stand in front of you, beside you, but also from those behind you who will follow your lead!
It must a remain constant that we revisit what has been learned from history. New complexities are making the situation today seem murky when it otherwise should be simple. Principle can connect the dots for us in that way; principle can make clarity of a mess. Complex things can become simplified. The point is, through the use of principle is what America was designed to be! Use it, fix our Nations problems by applying it, and never let things go unchecked again for so long!
FYI Barak, Nancy, et al. - if you are teaching, never act aloof to your students. You can stop trying to "put greatness into humanity" as though you are better than us. Apparently you don't understand that "the GREATNESS is already there" in the humanity of America. If you are to be successful you may try altering your approach, that is, if you think you have it in you.
In the 2010 mid-term elections we need to use our voting power to rid ourselves of any politician who has skylined themselves as simply inept in understanding the Consitution, history, or what their role is in serving the People. We must realize that it is our Nation's identity and moral fiber to handle our OWN business! Prosperity lies with the individual! Prosperity lies with those who will stand for what is right with others who share similar values and principles!
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."~Thomas Jefferson
The shockwave that such clueless people have been legally allowed to represent us has finally been felt; the degradation of the quality of our leaders over time is astounding - from Jefferson to Pelosi; Washington to Harry Reid? The realization of this disparity should motivate a revolution of new public servants! Do you have it in you to step up to the plate to serve the interests of your friend and humble neighbor? Maybe even your whole neighborhood, for the sake of truth and prosperity?
If the Constitution were a full glass of nourishing milk, this socialistic agenda is an empty glass with sour milk residue just sitting in the sink. The person who put it in the sink doesn't have the common courtesy of loading it into the dishwasher, and doesn't care or understand why that is wrong. In recent weeks, the common small town man or woman has emerged as having 10 times the character and principle than the Speaker of the House of Representatives! The Greatness is already there!
God Bless America - the place where the People cannot be silenced!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)