"Lame Duck Congress"-how lame.

Since the elections a little over a month ago, the term Lame Duck Congress has been used a lot lately. For those who don't know, it's simply a metaphor used to describe a Congress that is seeing a large turnover in membership, making the exiting members not exactly interested in doing their job properly, and more inclined to be a part of the problem instead of being a part of the solution(s). Lame Duck Congresses generally get little, if anything, done and more often than not, they do harm but delaying sometimes much needed and important legislation on their way out...

This term, and the way, and reasoning behind, how these Congress's act bothers me greatly-as it should all Americans. How do you think you would look if, you were given a 60 day notice of termination of your job, and you decided that, since you were getting fired anyway, you weren't going to even try to do your job for that last 2 months? Worse yet-what if you decided you were going to deliberately get in the way of others trying to do their jobs? Not only would you most likely be fired out right, and immediately, but you would (and should) have a snowballs chance in hell of finding employment relatively soon after. I mean, who wants to hire an employee that is going to bail on them as soon as the proverbial chips are down, and make the situation worse by doing your best to make everyone still working there, have as much difficulty as possible? But this is exactly how our elected officials act, and think, when in the situation of not being reelected to another term in office-they simply don't care, and, instead of being adults about it, they go a step further and deliberately try to impede, or kill, all legislation which they are working on in the last 2 to 3 months of their last term. Not only is it bad, and childish, politics, but it sends a message to the nation as a whole which gives the general population the sense of entitlement that they can act the same way when in similar situations-instead of trying, and persevering, they just give up because "politicians are allowed to do it, why can't I?".
To me, this is the not only the reason, but the substance, behind how the entitlement class grew to the proportions it has over the last 40 years.
Members of a "Lame Duck" Congress need to grow the hell up. They need to do their freaking jobs to the bitter end, and do them well, and justly-as the people who originally elected them to office expect. If they don't, then they deserve every bit of anger and loath the citizens of our country (and especially those who first voted for them) can dish out on them.
And the excuse of "since I'm leaving, my say doesn't really matter anymore-especially since whatever I approve of now can all be changed by those coming in" never has, and never will, fly with me. That is a cowards, and poor mans, way of thinking; and it can be directly attributed to the current state of our nations culture and economic situation...

I digress...The whole thought disgusts me to no end. In my opinion, the only thing lame about a "Lame Duck" Congress are the actions of those exiting members who, by their actions, show just how pathetically lame they are.

"Burning the Quran day"-a bad example of 1st amendment rights

One of the many great aspects of living in America is that we have freedom of speech and expression. At the same time that this is a great freedom, it is also one of the most abused freedoms we have. Of course, you will never hear me say that our 1st amendments should be changed in any way what so ever, but unfortunately for America, we will always get idiots like a Christian minister in Gainsville, Florida:
Pastor Terry Jones of Dove World Church has decided that he wants September 11th to be known as "Quran burning day" because of the 9/11 attacks of 2001 and the insistance of Muslims to build a Mosque near the 9/11 site in New York City. In sum, Paster Jones believes that it is time that we "stand up against Muslims", and this his way of wanting to stand up against that culture and their religious beliefs.
There are, of course, better ways of "standing up" to a cultures belief system which you believe is a danger to the world-like proving that your belief system, through actions based on their teachings, is better....
Pastor Jones' intentions may be good, but they certainly are not refective of the moral character and virtue the religion he preaches attempts to teach, nor are they logical given the attitude that radical Muslims have against "western" civilization in general. All Pastor Jones actions will do is anger that society of people further-giving them more reasons to hate America, and her political and economic allies; it also gives a black eye to a religion that has yet to fully distance itself from the pedophilia scandals that have rocked its sister religion, Catholicism.

There is a line that people have to learn to draw when utilizing their 1st amendments rights in America-a line that Liberals have taught society to blur more and more as each generation passes. With the freedoms that American's have, comes great responsibility-the responsibility to utilize them properly and at the right times, and using an anniversary representative of one of the saddest days of American history is not the time, or place, for such a thing as making a statement against another religion.
Fortunately, it is obvious that Pastor Jones' actions will back fire horribly on him as many of America's leaders are speaking out against his desire to go through with making September 11th "burning the Quran day". Sure, he may have 8000 or so supporters on Face Book, but they are a vast minority of Americans. Fortunately we have the right speak out against Pastor Jones' idea. Fortunately, many of us can let the world know that, despite having no love for the radical Muslimic beliefs that lead to the 9/11 attacks on our country, there are many more of us who dont support this person's actions, and that we believe there are better, more appropriate and responsible ways, to express our anger towards radical Islam....
The best way, I think, to fight idea's and people like Pastor Jones is by ignoring them-by not giving them the time of day, by not recognizing them, by simply looking past them. By recognizing Pastor Jones and his idea, and giving it all this attention, all we are doing is giving it an importance that these sort of ideas do not deserve; we make it out to be worthy our first amendment rights, when it really isn't. In the end, all we do by giving ideas like these the time of day, is to give freedom of speech a black eye.

Congrats to Lou Dobbs

Lou Dobbs shocked America last night when he announced that he was leaving CNN because "it has become increasing clear that strong winds of change have become buffeting our country" and, apparently some high up people have convinced him to help construct solutions to these problems…

I have to admit-I'm impressed.

I was never a huge watcher of his show, but, whenever I did catch it, I was always impressed by his lack of partisanship and moderate attitude, while working for what could arguably be called one of the more Democratically and Liberal leaning news organizations of the last 20 years. Dobbs was always level headed and based his arguments firmly around the facts. That he was able to survive, from it's inception, at a news group which showed its bias on a regular basis is testament to a strength of character that I never knew he had-and if I did, I most certainly would have made the effort to watch more of his show.

In parting, Dobbs makes some rather interesting comments about "winds of change", and, though I hate putting intentional spins on things such as this, it makes you wonder what he see's as "winds of change" and what his idea's for bracing us against them. In his parting speech he makes specific mention of the partisanship in D.C., Global Warming/Climate Change, the war in Afghanistan and Health Care…I wish I could say that I had watched enough of his show to know where he stood on these issues, however, seeing the class he portrayed on his way out, and knowing his moderate nature on most issues, I can trust that Dobbs will be, at the very least, logical and reasonable in his approach to helping to seek solutions to these issues. As such, I will be watching closely to see what comes of this…

Till then, I raise my glass to you Lou: I didn't know you well, but, after seeing your parting words, I wish I did….

America sends a message to Obama-but is it the right one?

I think that it is fair to say that a message was sent to the Democratic party and, specifically, Barack Obama in last nights elections: that we will no longer tolerate the huge spending, big government, socialist ideal which he and his party are putting forth as the solution to our nations problems.

Republican governors were elected in New Jersey and Virginia, soundly defeating their Democratic rivals; and in Maine a law that had yet to be enacted giving Gays the right to marry in that state was defeated. These decidedly Conservative results come thanks too a large percentage of Independents turning out to vote, apparently in an effort to show that they don’t believe in the Obama administration’s idea of “change” for our country.

My question is: Is it the “right” message?

This sudden change of ideological direction in these 3 states worries me because our legislative leadership in Washington D.C. has been suffering from the “pong” effect for far too long now: meaning, our national legislative and decision making has been moving from one ideological extreme to the other-a trend that is destroying our nation.

America needs an ideological middle ground leadership to move forward into the future: leaders who will keep their decision making logical and based on the facts at hand; leaders who will leave the social policy to State and local legislation. Leaders who will-dare I say it-be smart with our money; leaders who won’t mortgage our children’s future, and their grandchildren’s future-without even having a real plan to create economic stability for near future-much less the long term one. In sum, we need leadership with not just intelligence and common sense, but also the long range foresight required to put American in a good economic place for the future, and right now, we don’t have any such leader available to us.

What the electorate did yesterday was voice their displeasure at the current leadership by turning to the only other “viable” option available to them: the Republican Party, and, by extension, a Conservative agenda. This, I think, is a knee jerk and premature reaction to the far left, Socialistic Liberal agenda being pushed on us currently by D.C. and the Obama administration-a reaction which I feel is just as bad for the future America.

No "peace" in this years Nobel prize winner

The whole world was shocked last Friday when President Obama was chosen as this year’s Nobel Peace prize winner. Globally the response was overwhelmingly negative in the sense that people failed to understand what he had done exactly to earn the reward. Here in the United States the response was also mostly negative, both for the aforementioned reason and because Obama’s policies and ideologies are seen as being extreme on the “socialistic” side of things.

In explaining the decision, the Nobel Committee which awards the prize said that Obama received the award for what he “represents” and for what his policies could lead too in terms of future world peace. To those of us who believed that the award had to be earned, we also learned that there was president for winning the award without actually earning it or having any relating accomplishments…

As a result of Obama’s “winning” the Nobel peace prize, we have learned 2 important things about the Nobel’s: first, that you don’t have to actually do anything to win one and secondly, if this is how they are going to be awarded they have no meaning what so ever.

It is a thorough joke that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace prize, and the reasoning of the Nobel commission doesn’t fly on me. Barack Obama’s ideologies are not avenues for peace. His ideologies are based on socialistic tendencies which history has proven to us to be “anti” peace. Socialism breeds both corruption and envy, which inevitably leads to conflict and class warfare. Take a look at the history of any society on our planet which was purely socialistic and these truths become evident.

Obama’s ideologies stand for peace? Hardly, and if more proof is needed, look no further than America where we have become more divided than ever before.

The illiterate U.S. Congress

In case you missed it last week, a few stories made news stations which told what many American’s already knew-that members of Congress do not read the legislation they are attempting to make into law.

Where this sudden “enlightenment”, last week, about members of Congress not actually reading the bills they are supposed to sign into law came from I don’t know, but it can perhaps be traced back to an interview conducted last Friday with Senator Thomas Carper, a Democrat out of Delaware.

In this interview, Carper states that, in commission, bills are written in “plain English” (i.e. laymen’s terms), but when they come up for vote they are written in “legislative language. Amongst his many comments while discussing what is apparently health care legislation, he goes on to say that he understood little to nothing of the verbiage of the bill as it was written for law, and believes that no one else could understand it either. He also implies that he doesn’t believe anyone who says they can understand these bills-as they are written before Congress-is lying to themselves and anyone who asks them directly. In case you don’t believe me, you can find the portion of the interview which I reference here: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/02/democrat-sen-tom-carper-read-the-bill-are-you-kidding-me/.

Of course, this begs me to ask a lot of questions such as Why are our members of Congress not able understand “legislative language”? Isn’t this the job we have hired them for?; and How do they expect anyone to be able to obey, follow and enforce a law which they themselves do not understand?; or If legislative language is so hard to understand, why are bills written in it to begin with?

Further, if our Congress is writing legislation in a manner which they can’t understand themselves, then isn’t it a natural assumption that these people aren’t qualified to do the job we have hired them for and, even more importantly, fail to understand the job which they are supposed to do?; and Why aren’t they simply written in the “plain English” under which they are originally written in while in committee?

(This last question could possibly be answered by saying “it’s for legal purposes and enforcement”, to which I would say bull shit: If there is a law that says “you can’t pee on the side of a public building”, there are no legal or enforcement justifications for why those 10 simple words are rewritten into 30 confusing ones for the adoption of the law. In fact, the only reason I can think of is that legislatures intentionally write these laws so that the vast majority of people cannot understand them. Why this would be, I can only suppose and form conjecture on, but seeing as how there is no other logical reason for our national, state and local laws to be written in such a confusing manner, I am left with no other explanation than that it is done intentionally so that government corruption can always exist in a manner which is hard at best, and impossible at worst, to discover and eliminate).

Of all the questions I could pose, the most troubling to me is assumption to be drawn about our elected officials’ ability to do their job. It’s a serious assumption that deserves to be addressed: if Congress doesn’t even understand these bills as they are written, how can we assume that they even understand the basic requirements of their job?

One thing that must be clarified is that this isn’t restricted to just those members of Congress who are Democrats; it is obvious that Republicans (and the lone Independent) have this problem too-otherwise, why would we have proposed legislation like H.R. 3200 (i.e. Obamacare) proposed by John Dingle of Michigan make it out of a bipartisan committee?

As it just so happens, unlike most-including, apparently, our members of Congress-I can understand “legislative language”, this of course doesn’t help those who can’t because even in the effort of explaining these pieces of legislation to people, important aspects of them are lost; and despite those earlier posed questions this all leads to the most important ones of all: How is it that we, the American public, the ones who are supposed to live and conform to these various laws and legislative members; how is it that we have not only allowed ourselves to elect Representatives and Senators who fail to understand the laws they have written but also allowed so many of them to stay in office for so many years?

Obama's first loss-but Rio does deserve it..

It's most likely not His first, but i think it's His biggest loss so far-Obama not convincing the IOC that their host city should be Chicago for the 2012 games; so that Obama has a place to "celebrate (his) election" and, I'm sure, so that he can show the world "how far we've come" during his administration...Now i suppose if "you" agree with "his" idea of what the responsibilities of the Federal Government should be, then you want His policies in place, and because there are enough supporters of his opinion out there, he thought it was a slam dunk. Not so...Besides, Rio and South America finally have their chance and hopefully they will do it right.

Too bad for Obama...Guess he wasn't as popular overseas as everybody, including himself, thought he was. It will be interesting to see what his foreign policy towards Brazil will be like in the future, after what will probaly be an entertaining media "field day" that will get us no where and only seek to muddy the picture even more.
Unfortunately, lost in all of this will be Rio De Janiero, which, even based on my limited knowledge, deserves to have it's "day in the sun". What Beijing did for the '08 games was amazing-it literally changed a culture-with 5 times the population the Chinese are only just now learning about Capitalism, and then there is India, in some ways much farther along than China is.
Brazil, and South America are largely forgotten about.
Rio is one of the Worlds largest cities and has much in the way of culture to offer...But I digress...I'm gonna sit back and enjoy what I'm hoping will be an entertaining show.

Backhanded compliments for Obama

I have to say that I was a little impressed with some comments made by Obama earlier this week before the general assembly of the U.N. in New York.
Obama actually had the balls to come out and say what many of those who stand against him belie;f; in sum he said that other nations needed to learn to take more responsibility and control over their own problems and to stop relying and expecting help from the U.S. for them.
I say this only impressed me a "little" because if it had come from any other President before GWB I would have did back flips of joy and screamed from the roof tops; but, after hearing the way in which Mr. Obama said these things, andd given his blatant socialistic tendancies, it makes me wonder...
If you have ever studied philosophy and/or economic and political theories, then you may know that history has proven that to enforce socialism and socistic policies a dictatorship is necessary; and
if you listen closely to the way in which Mr. Obama says these things to the U.N. general assembly you can hear the dictator in him come out.
It's the way in which he emphasizes his words-he emphasizes the "us" in his statements and not the "them"; he emphasizes the "effect" and not the "cause". Now, perhaps this is just my own perceptions relative to our current president-after all it is no secret that I am, to put it mildly, suspicious and critical of his policies-but instead of being able to praise him for a well spoken, and much needed to be said, point before the U.N., I am forced to wonder if we are finally starting to see the dictator in Obama coming out.
Whether we are seeing this side of him or not, only time will tell. For now I will guardedly give Obama a high five and a job well done for standing up to the beggers of the U.N.

Why all the fuss for Obama's plans on "addressing" the kids?

It was announced last week that Mr. Obama was going to “address” our country’s school children on closed circuit television this Tuesday-a move that naturally got all Conservatives and Republican’s up in arms. They, Republicans and Conservatives, are saying this is an attempt by Mr. Obama to “indoctrinate our nation’s youth to his socialistic policies”.

And, not surprising, Liberals are asking why? Why all the fuss? Presidents have spent time in class rooms for decades now-it’s a Presidential tradition?

Personally, as non partisan observer, I find it very obvious why there is so much controversy amongst certain segments of our society about Mr. Obama’s desire to speak directly to our youth.

For one, I can’t recall one any other president in my lifetime who spoke to all of the nation’s youth privately, for no other reason than to simply speak to them. George Bush addressed our nation’s youth in 1991, but his speech was broadcast live on CNN, PBS and other national cable and local stations. According to last weeks press release announcing this event, Mr. Obama’s address will be on “closed circuit” television-i.e. only available in schools and in those classrooms who wish to turn their TV’s on at the time of his speech.

Secondly, after all of the very socialistic policy making on the part of Obama’s administration during the first 8 months of his tenure, many people, regardless of party affiliation, are rather leery of Mr. Obama’s intentions, and for a number of reasons: Why address the nation’s youth now and for what purpose?

If’s it’s a speech as innocuous as the White House claims it will be about (staying in school, getting good grades, etc), then why make this speech on closed circuit TV, in school, and away from the influence of their parents? And if that is his message, wouldn’t it be better served as part of a national advertising campaign for one of the multitude of national organizations whose purpose it is to help kids stay in school?

These questions aren’t controversial, they are legitimate question’s to ask-particularly of a “president” whose policies, in less than his first year in office, have strayed farther from the intentions of our Constitution than any other holder of his office.

Many people are scared-and rightfully so-that Mr. Obama is openly attempting to prepare some sort of radical socialistic transformation of our Nation, and, in preparation for it, he must speak directly to our children on this, and on the importance of “staying in school”.

Don’t get me wrong, staying in school very important. In fact, it is one of the few ways to defeat socialism-not just staying in school, but staying in school, doing well while you are there, and then going on to college to secure your future.

So, if this is all there is to his message, and his intentions are only as innocuous as the White House claims, then Mr. President, why say so on closed circuit TV, away from the parents who can enforce the message, and, even worse, within the confines of one of the most socialistic institutions in our country-the nations public school system?

I could go on and on with questions about why he is doing this, and that, is specifically the point that people are making. Fortunately, Mr. Obama isn’t able to “force” all school kids to watch this “address”, however, the point that he is even desirous of addressing our children, away from the influence of their parents, is a scary thought-just another in a series of actions and statements by this president which make those of us who still possess the capacity to think freely wonder exactly what his intentions are for our nation.

As seen through my eyes: American Culture

I have noticed it for some time: the degradation of American society.

Over the last 20 years or so this degradation has showed itself every few months. Events like the Columbine shootings in 1999, the Virginia Tech campus shootings in 2007, the Branch Davidian Cult massacre in 1993, and the Northern Illinois University shooting in 2008 are just a few of the mass murders which have garnered national and international headlines by our country over the last 2 decades.

This year, in particular, there seems to be many mass murders, shootings and uniquely violent events, and this weekend the mass murder of 8 people in south Georgia and the discovery of missing person Jaycee Dugard in California who was missing for 18 years have lead me to ask once again: what is happening to our society?

Why is American culture crumbling around us?

With this past weekend’s events fresh in my mind I have chosen to post something which I wrote some months ago when dwelling on the “state of American culture” today...

There was a time not too long ago when it was easy to identify exactly what encompassed American culture. A time when other cultures wanted to be just like ours: hard working, free, democratic and full of accomplishments. But, in less than 50 years, what was once the envy of the world has become a relative laughingstock on the global stage.

Crime and corruption across all professions, socio-economic and ethnic boundaries lead our national newscasts, while a generation of suer’s and suees point fingers and attempt to place blame on others for actions which they refuse to take responsibility for and for which our Federal Government says they shouldn’t have too.

The ideology of political correctness is being forced down our throats and is segmenting our once great society. No long are we all “American’s”, part of the once great melting pot that was our society. No, now we all have to be “African” Americans, “Mexican” Americans, “Asian” Americans, or some other of a countless hyphenated, watered down version of an American.

Along with the loss of domestic cultural identity, this period of being “PC” has brought with it an unsurprising lack of international cultural feats.

The last great national cultural accomplishment that America and lay claim too which had global significance was that of landing a man on the moon in 1969. Since that time we have done nothing else culturally while nations such as China, Japan, Brazil and all of Europe (to name a few) have produced cultural and technical feats with a global impact; and all the while, we in America can’t even unite well enough to decide how and what to replace the fallen World Trade Center towers with so as to help wash away the scars of 9/11.

Even worse are the things today which are said to define American Culture: American Idol-the “reality” TV show with its back landed slap in the face via the fact that more people cast a vote for its winner than in our presidential elections; our economy, which thanks to American Corporate greed, helped lead the global recession; and our sports leagues and organizations which, no matter how hard they try, cannot seem to get rid of the specter’s of cheating and crime that permeate through them.

American Culture? Where it is I sure don’t see it.

Sure, ethnic groups have their own sub cultures, but the largest of these-the “African” American’s-is so narrow minded that it fails to see its own self destructive nature.

If there is an American Culture left somewhere that would make me stand up and be proud to be American again then somebody please let me know because, as an American, I am tired of hanging my head in shame to be called an American over the embarrassment at what my once great country as has become.

On the passing of Ted Kennedy

NOTE: Originally written on August 28^th but a combination of computer issues and a vacation prevented me from posting it appropriately. My apologies…

I admittedly did not know very much about “Teddy” Kennedy and what I knew of the man I didn’t like very much, but, in his death I have to ask: What did he do that was so great?

I know that he was considered a leader of the modern Liberal ideology, but what is that doing for us? Destroying our society by breeding generation after generation of Americans to depend on the Federal Government to “take care of them” as opposed to learning to think and produce for themselves.

I know he was considered a “champion” of the poor, but how many did he help? As far as I could tell, Ted Kennedy helped create not one policy which improved the overall status of the “poor” in our country. Oh sure, he increased the size of their entitlements, but nowhere do I see one thing that he did which really helped the poor to not be poor anymore. In fact, I would say he helped to make it easier to STAY poor-if anything at all.

Further, I know of no policies for which his backing allowed for a “bridge” between our 2 dominant political parties so as to pass important Legislation, so, needless to say, to me Ted Kennedy was far from “great”.

I am, of course, no fan of Liberalism, and so it should come as no surprise to anyone that I am so critical of Ted Kennedy but, I am impartial as it comes to critiquing the individual accomplishments of people and their relevant importance to others and with Ted Kennedy I just don’t see it. Personally, all that I saw in Ted Kennedy was a man who despised the success and achievements of anyone outside of himself, his friends and his family and a man who seemed willing and wanting to go to any length necessary to prevent people of becoming independently successful-just so long as it didn’t cost him or the “poor” anything.

In fact, I don’t see why the entire Kennedy family is so “well liked” at all-especially if you look at their history.

To a person, every prominent male member of the Kennedy family had controversy.

We all know of JFK’s “supposed” infidelities and his cut throat, take no prisoners attitude towards politics, and then there were Robert’s borderline criminal pursuits of the Mafia which eventually lead to his murder. As for Ted himself, he suffered from his own controversies in the 1970’s which ruined his presidential bid of that time and “delayed” his rise through the political ranks until the later half of the 1980’s. We also know that the family has a whole were/are some of the best at working the closed door political scene that we have ever had in our country-willing to do whatever is necessary to pass legislation which they deem necessary, whether its needed or not.

When viewed openly, the Kennedy family appears to be some of the more corrupt people in the country and not the “champions” of righteous they are seemingly held up as.

I digress…I know that it’s not fair to talk about those who have long since past by us, but Ted was a Kennedy after all, and he sure lived up to all that his namesake meant, and it is my opinion that we-those of us who seek to strive for the betterment of ourselves and our society through our hard work-should be glad that we are rid of him.

Health Insurance: Privilege or Right?

Another of the arguments by proponents[1] for a Federally subsidized health care “option” is that health insurance is a right. This position forces me to question what exactly what is a “privilege” and what is a “right”.

Without pulling out Miriam Websters, a right is a universally accepted morality which all citizens of a particular society are in agreement of being entitled too.

A privilege is anything that can be afforded which is not a necessity and which is considered beyond the income of those who make the median income of those within a given country.

I don’t think anyone would argue that providing health care is a moral virtue on the order of a right, which any society should practice and provide. And it just so happens that in America we do, in fact, provide health care-free of charge if necessary-to any who need it. But the idea that insurance, of any kind, is a right, I have to question.

This time quoting Websters, the definition which applies is “a protective or compensatory measure”.

Traditionally, insurances-whether they be for a car, a life, a home or a body- have been considered luxuries. When “health” insurance was popularized by the unionization of American workers in the early 20^th century it was seen as another great accomplishment of American society reflective of America’s overall wealth relative to the rest of the world, in that jobs were so plentiful, and paid so well, that workers and employers could “afford” health insurance. And even though most, if not all, American workers had health insurance throughout most of the 20^th century. The fact that Americans, as individuals, could afford the luxury of health insurance for most of the 20^th century became lost out of a laissez faire attitude towards our collective health being insured because it was “guaranteed” via full time employment.

And so now we have a political movement afoot to provide a governmentally subsidized health care plan, through which all Americans will have health insurance, and one of the arguments used by supporters of this idea is that health insurance is a right.

If all American’s were to agree that health insurance is a right, then there would need to be a universal concurrence of opinion as to what that right should entail: how much coverage do we all deserve and what quality of basic services are we entitled too. But more so, if we were to all agree that health insurance is a right, and no longer a privilege, then we would be compelled to also agree on what level of “health” we should all strive for.

Knowing that those who are obese and whom smoke cigarettes and who drink too much alcohol have more health expenses-particularly when they get older-would have to be addressed as a nation. The costs of these behaviors being so high as it relates to our health, there would be a need to regulate them to some degree, if for no other reason than to control costs.

A further concern is that in America our rights are guaranteed by law within our Constitution. Therefore, if we were to deem it necessary for health insurance to be considered a right, to guarantee that right an amendment to our Constitution would be required for its maintenance.

Under these criteria, how could we as a nation ever expect to classify health insurance as a right?

The fact of the matter is, health insurance has never been, and never should be, a right. Health insurance has always been a privilege-a privilege traditionally reserved for the wealthy who could afford to “insure” things against loss or damage, for those who could afford to take risks with things-including their health. Our health has never been guaranteed-not from day one and certainly not when measured against the lifestyle decisions most make through out the course of their lives. Based on these realities it is a wonder how so many people can believe that they have a right to health insurance.

---

[1] I have been told that I should stop referring to those who support the current health care reform option as “lefties” or liberals for a multitude of reasons. Needless to say, based on journalistic integrity alone (I am a professional writer after all) I should not be so biased or derogatory towards proponents of a federally subsidized health care plan.

On death panels and "exchanges"

It was with much self restraint that I had to take a break from putting in words my thoughts on H.R. 3200-the bill on health care currently in Congress commonly known as Obama-care.

My lack of words on the subject, however, didn’t keep me from paying attention to what specifics of the bill were being discussed in the media and at various town hall meetings nationwide. Particularly, I took note of Mr. Obama’s appearance on the Michael Smerconish radio show this past Thursday. Obama’s appearance was in an effort to “woo right wing” thinkers to his health care plan. Unfortunately, despite his party affiliation, Smerconish is an Obama supporter and therefore failed to press our President about specifics of the bill and screened callers-in so that most of the hard questions were filtered out before they could be posed.

Regardless, there were 2 aspects about Obama-care which dominated the press this last week: the idea of “death panels” being a part of the bill, and that H.R. 3200 will make the Health Insurance marketplace more competitive through the creation of its “exchange”.

Personally, I find it funny that so many people think that there are “death panels” in this bill. No where in the bill does it define such a thing as a “death panel”. The supposition is drawn from language in the bill which provides for “end of life counseling”. Much of the language for this so called counseling is vague, and can be easily misunderstood to mean that the Fed wants to “guide you into the after life”. Although I wouldn’t put it past the Liberals and Democrats to have the intentions of having actual death panels so has to dictate how and when we can die, I don’t think that, today at least, they are brazen enough to try so-perhaps in the future, but not today at least.

The “Exchange Commission” created by H.R. 3200 is another matter entirely.

I listened all week long as Obama tried to tell people that this aspect of the bill will not effect whether or not we will be able to keep our current doctors, insurance providers, etc and that it will provide “competition in the marketplace”. Mr. Obama sounded really good saying all this and, for about 2 seconds he even had me believing what he had to say was true, until I remembered what that portion of the bill says.

Sections 141-144 of the bill deal with the creation of this so called Exchange and the duties of its Commissioner, but it is within section 142 to which Mr. Obama’s belief that this bill will provide “competition in the marketplace” becomes an out right lie.

Section 142: Duties Authorities of the Commissioner; Part (b) titled Promoting Accountability, subpart (2) Compliance Explanation and Audits (a) says that “in general the commissioner shall, in coordination with States, conduct audits of qualified health benefits plan compliance with Federal requirements. Such audits may include random compliance audits and targeted audits in response to complaints or other suspected non-compliance.”

This can all be taken a couple of ways, but the inclusion of the words “qualified health benefits plan compliance with Federal reguirements”, at the very least, implies that some health insurance plans may not qualify. If this is so, then how does said exchange provide for more competition in the marketplace if it is going to exclude some of that competition?

Needless to say, Mr. Obama’s definition of “providing for a more competitive marketplace” as it relates to our health insurance options falls on shaky ground, which leads me to ask-why? Why, if it is Mr. Obama’s desire to make the health insurance marketplace more competitive, would he support a commission which would effect regulations (i.e. impose restrictions) into said exchange? Logically this makes no sense owing to the fact that any such bodies which impose regulations on their membership become exclusive, thereby leading to easy collusion, or actually limiting the competition-which I believe is exactly what Mr. Obama is after.

As we all know, Mr. Obama is vastly quoted as saying that he would not support any health care reform if it didn’t eventually lead to a single payer system-which is exactly what this exchange is designed to do.

You gotta be kidding me-Favre returns for another year?!

When I first heard it yesterday, I couldn’t really believe what I was seeing and hearing: Brett Favre returning to play for, of all teams, the Minnesota Vi-queens?!!!!

But, yup, it’s true, Brett Favre is back…

ESPN must have thought many people wouldn’t believe it because they even had footage of him getting off the plane in Minnesota and being met by representatives of the Vi-queens at the airport.

This is a bad move-for all involved. Not only does this continue to tarnish Favre’s legacy and make him look greedy as all sin (he is getting $12 mill this year with an option for another $13 mill next year if he should resign), but it also makes the Vi-queens look desperate beyond all measures. Further, what sort of sign does this give not just the other 2 QB’s on this team who thought they were competing for the starting job, but to the rest of the team who had been fed a daily dose of “Favre coming” to their team “wasn’t going to happen”, and it’s “all about integrity and honesty”? After all of this, Favre coming to the Vi-queens just completely shoots down any credibility the coaching staff had built up with that team-regardless of whether they go far in the playoffs or not.

Of course, that is why the Vi-queens did this-they believed they were just one person away from getting too, and winning, the Superbowl-which is laughable in my opinion. There is a reason why in Football they say “Any given Sunday”, and that isn’t going to change just because the Vi-queens went out and got an over the hill quarterback who needs to stay retired…

Brett, what are you doing? Why won’t you stay retired? You are ruining a legacy which you spent 16 years building in Green Bay, and all for what? One more shot at glory? One more big pay day? As if you need either of those. You already had a ring plus another trip to the big dance and, until all this, you had one of the best reputations in all of professional sports. I’m not even a “packer backer”, in fact I’m a Detroit fan, and as such I’m supposed to hate you on principle, but how could I not at the very least respect you for all you have accomplished and the way in which you accomplished all that you did? But now, now you are just another washed up, over the hill, greedy athlete to me, who refuses to hang up the cleats and move on in life. How sad…

Rock Star Obama shows up at Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire

It amazes me how much politicians can lie.

I just wasted an hour of my day watching the Obama Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire and what I saw and heard was the "Rock Star" in Mr. Obama come out and spew nothing but a bunch of lies. I watched as the Rock Star said that everything people speaking out against H.R. 3200 are saying a bunch of “lies and myths”. Does Mr. Obama take us to be ignorant, illiterate fools? Does he actually think this is a “conservative vs. liberal” issue? Is Mr. Obama unable to see that many-if not most-of these people, showing up at these Town Hall meetings are independents who do not like the direction in which our country is going or the ridiculous amount of intrusion this bill provides for into our daily lives?

I don't know if Mr. Obama believes in these things, but the Rock Star I saw on TV this afternoon apparently does.

The lies that Mr. Obama spread about made me sick. One of the bigger ones was his saying that he didn’t believe that anyone but ourselves “should be able to choose their own health care options”, but that is not what his bill says. In his words, he calls the government plan another health care “option”, but that is not what it is. H.R. 3200 rewrites-from top to bottom-what sort of coverage we are allowed to have and if you don't believe me then read it for yourself.

Mr. Obama says that it is his intention to provide a healthcare “option” to people that we citizens can afford, but to still have the freedom to choose which option we want. He says that all his bill does is to provide a low cost option-but that is not how H.R. 3200 is written.

H.R. 3200-what we commonly call Obamacare-establishes a health insurance exchange through which the Federal Government determines what health insurance plans meet their criteria for membership. The plan blatantly leaves out what will happen to those insurances which do not “qualify” for the exchange but goes on to say that those businesses which continue to carry non-qualifying plans will be taxed an additional two to six percent depending upon gross payrolls.

Mr. Obama further said that Medicare recipients and seniors have nothing to fear from Obamacare, but that is not what the bill says. The bill makes it very plain that coverage for seniors is going to be limited and that for H.R. 25 to work Medicare, at least in part, will have to be absorbed into the new government “option”.

As if all of these lies weren’t enough, Mr. Obama continues to claim that his plan will not increase our federal budget or deficit, to which I ask how? How is it possible that the Federal Government is going to provide a “government option” to healthcare which, apparently, will be provided (i.e. paid for) by the Fed without it increasing our deficit?

Even worse was the tone Mr. Obama seemed to take throughout his Town Hall address towards those who have vociferously spoken out against “his” plan. He talked about these people as if they either had no clue what they were talking about or had no business speaking. To make matters worse, Mr. Obama spoke of these people with an attitude that bespoke of an “us vs. them” mentality-i.e. Liberals vs. Conservatives.

Mr. Obama, don't you not get it? Do you not get that those who believe in the Constitution; that those who believe in the principles of which our great nation were founded; that those who believe in small government; that those who believe in taking responsibility for themselves do not want this plan? Do you not see that these people far out number those who do want or like your health insurance “option”? Further, Mr. Obama, do you not see that all of these people are not just conservatives or republicans, but are independents and individuals such as myself?

I digress…

One thing I believe that we can all agree on, however, is that we do need health insurance reform in our country, but that doesn’t mean that we need a “government provided option”-which is obviously what the Liberals and the democratic party take it to mean, and, unfortunately with our “rock star” president what we could end up with isn’t reform, but more government intrusion into our daily lives than we want.

Saying goodbye to the Obama platform of "change we can believe in"

I don’t always catch everything which goes on in the news, and fortunately I have a good group of friends who are always willing to pass things along to me which I may have missed.

Such was the case earlier today when I received an email from a friend of mine pertaining to a yahoo news story which was published online yesterday detailing a “back door” deal that Mr. Obama made with lobbyists of the Pharmaceutical industry. The story details how Obama worked a deal out with “Big Pharma’s” chief lobbyist, a Billy Tauzin, in which the Fed would forgo Medicare drug price bargaining and allowing the importation of cheaper pharmaceutical drugs from Canada in exchange for $80 billion in cost savings (apparently on pharmaceuticals for Medicare) and financial backing of the “pro reform campaign”.

This deal between Obama and Tauzin apparently took place late last week but since then House Democrats have gotten a little peeved at Mr. Obama and forced him to back off on the deal-somewhat.

Regardless of whether or not this “deal” actually happened, I would like to know about that change which Mr. Obama promised us when he ran for president. Wasn’t one of the positions under his platform of “change” that he wouldn’t be bullied by the lobbyists in Washington? That he wouldn’t allow them to influence any of his policy making decisions? That he wouldn’t “play old school political games” (or something similar)?

It has been obvious to me, at least, from the beginning of Mr. Obama’s presidency that his version of “change” was not one that I agreed with. I am definitely no conservative, but I am no liberal socialist either-which is exactly what Mr. Obama is and which is why I refuse to call him “President” on principle. Our President is supposed to represent the majority of the opinion in our country, and as time has gone on Obama has proven time and time again that he does not represent the majority in our country. In fact, the more time that passes the more and more people I encounter who voted for Mr. Obama but who now regret their decision as they continue to see how socialist Mr. Obama really is. At least as his socialist policies were concerned, we could legitimately say that Obama was all about “change”. But now we can say that he is a liar too, because his form of change was supposed to be about not playing partisan politics and not pandering to special interests and lobbyists, but here we have Obama working a major deal with one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington to secure support for his healthcare package commonly known as Obamacare…

So much for “change we can believe in”, particularly since it’s now obvious that Obama doesn’t even believe in that garbage himself.

The economic "recovery"??

So, tell me: do you think the recession is over? Do you think that our economy is beginning its recovery process? Further, do you think the so called “economic stimulus” package, which Barack Obama so highly touted in the first 100 days of his presidency, has anything to do with the positive economic signs we have seen lately?

Personally, I think the answers to these questions are all incomplete-as of right now that is.

The reason for the optimism is a result of several positive pieces of economic news to come out this week. Firstly, the DJIA had its best July ever (as a proportionate percentage of growth), going from just over 8000 points to over 9000 to start off August. Next came some better than expected news from the housing sector and losses, and earnings for that matter, which beat Wallstreet expectations. All this combined with a jobs report today which showed that, for the first time in a while now, the national unemployment rate went down-from 9.5 to 9.4%.

That whopping .1% may not seem like a whole lot to you (or me), but it is a huge improvement considering how many jobs that we, as a nation, have been shedding over the last 2 years or so. But, the real question here is, have we finally turned the corner on the recession? Are we finally working our way out of the worst economic crisis that our nation has faced since the great depression?

I happen to follow the global economy pretty closely, and what I see so far is promising, but not that promising and I surely wouldn’t go as far as the news media have been the last 2 days with it in saying that the recession is all but over with.

I think the best news that we have gotten out of the last week is that most of the world’s largest stock indexes are up for the year. Further is that the industrial economies of India and China continue to grow at healthy rates. These things, I think, are much more important than what is happening domestically as it relates to turning our economy around because our economy is tied too deeply into the global economy today to think that we, alone, could pull ourselves out of this recession.

That brings us to my 2^nd question: has the Obama stimulus package had any effect? To this I have to give a resounding no.

Barely 10% of the $100’s of billions which Obama promised have made it into our economy, and even that which did went into state public works projects which only provide temporary employment at best. In fact, many municipalities are wondering where the money is that Mr. Obama promised them. The most successful part of his stimulus package-the Cash for Clunkers program-is basically tapped out, and, for me, raises some serious concerns as to the future value of certain cars which we currently are driving. Beyond these 2 things, most of this money is sitting there, waiting to be spent-which is where I’d rather see it.

If all this money manages to make it out into our economy, then these positive signs we have seen lately will be nothing more than a brief lapse; a proverbial calm before the storm of what is to come within our domestic economy, because where is that money coming from? Literally, it is coming from no where. It is being printed based on nothing by the Fed. Therefore, releasing it all into our economy would do nothing but cause massive inflationary pressures that would in turn cause further company closures and job losses.

No, I for one am going to hold some reservations about this supposed “economic turnaround”. What we have seen this week are good things, and hopefully they will provide some temporary peace of mind and hope to many of those out there looking for work or worried about losing their jobs. However, until I see more realistic signs of the economy improving (brisk new home and durable goods sales, moderate but steady gains on Wallstreet and the other major indexes, and a steady lowering of the unemployment rate) then I’m only willing to so far as to say that this is a sign that perhaps the recession as bottomed out, but, nothing more.