Aaron Opine

Finding Time for God

2011-12-21T06:00:00.000-08:00

Photo by Sujit kumar

Life goes by at lightning speed. I recall being a child and wondering why it was taking so long to grow up. Now each passing year seems to go faster than the last and I wonder why time can't just slow down. It's less than a week until Christmas and I still haven't found time to finish my Christmas shopping (for my wife...so you know it better get done!). In the midst of this chaos what get priority? Going to work certainly seems important; so I'd put that high on the list. Changing the oil in the car is important, but you can fudge that a couple hundred miles and it's not going to make a big difference. What about finding time for God?

The answer depends highly upon your religious proclivity. The atheist just laughs and says something about how smart he is and that science is his savior. The agnostic doesn't care while the deist doesn't think God cares. The scientologist claims he is his own god and therefore justifies spending exorbitant amounts of time for "god" - just look at that religious group and try convincing me I'm wrong. The catholic makes time from exactly 9:00 AM to 9:55AM every Sunday, but not a moment longer. The protestant makes just enough time to make more time than anyone else in the congregation. Reverend Jesse Jackson makes time as long as it advances his social agenda, but not if it doesn't.

Maybe the better question to answer is: why does it matter if I find time for God? I'm certainly no role model for finding time for God, but I can definitely answer the question. If I compare a week wherein I've spent a lot of time for God (writing, reading the Bible, praying, etc.) I am much happier, less stressed, and much more focused on what is really important in life. By contrast, weeks where I don't spend time on God are usually filled with stress, anger, and a disproportionate concern for things that don't really matter. Consider by analogy why that might be.

Imagine if you needed to travel between point A and B and decided to purchase a Cessna Citation to fulfill this need. On the surface, it might seem like a great solution and owning a sleek private jet is certainly appealing to most of us. However, if points A and B are only separated by 10 miles your purchase is a horrible solution; in fact, you would quickly loathe taxing down roadways crowded with cars, parking would be a disaster, refueling would be next to impossible, and the cost far in excess of a more appropriate form of transportation. You might also do some jail time for trying to drive and airplane down the roads, but that's beyond the scope of our analogy. It's not that a Citation is a bad airplane, it's that it isn't designed to be a 10 mile commuter car. Imagine how much better the Citation performs when it's being used in the way it was designed.

Just like the airplane, we were designed by God with a specific purpose. Determining our purpose isn't always easy, but the less time with God the farther we are from finding it. It should be no surprise to me that I am happier the more time I spend "with" God because I am closer to realizing my purpose. When I'm not finding time for God it's a lot like driving my private jet down I-5 in the middle of Los Angeles during rush hour.

The aforementioned might describe why it's important to find time for God, but how do we accomplish it in the midst of busy lives? First, by properly prioritizing our lives - and God should be number one. Attending church, small groups, and bible studies are all excellent ways to focus - plus they're usually more relaxing than pandering to the beckoning calls of the strip mall. Second, finding time for God isn't all about going to church. Throughout any day there are a multitude of opportunities to pray for help, give gratitude, or offer simple praise. It needn't be a showy unfurling of your prayer mat whilst bowing in mock reverence. In fact, I think of it more as a conversation throughout the day...something similar to texting God. For example, when I go hiking I like to stop, take in the beautiful scenery (did I mention I live in Colorado?), and say a simple prayer of praise for the majesty of Creation. At work it's often a prayer to help me stay focused and work hard. Third, reading the Bible is valuable, but I find it much more rewarding to do so with a good study guide to explain the connections and parallels I would otherwise miss. I was once timid and easily dissuaded by secularists who challenged Biblical truths and made accusations about apparent paradoxes or incongruities in the Bible, but having read the Bible with the aid of christian apologetics I am confident, have much greater understanding, and can easily refute the challenges. Consequently, I understand the logical consistency that can only come from a God-created universe and my faith is never stronger.

Ultimately, we can make plenty of time for God during the day. Doing so requires abandoning some classical ideas of God being only present and accessible through church, although church is always important. It takes a conscious effort to focus on God, but the rewards are much greater than you can fathom. Indeed, the meaning of our life is fulfilled when we live according to our design, and our design is revealed through our closeness to God.

Tebow: Headlines for the Right Reasons

2011-12-20T06:00:00.000-08:00

Photo by: Jeffrey Beall

A Colorado native and long-time resident, I have been an ardent Broncos fan since I watched my first football game. When the Broncos signed Tim Tebow I was excited because I knew of his deep religious convictions and I was glad his influence was coming to Denver, regardless of his capabilities. Of course, when he began his winning streak (Broncos vs Patriots aside) it was merely icing on the cake. Not surprisingly, Tebow has summoned forth a preponderance of critics, some rebuking his skill and many others chiding his religious zeal. Yet I wonder, with my bias aside, is there anyone else garnering headlines this year that is a more positive role model?

Looking back on 2011 and contemplating the individuals who captured the majority of our newsprint (and pixels) the list looks something like this:

Lindsay Lohan: In and out of court for drug and alcohol problems and has become the poster child of Hollywood self-destruction

Kim Kardashian: Reality TV's latest example of a dysfunctional family; married for an insultingly short 72 days; more concerned about appearances than anything of real value

Osama Bin Laden: Died a cowards death after years in hiding; greatest claim to fame is the murder of thousands of innocent people

Lady Gaga: Best known for her eccentric style and backwards sense of morality; wore a dress of raw meat to protest eating meat (because apparently killing animals for no other purpose than fashion is far better)

Jerry Sandusky: Scumbag child predator, enough said.

Herman Cain: GOP primary candidate who showed promise, but became embroiled in scandal over claims of sexual harassment and adultery

Steve Jobs: Apple founder and icon who dies of pancreatic cancer...not than anything is wrong with this, but there's not much that's overtly positive or negative

The list could become quite lengthy, but overall I cannot think of another individual who has exerted as much positivity over the news as Tim Tebow. He has shown himself of upright character and optimism even amid scathing criticism and a loss to the New England Patriots. Moreover, he stands up against those who challenge his beliefs even though they are not politically correct. In fact, Tebow challenges the rest of us, whether we agree with him or not, to stand up publicly for our beliefs in a confident and respectful way. He leads by example to show us that we can battle against the cultural current.

As long as Tim Tebow continues to honor God, remain humble, and stay positive his influence will have good ramifications. I am thankful for a person who is making news based on his moral and upright character and optimism. In a world rife with negativity, pestilence, and moral depravity it is refreshing to see so much coverage on the other end of the spectrum. Although the almost miraculous fourth quarter wins have been exciting to watch and certainly a part of his rise to fame, I believe the largest portion of Tebow's positive favor is a consequence of his peculiar positivity.

Headline Rewind week of Dec 12

2011-12-16T14:14:00.000-08:00

Moving to Canada Just Became More Attractive

Canada announced it is dropping out of the Kyoto Protocol, a long-standing, ill conceived, and ineffective piece of globalism slated as the panacea to Anthropogenic Global Warming. Proving its new conservative leadership is more logical and realistic than the USA's, Canada has provided yet another piece of evidence that it is a nation worth living in. However, I will still not be moving to Canada because I'm not about to give U.S. liberals that kind of satisfaction.

President Obama Sizes up the 2012 Competition, but Remains Ignorant of his own Failures

Obama again invoked liberal rhetoric when interviewed about his thoughts on the GOP candidates for the 2012 presidential race. For the second time in less than a week, Obama decried them as conservative ideologues (apparently not knowing what a real conservative is) who wish to promote the wealthy at the expense of all others. He further asserted that the economic ills we face today are a consequence of three decades of failed conservative economic theory.

Apparently, Obama doesn't realize that conservatism has been waning steadily over the last 100 years; most notably ever since FDR graced us with socialism run amuck. Contrary to a [true] conservative view, our nation has become ever more shackled by government regulation making a "free market" system farther and farther from reality. Instead, we have transition closer to the liberal utopia of total government control, but in spite of this trend we have still suffered economic recessions, accounting scandals, government corruption, and multiple Ponzi schemes (not just Social Security). In the past three years, the trajectory towards statism has only worsened under the "leadership" of Obama whose first two years in office included Democratic party control of the entire government. Therefore, Obama's suggestion that conservative ideals have made this country worse doesn't measure up to reality. Lacking any success of his own, because his Marxist views have never and will never work, Obama is instead waging a campaign war preying upon the ignorance of many and the like-mindedness of a few while leveraging his dishonesty via a sympathetic media.

Iran Begs to be Bombed

In its latest nose-thumbing to the rest of the world, Iran downed a U.S. stealth drone intact and also began maneuvers in the Strait of Hormuz to blockade oil shipments from the region as retaliation against economic sanctions. These events come shortly after attempting to assassinate foreign dignitaries on U.S. soil and ongoing efforts to develop nuclear weapons. To any fair minded American these are all obvious evidences that Iran needs to be severely punished. However, President Obama continues to prefer his typical approach to international relations: pretentious huffiness. Watch out Ahmadinejad...Obama might roll his eyes at you!

The Government Saves Christmas at Kmart

Photo by: Caldorwards4

Oh wait...no it didn't. Instead, anonymous private donors across the country have been paying off layaway accounts at Kmart stores. Many of the unsuspecting benefactors have been surprised by calls from Kmart staff informing them their layaway accounts are paid up and they can claim the merchandise; it has come as a perfectly timed Christmas blessing. Although the payoffs weren't part of a government social welfare program (as liberals suspected), we can be assured the IRS will attempt to collect taxes on the "income" these lucky families have received via the payoffs.

America Makes Significant Strides Towards a National Religion

Atheist Alliance International logo

Despite the Constitution's First Amendment Establishment Clause preventing Congress from establishing a religion, the United States continues its steady march towards a national religion. Across the country this Christmas season the free exercise of Christianity has been impeded and the state religion imposed in its place. In California, public school teachers were barred from decorating their classrooms with offensive things like poinsettias and stockings; Boca Raton, Florida has outlawed any "holiday symbol" in public places; Rhode Island's governor Lincoln Chafee has called the state's illuminated and decorated tree a "holiday tree" avoiding the apparently controversial name: Christmas Tree. Atheism, the religion of randomness and meaninglessness, has instead been propped up as the national religion. Atheists have successfully launched campaigns against Christianity, apparently offended by anyone who practices a religion that is not their own. However, government officials have not forbade the use of public places for the placement of Atheists' religious symbols and messaging.

The "God Particle" the End of God?

2011-12-14T21:48:00.000-08:00

Photo by: alpinethread

The scientific community is atwitter with rumors of theempirical discovery of the Higgs Boson via recent results from Switzerland’sLarge Hadron Collider. Often, suchdiscoveries are hailed as another nail in the coffin of theism; further proofthe universe doesn’t need God to exist. Physicists have gone so far as to nickname the Higgs Boson the “GodParticle” for its purported final link between the naturalistic origin of theuniverse and our universe today. However, this type of thinking is so illogical it should be insulting tothe droves of PhD’s who proselytize it while also calling into question theirjudgment and reasoning ability.

The failed logic goes something like this: the more we knowabout the way the universe works, the less need there is for mythological godsto explain the unknowns. In essence,they believe the only reason God exists is as a filler to prevent cognitivedissonance - a way for people to make sense of the incomprehensible. Perhaps they have spent too much timelearning of Greek mythology whereby the Greeks invented gods to explain theforces in the universe without needing to understand the underlying physicsbehind the phenomena. While Greekmythology may be responsible for shaping the physicists perspective of God andreligion, it still doesn’t excuse their naiveté.

Let’s put this into better context via analogy. Reverse engineering is a technique employed tounderstand how a competing technology works so it can be leveraged for someoneelse’s benefit. This why we never wantour military technology to fall into the hands of an enemy (such as a stealthdrone being downed and confiscated by Iran)– we don’t want enemies to use our technology against us. Through disassembly and testing it ispossible to recreate the engineering and knowledge that led to thetechnology. For example, Iranmay be able to learn how our stealth aircraft technology works by reverseengineering the downed drone and consequently develop its own stealth drones,or build defense technologies to ward off our drones.

In effect, Iranian scientists may go from knowing verylittle about U.S.stealth technology (or drone technology) to knowing almost everything aboutit. At the completion of their reverseengineering, the Iranian scientists will not proclaim they have proven thestealth drones were spontaneously self-created through random, naturalisticprocesses. Yet, doing so is equivalentto scientists’ claims that learning more about particle physics proves theuniverse came into existence through random, naturalistic means. Instead, the Iranians will reaffirm theirinitial assumption that the drones are byproduct of intelligent design.

No one reverse engineers something of purely random originsbecause it would be, by definition, meaningless. The expectation for reverse engineering isthat the subject matter was designed and constructed by rationale beings usingsound engineering principles conforming to consistent physical laws. Therefore, the very act of “reverseengineering” nature, so to speak, belies the expectation that nature has alogical Creator. If there were no Creatorthen the universe must be the consequence of purely random events with no basisfor consistent fundamental physical laws; thus, reverse engineering would befutile.

Before the CERN physicists can design an experiment theymust first assume a universe created by an intelligent, logical being. In fact, trusting their own cognition assumesthey are the consequence of a consistent, logical Creator; the alternative is “intelligence”derived from nothing more than random chemical reactions over billions ofyears. In other words, the ability todesign, conduct, and interpret experiments pre-assumes the universe and humancognitive ability are logical and consistent. Concluding the empirical affirmation of the standard theory of physicsis the death knell of religion first borrows the necessary logic andconsistency from the Judeo-Christian religion to make operational sciencepossible before concluding the Judeo-Christian religion is disproved by theresults. Perhaps Iran will use the samereasoning and pile carbon fiber, titanium, and aluminum at the end of a runwayin hopes that a stealth drone will spontaneously manufacture itself and take tothe skies – after all, stealth drones are clearly the consequence of time andchance; not some fable about intelligent designers creating them in a factoryin America, right?

Headline Rewind - Week of Nov. 14

2011-11-18T14:17:00.001-08:00

Obama Administrations Continues to Snub Nose at Transparency

The only thing transparent about the Obama Administration is the toilet water into which he is flushing his campaign promise for government accountability. In a fresh round of Congressional testimony before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee, the CEO of consulting firm ECSI described the pressure from Obama Administration officials to redo their analysis after the number of projected job losses resulting from Obama regulations on the Coal mining industry were too high for their liking. The firm refused, citing a little something known as intellectual honesty. The Administration didn't want to show the true impact of more of its burdensome regulations upon the American middle class; given the consultant's refusal to lie, the Administration terminated ECSI's contract.

Black Friday Beckons

Still a week away, many are already getting ready to indulge in the customary, day-after-Thanksgiving, Black Friday melee. A couple in St. Petersburg, Florida began their campout at Best Buy on Monday - that's 12 days before Black Friday. It would be much more impressive, however, if someone would camp outside the Best Buy in Anchorage 12 days in advance.

NYC to Occupy: Vacate

Photo by Debra Gaines

New York Mayor Bloomberg finally found the gumption to evict Occupy protestors from Zuccotti park. Many arrests were made as police officers moved in on protestors who had refused to leave during the early morning hours. In the process of clearing out the remaining mess of tents, tarps, and other structures left by the protestors, workers discovered garbage, feces, and hypodermic needles...and yet the protestors wonder why they can't find jobs? Really!!?? It's bad enough they want more government handouts, but apparently they also expect taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up after themselves - I'm sure they'd also like us to pick their boogers and wipe their butts.

In a related story, the city of Washington D.C. is opting to continue permitting protestors. City officials suggested the protestors were good for local business. However, it may simply be that Occupy protestors effectively bring down the per capita crime and drug use rates in D.C.

Ex-Coach Sandusky Makes a Good Case for Bringing Back the Stocks

As the Sandusky scandal continues to unfold at Penn State, Jerry Sandusky made a public attempt to defend himself. Speaking without a lawyer present (obviously), Sandusky revealed just how perverse he really is. Sandusky, and the filth like him, make an excellent argument for bringing back the humiliating punishment of the public stocks. Although I'm not sure he would survive very long.

God and Liberty - Part V

2011-11-14T06:00:00.000-08:00

Thefollowing is part of a five-part series discussing the inextricable linkbetween God and Libertyin the context of challenges to religion on the fallacious notion that ourFounding Fathers intended a secular nation. The consequences of a Godless society are considered and the historicalprecedence for religion in U.S.politics is explored.

Part I discusses the true origin of liberty and I don’t mean the liberty afforded byour government – I mean true liberty.

Part II compares government under religious and irreligious extremes to understandthe importance of God’s influence in establishing just governance.

Part III addresses the question of which religion can be used to form a logicallycoherent and objective basis for morality.

Part IV looks at the history of the infamous phrase, “a wall of separation betweenchurch and state,” and examines the efficacy of its current interpretation.

PartV shows the direction we must go as a nation to preserve liberty and providesrecommendations for achieving it.

PartV – So now what?

Didthe Founding Fathers intend the United Statesto be a Christian nation? It dependsupon how you define “Christian nation.” TheFounders most certainly did not intend for the free exercise of religion to berestricted provided the practice of other religions did not infringe upon thenatural rights of the population, were moral, and did not break the law. However, they clearly intended Christianityto be a part of American government and central to the derivation of properlaw. For 171 years the United States fulfilled that intent; it wasn’t untilthe 1947 Everson v. Board of Education trial that supreme court justices, 8 ofthe 9 appointed by uber-progressive FDR, that the Establishment Clause wasperverted into its present day legal interpretation. The question is: What do we do now?

First,we must recognize the current trend is a problem and understand theramifications. Recall that onlymeaninglessness can be derived from an a priori belief the universe, andeverything contained within it, is a result of completely random, naturalisticphenomena. Consequently, morality andtherefore law cannot be objective under an atheistic view. Similarly, Part III showed thatnon-Judeo-Christian religions cannot provide an objective basis because theyalso lack cogent logical derivations for morality. Thus, if we abandon our Judeo-Christianreligious values we are destined to erode into amoral practices and eventuallydegrade as a society.

Atheistslike to counter that they act morally and therefore this concern isunwarranted. However, this missed thepoint entirely. Confined to an atheisticworldview, one cannot know what is or is not moral; therefore, their moralbehavior can only be understood in a Christian context. Because the universe and all life is createdby God and mankind is created in the image of God we should rationally expectpeople to have a general sense of right and wrong. Under any other worldview this would not be areasonable expectation.

Thisby no means implies that abolition of all religion (particularly Christianity)from government would immediately result in moral decline. General societal sense of morality and legalprecedence would still be in effect. However, as time progresses, upon what basis would the courts adjudicatetheir decisions; namely on matters involving ethics and morality? Because theCourt would no longer be permitted to base its judgment on the objective moralprinciples it must resort to some other measure or morality. Is it whether or not someone is injured? This might be an acceptable method for somecases, but what defines injury? Isinjury only physical harm or does it include psychological harm? What if the defendant was also injured,perhaps in a case of self-defense – wouldn’t the victim also be guilty ofinjuring the defendant? Morality couldbe decided democratically by majority vote, but what happens when the majorityis immoral? More poignantly, whathappens if the majority is Christian and they decide morality on the basis oftheir worldview – wouldn’t this still be an unacceptable outcome to the likesof the ACLU?

Nomatter which alternative scenario is envisaged, the result always ends withirrational subjectivity. The need tomaintain an objective reference for morality is evident. However, we’ve already come far down the pathof extricating the Judeo-Christian religion from our nation’s governance. This leaves us with two choices. The first isto lobby our government to act legislatively to change the law and give ourcourts a new basis for evaluating future cases. Doing so would probably require a constitutional amendment to revise thewording of the First Amendment and is, quite frankly, highly improbable.

Thesecond option is feasible but requires a new perspective: properly recognizingatheism as a religion. According to theatheist faithful, their positions are based upon science and areirreligious. However, a lack of beliefin God is not a lack of belief in anything. Quite to the contrary, atheism is the arduously held belief that therecan be no supernatural explanation for anything. It presupposes that all unknowns caneventually be explained in a naturalistic way – an obvious statement offaith. In addition, an atheist answeringthe fundamental question posed in Part I, why does the universe exist, isunable to answer without imbuing purely ideological opinions. Atheism is, by definition, a religion.

Byofficially (through legislation or legal precedence) declaring atheism areligion the impetus to remove Christianity from government is eroded. Atheism and its beliefs have been indoctrinatedinto our public schools, national parks, colleges, news, and politics withoutthe legal challenge of “separation of church and state.” Once this same treatment is applied, thoseraising legal challenges to “religion” in government will likewise be obstructingtheir own beliefs. Of course, this only curtailsthe suits against Christianity and does not reinstate it into our judicial codeor national ethos.

Revivingthe Christian ethos requires enough time to overcome generational inertia. Our schools’ curricula should be revised toinclude specific and arduous instruction in logic and reasoning. Specific attention should be paid to thederivation of morality, the eternal questions of right and wrong. Such instruction could be, and rightfullyshould be, completely devoid of any particular religious indoctrination. However, it must be rigorously taught. This means oxymoronic liberal-logic is notpermitted – in other words, statements like, “whatever makes you happy” or“it’s not fair” cannot go unchallenged. Students must be tested on their ability to construct positions on thebasis of sound logic and they must be made aware of their presuppositions. This instruction cannot begin in grade schoolthrough high school, it must begin in the colleges where new teachers arereceiving their instruction so that they can pass it down to theirstudents. Otherwise, the currentwhimsical, irrelevant ideology espoused to them – and subsequently by them –will make it impossible for them to instruct our children about proper logicand reason.

Thisapproach may seem anti-religious itself, but remember the discussions in PartsI through IV showing how other presuppositional ideologies implode when takento their logical ends. Instruction inlogic compels students to consider these ends and reformulate their ownpresuppositions into rational, logically defensible a priori beliefs. Secondly, this concept favors no religion orideology so it should face no opposition (aside from atheists who realize thefallaciousness of their beliefs but hold to them out of dogma). Third, you may disagree with my entiredissertation, but in proposing this approach I am willing to let logic be theultimate test of truth at the risk of being proven wrong – a risk I considerextremely improbable.

Notealso that I am not proposing Christianity be inserted as a State religion. The free exercise of religion was, is, andshould always be an important aspect of the United States of America. Requiring citizens to practice a particular religiondoes nothing to instill someone’s faith in that religion. Bona fide faith in God is the ultimate hope,but it most come to everyone on a personal level; not at the threat of beingpunished by government. On the contrary,my proposal de-establishes atheism as the state religion and equips everyonewith the proper intellectual tools to make the decision on their own.

If Idid not believe in the logical robustness of a God based presuppositionalbelief I would never be willing to leave the fate of my nation to chance. Because I have evaluated the logicalramifications of alternative beliefs I am confident the outcome of my proposalis a resounding reinstatement of the moral principles and unalienable rights thatcan only be justified in the context of the Judeo-Christian God.

Headline Rewind - Week of Nov 7

2011-11-11T06:00:00.000-08:00

Occupy Protestors Prove Math Isn’t Their Cup of Tea

Opinion polls for the Occupy [bowel] movement are showingplummeting public approval. Dependingupon the poll, the Occupiers have about a 30% approval among Americans callinginto question the group’s 99% claim. Perhapsit is the 53% of earners who actually pay taxes that are upset by the group’svociferous demands for government handouts that has turned off many would-besupporters. Alternatively, it might be the31% of respondents from Occupy Wall Streetthat believe violence is justified in pursuit of their ends. Of course, I would rule out the rampant violenceagainst police, destruction of public and private property, or the obstructionof businesses resulting in job-losses caused by Occupy.

Regardless of the reason, Occupy’s claim of representing 99%of the populous doesn’t add up. Maybethat’s why so many are swimming in tens of thousands of dollars in student loandebt - they simply couldn’t figure outthe arithmetic that would have proved an ivy league arts degree isn’t a goodinvestment.

Iran Thinks We’re Stupid

Photo by Daniella Zalcman

Iran’sAhmadinejad still insists his nation’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Apparently, Ahmadinejad thinks we’d alsoleave our kids with the neighborhood pedophile because he gives them a lolipop. On the other hand, the Obama administration’sinept response to the brewing crises might in fact prove we are that stupid- orat least the majority of Americans who elected the President are.

Thank goodness for Israel,a nation with the common sense to prep for the inevitability of a nuclear Irandespite the willful ignorance of the rest of the World.

MexicoAnnexes California

Photo by Esparta Palma

A Federal judge upholds California’sMorgan Hill Unified School District ban on pro-Americanclothing on the fifth of May (Cinco de Mayo, as it will now be known). In 2010, the school district banned studentsfrom wearing American flag shirts, and other pro-U.S. clothing, on May 5^th. Although, this is a big holiday in Mexico,the School District seemed unaware that Californiawas, at the time, a part of the United State of America– not Mexico. The Federal court ruled that the ban was notan affront to the First Amendment protections of free speech leaving one toconclude that California musttherefore be a State of Unidos Estados de Mexico, or the judge simply confusedthe U.S. State with the Mexican Stateof Baja California…an honestmistake.

The Union Fix - Part 2

2011-11-10T06:00:00.000-08:00

In part one of “The Union Fix” I introduced the immediatestep towards dismantling the strangle hold unions have on U.S.manufacturing. In part two, I discussthe longer-term solution to finally break the cycle of anti-competitiveness andbring manufacturing back to our nation.

In Washington State,the IAM waged a strike on the Boeing Company in 2008 resulting in months ofdelays and lost production. Afterreaching a contract agreement, Boeing sought assurances from the IAM that itwould not strike again. When the IAWfailed to meet this demand Boeing made the decision to build a second 787assembly line in North Carolina,a right-to-work state. Although nowembroiled in a highly publicized lawsuit against Boeing over the decision, theIAM provides a perfect example of how unions price themselves out of themanufacturing labor market and drive companies to alternative markets.

The Boeing case also illustrates part of my proposedsolution. Twenty-two of our nation’sStates are right-to-work states. However, the liberal foothold in the remaining 28 States is unlikely torelent sufficiently to permit the adoption of right-to-work laws. Therefore, we need a compellingcompromise.

Large corporations are forbade from controlling too much ofa given market per existing anti-trust laws. The word monopoly in the halls of the Federal Trade Commission is aspringboard to action and eventual divestiture of assets from the offendingfirm. However, these same principleshave not been applied to unions. Unionsthat represent all employees to a particular firm or industry have a monopolyon that labor market. Therefore, weshould extend anti-trust laws to unions via legal precedent orlegislation. In so doing, no singleunion would be able to have a monopoly on labor.

The outcome of this step would be a dismantling of theAFL-CIO, SEIU, and Change to Win Federation. In addition, no one union could represent all the employees in aparticular trade at a single company. Therefore, more than one union would be required; in cases where noadditional union is ratified, at least a portion of the employees would not beunionized. In all cases, the unionswould be forced to compete with one another for members. Competition would tend to put downwardpressure on dues and inherently limit the amount of money available forpolitical manipulation.

This solution is effectively a compromise in that it stillallows a closed shop for unions, it preserves worker’s rights to unionize, andit gives workers greater choice in representation. Finally, from the perspective of the firms,there would be competition in the labor market giving the companies greaterflexibility over the compensation packages. In turn, this helps prevent ludicrous pension benefits, exorbitant wagesfor menial labor, and ultimately makes the U.S.manufacturing industry more competitive against a world of low pricedalternatives.

God and Liberty - Part IV

2011-11-07T06:00:00.000-08:00

Part I discusses the true origin of liberty and I don’t mean the liberty afforded byour government – I mean true liberty.

Part II compares government under religious and irreligious extremes to understandthe importance of God’s influence in establishing just governance.

Part III addresses the question of which religion can be used to form a logicallycoherent and objective basis for morality.

PartIV looks at the history of the infamous phrase, “a wall of separation betweenchurch and state,” and examines the efficacy of its current interpretation.

PartV shows the direction we must go as a nation to preserve liberty and providesrecommendations for achieving it.

PartIV – History of “Wall of Separation between Church and State”

Undoubtedly,the most common phrase in the government vs. religion battles is “Separationbetween church and state.” MostAmericans probably don’t have any idea where this phrase comes from; much lesswhat it really means. In present times ithas become the catch phrase of those who wish to strip any religions mention(particularly Christian religions) from any public place. However, truth is a vociferous enemy ofrevisionist history and wanton logic and in reality it was a matter of reassuranceto a populous of varied Christian denominations.

In1802, President Thomas Jefferson penned the following letter to the DanburyBaptist Association in Connecticut. In Connecticut,Baptists were a minority and they were likewise concerned that thepreponderance of political representation (local, state, and federal) fromother denominations would cause them to be subjugated to the more dominantdenomination. Jeffersonwas pointing out that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prevented anyfaction of the United Statespolitical apparatus from “establishing” a particular religion.

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, acommittee of the DanburyBaptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are sogood as to express towards me, on behalf of the DanburyBaptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate afaithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & inproportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the dischargeof them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely betweenMan & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or hisworship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & notopinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole Americanpeople which declared that their legislature should "make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercisethereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of therights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress ofthose sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convincedhe has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of thecommon father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & yourreligious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Sincethe writing of this letter – most notably since 1947 – the phrase “Wall ofSeparation Between Church and State” has been used to successfully argue thatthere shall be no mention of religion in any public venue. However, this was certainly not Jefferson’sintent. Jeffersonwas simply elucidating what the First Amendment already said: Congress can’testablish a state religion. If he wasimplying anything further he would certainly be stepping outside hisConstitutional authority as president; only a Constitutional amendment couldratify the Establishment Clause. Yet hisletter has formed the basis for several legal actions going far beyond theintent of the First Amendment even to the point of violating it outright, suchas the ACLU suing the Tennessee Board of Education to prevent teachers fromwearing or bearing any objects that could suggest a Christian subcontext, oreven praying with students as part of the National Day of Prayer.

Manylike to argue that Jefferson was an atheist or agnosticand thus inclined to view the First Amendment in this way. However, this is a false representation of Jefferson’sreligious views. He was most likely aDeist, but certainly not agnostic or atheistic. Certainly no self respecting atheist would provide the salutation foundin the last paragraph of the aforementioned letter. Moreover, such a supposition of Jeffersonignores blatant historical truth. Jefferson’sreply to the Danbury Baptist Association was dated January 1, 1802. On January 3, 1802 Jeffersonattended church in the House of Representatives, as was his usual custom. (Church services were held every Sunday inthe Capitol building until 1866.) Had Jeffersonintended the current interpretation of his infamous phrase it would defy allreason for him to attend Christian religious services in the epicenter of U.S.government without any objection.

Indeedthe question is begged: why did it take until 1947 (Everson vs. Board ofEducation) for the Supreme Court to take Jefferson’s1802 letter as evidence for the Founder’s belief that government and religionshould be completely disengaged from one another? The answer is ideology.

TheWorld is rife with examples of mixed ideology. Some heated exchanges can be had by taking a stance in the AnthropogenicGlobal Warming hoax (see…I’ve revealed my bias), Creation vs. Evolution debate,and the subject separation of church and state issue within Americangovernment. Much like my question inPart I, “Why does the universe exist?” there are ways to derive each person’s apriori beliefs. These personalpresuppositions are what cause us to formulate opinions and positions on issues– the role and breadth of government in society is one such issue. A debate about the philosophical merits ofthe courts’ decisions regarding religion and government is pointless and likelyto be never-ending with neither side of the philosophical spectrum yieldingfrom their fundamental beliefs.

Instead,it is instructive to consider who the Supreme Court justices were in 1947during Everson. Not surprisingly, 8 ofthe 9 justices were appointed by FDR, the father of modern American liberalism(second only in chronology to progressive Woodrow Wilson). To suggest that a president’s Supreme Courtappointments are without bias is to live in ignorance of the judicial recordsof Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, both appointed under the reign of theultra-liberal President Obama. Likewise,it is easy to see how the progressivism of FDR became instrumental, via hiscourt appointees, to the decision of Everson. Once Everson was “on the books” it became only a matter of legalprecedent for all subsequent cases on this issue barring an act of Congress tochange the law.

Thuswe see that today’s objections to as much as a whisper of religion regardinganything resembling a public entity is not based upon the intentions of ourFounding Fathers; instead it is the consequence of ideology run amuck. It is unlikely that those popping the cork ontheir champagne bottles following the court decisions supporting their dubiousclaims to the extrication of religion considered the following two paradoxes:

1) In seeking legal action against religious establishment (predominantlyChristian) the separationists have established a state religion: atheism. This is in direct violation of theEstablishment Clause which they reference as the source of authority in theircases.

2) By upholding atheism as the only belief system permitted by government,they seek to derive just proper law from a philosophy that can only offermeaninglessness (see Part I) and therefore lawlessness.

Inconclusion, it should be readily apparent through this limited discussion, thatthe Founders of our nation most certainly did not intend a governmentcompletely devoid of religions influence. To the contrary, their intent was to establish a government on the basisof unalienable rights afforded by the “Creator.” James Madison wrote that “religion is thebasis and Foundation of Government.” George Washington said in his farewell address, “Of all the dispositionsand habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality areindispensable supports.” John Adamswrote, “…it is Religion and Morality alone which can establish the principlesupon which freedom can securely stand.” The true intentions of the Founders could not be clearer.

Itis no accident the treacherous and deadly regimes led by the likes of Mao andStalin were strictly atheistic – law and morality are entirely subjective whenthere is no basis for it and the slaughter of millions of innocent citizens isdefensible without religion. Anyderogatory references by the Founders to religion must be considered in thecontext of the times where differences between Christian denominations had beenthe source of civil and multinational wars throughout Europe. In America,all colonies except Rhode Islandhad established official churches – of varying Christian denominations. Therefore, it is easy to understand themotivation of the Founders to establish a form of federalism that did notalienate one State’s religious preference. Likewise, they did not want to descend to fighting amongst the stateslike Europe. TheFounders well understood logic and reason (it was still a part of basiceducational curriculum at the time) and they knew a government devoid ofreligion was based upon nothing. Consequently, the U.S.government was based upon objectivity and common sense that can only come fromGod. To follow the current trend is todescend into a deep chasm of illogical senselessness.

The Union Fix - Part 1

2011-11-03T06:00:00.000-07:00

Photo by Bill Burke

Any non-imbecile can tell you that unions have exacerbatedthe decline in manufacturing in the United States. Their demands made upon the threat of work stoppages have enabled themto amass pension funds that have crippled the likes of Ford, GM, and Chrysler. Many States and municipalities are likewisestumbling under the weight of massive public employee union pensionprograms. Like the foreign substanceinvading a festering wound, we must winnow the power of unions in our countryto restore our predominance in manufacturing. There are two key steps towardsstripping unions of their power and influence in order to reinstate ourmanufacturing base and thereby strengthen our economy (Note that addressing theunions must be done in concert with far reaching tax and regulatory reform –resolving our union problem with not be sufficient alone). The first is immediate action to be taken bysensible persons holding unions positions; the second is longer-term and canonly be accomplished at the State and Federal levels.

The first step is for all concerned union representedemployees to become objectors. When Igraduated from college I went to work for a company that was infected with anagency shop union. Initially, I chose tobe a Beck Objector (see Communication Workers of America v. Beck for legalhistory), but still paid an “agency fee” which was nearly as much as the fullunion dues. About a year later I learnedthat a significant portion of my agency fee was being used as campaigncontributions towards democratic candidates. Under Section 701(j) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967,employees with bona fide religions objections cannot be coerced into supportingunions. I wrote a letter to the unionshowing how every candidate supported by my fees was an abortion advocate. I concluded by confirming that I viewabortion as an unethical and abhorrent per my religious convictions. The union agreed (as required by law) toallow me to contribute to a non-religious charity of my choice instead of payingunion dues.

Although not all union represented employees are similarlyinclined to depose of unions, it is quite likely that many would be put off bytheir union’s prolific use of union dues to support the campaigns ofpoliticians and legislation that offends their religious sensibilities. Therefore I encourage all union employees toinvestigate how their dues are spent – following the paper trail all the way tothe AFL-CIO if necessary. With the veilof faux-legitimacy lifted, I’m willing to wager many more union employees wouldbecome religious objectors. Doing sowould strip unions of the more than $400 Million they spend annually onpolitical influence that has effectually stripped our nation of its competitivenessand propelled us closer to socio-Marxism.

For more information about becoming a Religious Objector Iencourage you, or your union worker friends, to visit www.choosecharity.org and www.nrtw.org.

This step is critical and immediate. However, it is not sufficient to curtail theinfluence, and therefore damage, of unions over our government. Next week I will share step two – a longerterm solutions with greater reach and impact.

God and Liberty - Part III

2011-10-31T06:00:00.000-07:00

Part I discusses the true origin of liberty and I don’t mean the liberty afforded byour government – I mean true liberty.

Part II compares government under religious and irreligious extremes to understandthe importance of God’s influence in establishing just governance.

PartIII addresses the question of which religion can be used to form a logicallycoherent and objective basis for morality.

Part IV looks at the history of the infamous phrase, “a wall of separation betweenchurch and state,” and examines the efficacy of its current interpretation.

PartV shows the direction we must go as a nation to preserve liberty and providesrecommendations for achieving it.

PartIII – Who’s Religion?

Alegitimate question to ask at this point is, “Who’s Religion?” In other words, why should we believe onereligion over another; why do we adopt the Judeo-Christian worldview instead ofthe Buddist worldview, for instance? Evaluation of the logical consequences of several religious categories’core beliefs can answer these questions.

First,the atheist religion is easily eliminated from consideration. Atheism requires the origin of the universeand everything in it to be of completely random, naturalistic mechanisms. There is no possible explanation for theabstract, non-inheritable aspects of humanity such as morality, conscience, andphilosophy in general. A direct logicalconsequence of atheism is that everything must be entirely meaningless –clearly this cannot be a rational source for deriving unalienable rights norproper law.

Second,we can eliminate all polytheistic religions (e.g. Shinto, Mormonism, MayanReligion, Jainism, Hinduism). Under sucha regime there could be no unified source of morality, much less logic. We could never know to which deity webelonged; therefore, we could not understand our purpose, or even surmise theexistence of purpose. A universe underthe control of many competing deities would be as bungled as our federalgovernment. At best, natural lawsderived from such a system of religious belief would be arbitrary andconstantly changing.

Third,we can eliminate all religions that teach any form of self-actualization or self-as-god(e.g. Bon, Christian Science, Druze, New Thought, Scientology). The logical consequence of these religions issomewhat similar to polytheistic religions, only worse. If we are all god-like individuals then howcould there ever be any consistent paradigms under which to evaluatemorality? Likewise, we might be able toself-claim purpose, but everyone else’s purpose would be relative to our own;extending this rationale to each individual in existence creates massivecircularity with no possible resolution. Any sense of morality stemming from these religions is completelyarbitrary and exists only to fill the blatantly obvious shortcoming of thisphilosophy.

Fourth,religions that teach God or gods exists but with no interest in humanity (e.g. Deism,Islam, Epicureanism) cannot be used because without an interest in humanity,there is no way to know God. If God doesnot care about humanity then he most certainly cannot have purpose for ourlives. If we do not have meaning orpurpose for God then how can we claim unalienable rights to life, liberty, andproperty as explained in Part I of this series? Even if there were a purpose, a disinterested god would never revealthat purpose to us; thus, we would be no better off than under a atheistsregime.

Throughlogical evaluation of the many varied religions of the world it is evident thatonly Judeo-Christian religion can offer the basis for unalienable rights and afoundation for the formation of proper law. We must have a God with purposeful intent for his creation, oneconsistent source of objective morality, and a means of receiving informationabout God in order to understand these things. The Judeo-Christian worldview is the only one that meets these criteria:a loving God with a personal, consistent interest in his creation; God is alsothe source of just, objective morality; and the Bible is the revealed word ofGod. Consequently, God is necessary forour liberty and the continued well being of our nation. Those who try to remove God from ourgovernment unknowingly (and sometimes knowingly) doom our nation to eventualdespotism.

God and Liberty - Part II

2011-10-24T06:00:00.000-07:00

Part I discusses the true origin of liberty and I don’t mean the liberty afforded byour government – I mean true liberty.

PartII compares government under religious and irreligious extremes to understandthe importance of God’s influence in establishing just governance.

Part III addresses the question of which religion can be used to form a logicallycoherent and objective basis for morality.

Part IV looks at the history of the infamous phrase, “a wall of separation betweenchurch and state,” and examines the efficacy of its current interpretation.

PartV shows the direction we must go as a nation to preserve liberty and providesrecommendations for achieving it.

PartII – God and Government

Thisworld’s propensity for evil threatens to infringe upon our rights. As individuals we may not be capable ofstanding against evil factions; therefore, we enter into a social contract: Inorder to more fully protect our unalienable rights we agree to form governmentsto establish positive laws. Somephilosophers have argued in favor of monarchy while others, notably Locke,argued in favor of republicanism. Giventhe influence of Locke’s ideas on the founding fathers it is no accident theU.S. Constitution begins with “We the People…”

Theconcept of individuals forming governments is logically consistent with naturallaw. If individuals are the rightfulbearers of unalienable rights, then it stands to reason only an individual canenter into a social contract with a government. Any tyrannical form of government whereby a ruling minority proclaimsthe right to establish a de facto government with or without the consent of thegoverned is a violation of natural law. An unjustly formed government is prone to equally unjust punitivelaws. By contrast, a just governmentgranted its power by the governed is infinitely more likely to spurn unjustpositive laws.

Imaginea world in which every person lives according to their God-given purpose. There would be no violence, no injustice, andcertainly no need for laws; much less the penal system that comes withthem. However, God gave us libertythrough free will – the will to choose God’s purpose for our lives or ourown. In principle, it is the choice ofGod or not God. In the beginning therewas only God’s purpose and it was “very good.” It wasn’t the very good you associate with a well flavored, over-pricedcoffee drink, it was the exact definition of very good – good in the sense ofsomething completely without evil.

Assoon as Adam and Eve used their liberty to chose evil they no longer werefulfilling the totality of God’s purpose. Being their Creator, God was well within his right to obliterate hiscreation, but he had mercy and allowed them to remain, albeit with thecastigation of toiling in life, culminating in eventual death. Thus was established the basis of punishmentand proper law.

Whatis just and unjust, good and evil? Absent any definition we are left to develop our own criteria. Whose criteria are correct and how do weknow? The notion that evil is anythingthat harms another is overly simplistic as there are numerous examples thatblur the line. Moreover, what is harm –is harm limited to physical harm, or can it include psychological harm? Is harm relative? In a God-created universe the answer isstraight forward: God is good. Thus,whatever is not God is, by definition, evil. It follows that living outside of God’s purpose is therefore evil, andyet how can we possibly know God’s purpose for someone else’s life?

Thankfully,the ultimate judgment resides with God, not us. However, there are still instances within the confines of our limitedhuman existence wherein we must take immediate action to cease furtherusurpation of our rights. For thispurpose we have the Ten Commandments and the Levitican laws – much of which hasbeen relied upon as an objective basis for the practice of law within ournation, serving as a reference for many Supreme Court justices who recognizetheir inability to affect judgment without objectivity.

Perhapsthis sounds like a lot of religious garbage to you? Have you considered the alternative?

Ipreviously established that there can be no unalienable right to life, liberty,or property within an irreligious existence. This has far reaching logical consequences. If there are no unalienable rights, then forwhat purpose do we enter social contracts with government? A common response is that we function betteras a society working together. Often thisis followed by references to behaviors within groups of wild animals such aspacks of wolves who will hunt together. Such observations are compelling…to an extent. Certainly, pack behavior fits nicely into thesurvival narrative – the sole source of motivation in an atheist’s universe. However, it reaches a practical limit whenthe pack becomes too large. The weakerwolves will not have food to eat and will die off. By extension, wouldn’t this philosophyadvocate the death of people who are incapable of working, or who are too poorto subsist on their own? If true, thengovernments would form only to the extent that survival and well-being isguaranteed for its citizens; specifically, those deemed too weak or incapablewould die and the size of the governed be inherently limited. There is no justification for compassion forthe poor or disabled under such rationale.

Sadly,this type of thinking isn’t too far removed from reality. Abortion in the United States was largely pushed to the forefront bythe Eugenics movement in the early part of the 20^th century. Margaret Sanger, founder of PlannedParenthood, was a eugenics supporter and urged the use of abortion,contraception, and sterilization of poor women (and black women, whom sheconsidered genetically inferior) to “cleanse” the gene pool. In a universe derived from meaninglessness itis not difficult to justify such barbary because there is no right to life;thus, a baby conceived into a poor, homeless, unloving, or accidental realitycan have no purpose. What few realize,or are willing to admit, is they are likewise purposeless under thisregime. Any arbitrary criteria for worthcan be envisaged and applied because there is no other basis with which torefute it. Take for instance the NaziHolocaust.

Nazi’stried at Nuremberg after World WarII referenced American eugenics as a source of inspiration and validation fortheir genocide. The Nazi’s usedidentical arguments to claim non-Aryans were genetically inferior and notworthy of life. They took this failed,atheistic worldview to its logical end by attempting to create a worldgovernment for the most genetically qualified people. Yet in a meaningless universe, this is notevil – in fact, there can be no objective good or evil in an existence devoidof purpose. Within this worldview, theNazi’s might as well be correct because there is no basis to proveotherwise.

Itis little wonder that in every example of totalitarian governments, the leadershave despised religion. Under the truthfound in God we know everyone is meaningful and our rights are unalienable –these are condemning facts to a ruler bent on domination. Religion is banned in such nations becausethe subservience of the populous depends upon them being unaware of theirmeaning. Having such knowledge could compelthem to rise against the unjustness much in the way the American colonists roseup against Great Britain.

Ihighly doubt those who file suit against every minute religious “infiltration”of our government would consciously chose a form of government derived from theatheist’s worldview. However, theirunchecked litany of litigation eventually results in a tyrannical governmentdevoid of God-given purpose and liberty. Here again we see the irony of proclaiming fighting for “separation ofchurch and state” done to protect liberty because its inevitable end is a starkloss of liberty.

Headline Rewind - Week of October 17th

2011-10-21T13:48:00.000-07:00

Capitalism to Blame for Death of Toddler in China

Photo by Boris van Hoytema

In a horrific tragedy in Foshan, China, a two-year-old girl toddling across the street is struck by two vans - neither driver stops. Video of the incident shows the first driver realizing he hit the child, slowing, then continuing. Eighteen people walked by the little girl laying in a pool of blood in the street before someone picks her up and helps her. Wang Yue, the girl, died at a hospital from her injuries.

The Associated Press is heaping blame on China's "economic growth and rising prosperity." A Chinese psychologist is quoted as saying, "Rapid urbanization not only affects China or Foshan, but anywhere in the world where you have a lot of high-rise buildings, where there is high population density, then the relationship with the neighbors, and with each other is affected." Apparently the AP and Chinese citizens cited by the media outlet have never heard of China's One Child Policy which was instituted in 1978, well before any semblance of capitalism entered the communist nation. (Special Economic Zones weren't enacted until the 1980s). Also missing from the list of realities is the prevalence of female infanticide resulting from the policy and cultural favoritism of men. The bodies of infant girls have been left in street gutters for decades, but apparently it is all caused by economic prosperity and not habitual immorality derived from a largely Godless society.

Senate Breaks Record and Does Right Thing Twice in Same Decade

Unprecedented in recent history, the U.S. Senate made two good legislative decisions. The first was voting down President Obama's full "jobs bill" last week and the second was voting down his pared down "jobs bill" this week. Seemingly unaware of the Democratic party's majority in the Senate, President Obama proceeded to chide Senate Republicans for "obstruct[ing] a bill that would create jobs and get our economy going again." Of course, the Senate would have passed the bill had it not been for Senators Nelson and Pryor (Democrats), but the President again failed to tell the truth.

No word yet on whether the politicians in D.C. will ever get over their incessant need to play politics with every issue and actually do something to benefit the U.S. economy: such as deregulating, lowering and simplifying taxes, and drastically cutting government spending.

The U.S. Begins Manufacturing Homosexuals (Was this part of Obama's jobs plan?)

A lesbian couple in California (of course) is giving their 11 year old son hormone blocking drugs so he can decide if he is a boy or a girl - apparently his anatomy wasn't a good enough clue. In a development only shocking to his two moms, Tommy (now called Tammy) began insisting he was a girl at age 3. The drugs are intended to delay onset of his physiologically normal adolescent testosterone to allow Tommy to remain confused. In a world where the nature versus nurture origins of homosexuality are still hotly debated, this pair of women appear intent to manufacture their own gender confused child. Sadly, it will ultimately be Tommy who suffers the ill effects.

Muammar Gaddafi Dead

Libya's 69 year old tyrannical despot was killed while running from advancing rebel forces. Libya is now considered under control of the National Transition Council, a provisional government headed by Mahmoud Jibril - a U.S. educated politician. However, it was reported on October 10, 2011 that Jibril intended to resign once liberation was achieved - opening the door for democratic elections to put representatives from Hamas and other like-minded terrorist organizations in power. Perhaps Libya can be the newest Terroristocracy in the Middle East.

God and Liberty - Part I

2011-10-17T06:00:00.000-07:00

PartI discusses the true origin of liberty and I don’t mean the liberty afforded byour government – I mean true liberty.

Part II compares government under religious and irreligious extremes to understand theimportance of God’s influence in establishing just governance.

Part III addresses the question of which religion can be used to form a logicallycoherent and objective basis for morality.

Part IV looks at the history of the infamous phrase, “a wall of separation between churchand state,” and examines the efficacy of its current interpretation.

PartV shows the direction we must go as a nation to preserve liberty and providesrecommendations for achieving it.

PartI – The Origin of Liberty

The United States became a nation through a grandself-declaration of independence on July 4, 1776. The Americancolonialists-turned-revolutionaries fought a valiant and victorious battleagainst Great Britainto back up the audacious claim made in their Declaration of Independence. In 1788 the Constitution of the United States was ratified. A new nation was born that would stand as thebastion of liberty for centuries to come because of its religious influence.

Ironically,many citizens of this very same nation today writhe at the suggestion thatreligion is, or could be, responsible for the political innovation of the United States. Moreover, these same individuals consistently seek legal injunctionsagainst those who make even a faint religious overture in connection withanything vaguely resembling a government institution. They do so presumably because their atheisticsensibilities feel threatened. Morelikely, it is their vile contempt for opposing views compounded by theirinability to make coherent arguments against Christian apologists that hascaused them to resort to their own religious censorship as a last resort. The irony is the liberty they claim to defendthrough religious persecution could not exist without the religion they arepersecuting – the Judeo-Christian religion, specifically.

Perhapsmy claim strikes you as bold, unfounded, or – if you’re a member of the ACLU’sFacebook fan page – blatantly uninformed. However, my proof would be insultingly obvious to any self-respectingAmerican were it not swept under the rug of revisionist history and politicalcorrectness. I suspect there are veryfew American citizens that have read the Declaration of Independence, but thisis my starting point; it’s no coincidence as this is also the starting point ofour great nation.

Althoughthe entire document is well worth a read, the most relevant sentence is fromthe second paragraph: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all menare created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certainunalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Libertyand the pursuit of Happiness.”

Atthe time of its writing, the truths mentioned were self-evident as well knownlogical outcomes based upon the prevailing political and moral philosophy ofthe time. The concept of unalienablerights can be traced back to John Locke (although there is some dispute amonghistorians, the National Archive still lists John Locke as one of the primaryinfluences). He ascertained that thereare certain rights based on natural law which are unalienable – meaning theycould not be taken away. He furtherreasoned that these natural laws must be granted by our Creator, God, for thepurpose of fulfilling His will in our lives.

Naturallaw is a philosophical construct predating Locke. In fact, the concept of natural law was notnecessarily associated with or deemed to be God-granted by allphilosophers. It is reasoned thatnatural laws are byproducts of nature – an outcome of our surroundings andenvironment. This would pave the way foran atheistic interpretation if it weren’t for one simple question: Why?

Accordingto some philosophers, natural law is an outcome of consciousness. For example, my body can be enslaved, but myconscious is free to think as is pleases. Therefore, the nature of human consciousness dictates that liberty mustbe ubiquitous – a law of nature. Whilethis explanation may seem sufficient for showing the existence of natural lawin an atheistic universe, it doesn’t go far enough. Specifically, why do humans have aconscious in the first place? With no consciousthere could be no absolute liberty.

ConsiderLocke’s first unalienable right: Life. We might observe our world and see that new life is fundamental. Yet concluding that the right to life isunalienable simply because the cycle of life occurs doesn’t go far enough. We must ask, “Why is there life?”

Anatheistic world-view cannot answer the why questions. We can keep asking why until we must providea reason for the beginning of the universe. I’ll save you some time and jump right to the question: why does theuniverse exist? The atheist can onlyanswer that it was a random event without meaning or purpose; consequently,anything that follows from a random event must also be without meaning orpurpose. For example, assume I pick acompletely random number (note that even this example cannot be as random asthe origin of the universe because it involves a logical human mind engaging inan activity, picking a random number, for a particular purpose). If I multiply, divide, add, subtract, square,invert, round, or do any other mathematical operation with that number theanswer is equally useless and meaningless. Imagine presenting that number during a board meeting at the office:

You:“…and on this slide we have 1,463,288.”

CEO:“What does that mean?”

You:“Well that, sir, is a number.”

CEO:“Yes, I can see that, but for what purpose are you showing it to me?”

You:“Ahh, yes. A good question. I’m showing it here because I multiplied731,644 by 2.”

CEO:“And what is 731,644?!”

You:“A number.”

CEO:“I KNOW IT’S A NUMBER, WHAT DOES IT MEAN??!!!”

Noamount of number crunching could add any meaning to the random number. Likewise, no subsequent events can add anymeaning to a universe that occurs via some spontaneous, random event. Under this regime, the existence of life islikewise meaningless: an outcome of randomness. If meaningless, then how could there ever be a right to life? We can try to assign meaning, just as I cantry to say that 731,644 is the company’s gross revenue, but it doesn’t make ittrue. More grotesquely, assume all lifeis obliterated. So what? If it was a random accident in the firstplace, then who cares? If there is nopurpose to original life, then there is no purpose to a subsequent life, thenthere can be no purpose to the last life; therefore, there is no reason toprotect life so why not just nuke all life?

Nowconsider the alternative. Assume 731,644is your company’s gross revenue. Nowmultiplying it by 2 has meaning – it’s twice the gross revenue. It might be that’s how much money you need tomake next year to pay all your current liabilities. Likewise, if the universe and the life withinit is the outcome of a creative act by a loving God, then it has meaning. Even the most abstract work of art hasmeaning. An artist might claim it is ameaningless painting, but even something done intentionally without meaning wasmeant to be meaningless – it has purpose. Under this scenario, life is meaningful. There’s a reason you and I exist – to fulfill God’s purpose. Because we are all extensions of God’spurposeful creation then each of us must likewise be equally valuable to thatpurpose. Consequently, none of us havemore purpose than another.

Thinkabout the ramifications for a moment. IfAdam and Eve are part of a meaningful, purpose-filled event, then anything oranyone derived from them must be of equal meaning. If God intended for the children of Adam andEve to have no purpose He would not have created them with the ability toreproduce because there would be no reason to. (Not to mention that He literally commanded them to “Be fruitful andmultiply.”) Because we are alldescendents of Adam and Eve, we must likewise be of equal meaning. As such, there are no humans that areaccidents; none of us are without purpose. It follows logically that we must all therefore be here to fulfill apurpose. The only way to fulfill thatpurpose is to live; thus, we all have a right to life.

Ourright to life is unalienable for two reasons: 1) we are all of equal purpose,so no one’s life is dominant over another; thus, I cannot rightfully take awayyour right to life. 2) We are all subservient to God; thus, He alone can decideif we are worthy to live and because we are living we must be deemed worthwhile.

Considerfurther the right to liberty. If ourlives are purposeful, then we must be allowed to fulfill that purpose. If we are constrained for reasons beyond ourown actions – e.g. slavery – then we are unable to fulfill our purpose. Therefore, the right to liberty isunalienable, revocable only by God. Yetit is God who established the greatest example of liberty: free will. God gave Adam and Eve, and all theirdescendents, the freedom to choose God’s purpose or our own purpose.

Ourconscious is a necessity for cognition – a prerequisite to understanding andtherefore fulfilling our purpose. Auniverse derived from pure randomness has no use for consciousness becausethere is no purpose. Life existing insuch a circumstance continues to exist only to the extent it is able to survivecompeting forms of life. In thevernacular of atheists, this form of existence is driven solely by survival ofthe fittest. An organism’s “fitness” canonly be attributable to its physical characteristics, but conscious isindependent of anything physical. Conscious is not a genetic trait; thus, its existence cannot beexplained by an atheistic worldview. Consequently, liberty cannot be an unalienable right in an atheist’suniverse because a person’s physical body can be limited by another and with noconscious there is nothing that retains its liberty.

Finally,we have Locke’s third unalienable right: the right to property. Locke reasoned that we must have a right toproperty in order to fulfill our purpose. If we cannot be assured the uninterrupted possession of the implementsof our purpose, then we cannot fulfill our purpose. Assuming we have made the choice to liveaccording to our purpose, then we cannot be denied our right to property. Moreover, in order to acquire property wemust trade our life for it. We tradetime, moments of our life, to work for the money we use to purchase property(more than just real estate). Nowallowing someone to retain his property is equivalent to taking away his life;because we all have a right to life we must also have the right to propertypaid for with our life.

WithoutGod there are no unalienable rights: no life, no liberty, no property. Without God, there wouldn’t have been anyconsciousness to recognize the tyranny of the King of England; consequently,there would never have been a United States of America. Yet the God that grants us these rights is being forced out of ourgovernment by legal challenges posed by predominantly atheisticorganizations. In future posts on thistopic I will explore the consequences of such actions and explore how we caneffectively combat further erosion.

Headline Rewind

2011-10-14T06:00:00.000-07:00

Headlines from the weekof October 10, 2011

TheUnited States of America is now a Dictatorship

Photo by Steve Jurveston

Facingmounting Congressional gridlock, President Obama realized his dream bydeclaring the United Statesa dictatorship – of which he is the dictator. Although toying with the idea since the time of his youthfulinteractions with Marxist mentors and bringing it into fruition via hiscornucopia of regulatory czars, his sagging poll numbers and uncooperativelegislature finally pushed him over the edge, “My instruction to…all the advisers sitting around the table is…identify all those areas in which we canact administratively, without additional congressional authorization, and justget it done.”

Somuch for being a uniter and working with Congress. Of course, it is difficult to speak withmembers of congress when you are constantly traveling across the country foryour reelection campaign.

HermanCain Becomes GOP Frontrunner in Latest Poll

Photo by John Trainor

CaptainUnderdog, Herman Cain, rises from obscurity to top of the GOP presidentialcandidates according to the latest poll by NBC News and the Wall StreetJournal. It remains to be seen if he canhold his lead, but his success has drawn the ire of the establishment blackcommunity. Apparently, Cornel West andHarry Belafonte have never seen a black man who wasn’t a victim. Moreover, Cain’s success and conservatism hasprompted some in the black community to label him an “oreo.” This doubly racist label is intended toderide Cain for being “black on the outside, but white on the inside;” that’sin contrast to Barak Obama who is just white on his mother’s side.

African Antelope Tackles Mountain Biker

Inan online video-gone-viral, an antelope is seen tackling a mountain bikerduring a bike race. Although the detailsare sketchy, it is suspected that the antelope was hired by PETA to providefootage for their latest over-the-top ad campaign following in the footsteps oftheir now infamous “Save the Whales” and “Payback is Hell – Go Vegan”campaigns. PETA is well known forreaching beyond social norms in efforts to promote eating habits that aremotivated by their lack of ability to distinguish between animals and humans.

SeveralU.S.Cities Discover Voids in their Downtown Areas

Acrossthe country several cities have discovered voids in their downtowns. Thankfully, they are only intellectual voidscaused by the vacuous intellect of the self-named “Occupy” protestors. After a month of occupying Wall Street in New York, the protestors are yet to offer a cohesivemessage; although hatred of large corporations and a masochistic love oftotalitarian government and welfare society appear to be common themes. Lacking anything concrete from theprotestors, the following list may be a helpful summary:

Photo by David Shankbone

1) Big corporations are bad – but their social media, smart phones,telecommunications networks, bullhorns, sleeping bags, tents, markers,cardboard, clothes, shoes, cameras, and food are okay to use for protestingagainst them.

2)Millionaires shouldn’t have so much money – unless they are a celebritysupporting the protests in which case they’re cool.

3)People who earn their money lawfully and don’t want to give more of itto the government are greedy – people who do nothing but want other people’smoney are not greedy.

4) Big banks that got bailed out are evil – big unions that got bailed outare good because they support the protests.

5) Big corporations that lobby government officials to gain power are evil– democratic politicians who take that money to gain power and give governmentmoney to the same corporations are good because they support the protest

6) Democracy is apparently a process whereby no one is more important thananyone else (except the guy directing everyone else with a bullhorn), everyonerepeats everything the one important guy says, and all decisions must bedecided by unanimous vote.

Theprotestors, very many of whom are college students, are also doing an excellentjob illustrating the decline in U.S.universities by virtue of their clear inability to formulate a logical orcoherent message. Their protests shouldbe directed at their universities for charging insurmountable tuition whilesimultaneously draining their brains of reason; of course, their ultra-liberalprofessors already told them it was Wall Street’s fault.

Inaddition to other celebrity appearances, famed documentary filmmaker MichaelMoore visited the protests. It is notknown if he will produce a new documentary about the protests but, if he does,it is sure to be a “Twilight Zone” meets “Pee Wee’s Playhouse” expose.

Morons on Wall Street

2011-10-07T13:41:00.000-07:00

The protestors participating in Occupy Wall Street are expressing their First Amendment right to free speech, one of the privileges of a free society. For this I applaud them - provided they do so lawfully. In addition, I find some common ground with their objections to the bank bailouts and their apparent desire to eliminate the Federal Reserve. I am also likewise dismayed at the weight and influence large corporations (and other special interests) carry with the government. However similar our objections might be, the protestor's motivations and end-game couldn't be more dissimilar and, once again, the liberals and left-wing zealots reveal their completely illogical and irrational philosophies.

Someone among the protestors has taken the liberty to create a "list of demands" for Occupy Wall Street. After I finished reading the list, and wiping away my tears (of laughter), I began to wonder how many of the people protesting on the streets would think these were good ideas. Based upon the composition (unions, MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, etc.), I'm guessing quite a few would think these demands are fantastic. Heck...I might even quit my job and loaf around as long as the government is doling out money for nothing.

Lists derived from second-grader intellect and lack of personal accountability aside, the Occupy Wall Streeters are missing the bigger picture. What they protest is a logical consequence of what they demand. The bank bailouts were a direct result of a government operating under the socialist mentality. Likewise, the reason corporations have so much power is because the government has so much power. Big business, just like big unions and other big special interests, have a lot of money; they use their money to "buy" politicians. If our government didn't control so many aspects of our lives (e.g. taxes, education, health insurance, healthcare, food, etc.) then these special interests wouldn't be able to exert control via the government. Therefore, the solution is not a bigger government, but a much, much smaller government.

China offers an excellent example. Prior to the Special Economic Zones (SEZ) established by the Chinese government in the 1980s, China had a huge income disparity between the political class and everyone else. Only after they allowed free market principles in the SEZs did a middle class emerge. However, in China it is still common, indeed customary, to bribe public officials in order to conduct business. Therefore, the powerful political class and the wealthy continue to conspire with one another to maintain power and control. The big-government, socio-marxist government desired by Occupy Wall Street would have similar consequences and actually make the situation worse.

Unfortunately for conservatives, the Left is afforded unquestioned latitude in what they can claim without being questioned. For example, they claim they are the 99% and the mainstream media complacently agrees when they are in fact a very small minority of Americans. It is up to each of us to stand up against their bogus claims and challenge their political philosophies whenever possible. This doesn't necessarily mean marching against the throngs of uninformed students on Wall Street, but it does entail standing up to ignorance in our everyday contacts with co-workers, store clerks, and friends. Simple logical reasoning and historical references are sufficient ammunition against the wanton idiocy of the Occupy Wall Street mentality.

Budget Cuts: Free Haircut

2011-08-23T20:57:00.000-07:00

I sat forlorn in a discount haircut franchise watching as my hair fell to the floor whilst what remaining on my head began looking similar to unwanted patches of crab grass in my lawn. I handed over my $5.00 off coupon and grimaced as the total still came to $12.00. Why was I paying money for a haircut I could from a chance encounter between my head and the weed whacker in my garage?

Then it occurred to me: why not use the weed whacker to cut my own hair if it’s is going to look like an industrial accident anyway…at least it would be free. Okay, maybe that’s a little extreme, but an electric trimmer later I was hacking away at my own head. Even better – it was an improvement over the little franchise place.

In my never-ending quest to save money I had reached the pinnacle of frugality. At an average of $15.00 per haircut every 4 weeks I am now saving roughly $195 per year. The investment was $35 for a trimmer and guards that should last for several years. Of course, I still haven’t priced out the Dracula collar shirts to hide the back of my head – that pesky part where I never can tell what I’m cutting.

Although I recommend this cost cutting approach, it is not right for everyone. Women, for instance. Typically the electric trimmer is best used for cutting hair to relatively short lengths: perfect for the butch look, but not so good for the more contemporary female styles. It is also inappropriate for anyone with the deranged kitchen mop style prevalent among teen males.

And a final note: be sure not to use the trimmer for “edging” your hair unless it is so designed. Turns out the hair trimmer I bought is intended for use only with guards; without a guard it also trims skin. The upside is you always know exactly to where to trim your hair – scar marks the spot.

Jobless Recovery...or Just a Jobless Non-Recovery?

2011-08-16T20:59:00.000-07:00

Recent headlines have pondered the apparent paradox of economic recovery without corresponding increases in jobs – called the “jobless recovery” by some. I believe I have resolved the apparent conundrum using a detailed analytical technique. Don’t blame your politicians because few of them are familiar with this methodology, and no liberal has ever heard of it. I like to call this special technique…common sense.

The nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is an oft cited indicator of economic well being. United States’ GDP, in real dollars, fell in 2008…then fell more in 2009…then supposedly increased in 2010. Woo Hoo! Recovery! Right? If it was a sign of recovery, then where are all the jobs?

Liberals have the answer: big, bad corporate America shipped them overseas! Not to mention all those evil companies that found ways to do the same, or more, work with fewer employees. Who knew we would all be giving up our minimum wage jobs to be replaced by an electronic kiosk? Of course, if the electronic equivalent of a primate can do your job maybe it was time to get some new skills anyway. I hate to say it, but liberals are wrong again (I think we should call Guinness and see if it’s a new world record).

In reality, we don’t have jobs because we also don’t have a recovery. The calculation for GDP includes government spending except for all transfer payments (thinks like social security, welfare, unemployment, etc.). Based upon the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ (BEA) numbers, nominal GDP increased more than what is attributable to non-transfer payment government spending increases in 2008, 2009, and 2010. However, if transfer payments to citizens are included in government spending, then government spending increases actually outpaced GDP increases. These numbers are tabulated, below.

Year	Gov't Spending	Nominal GDP	GDP change from 2006	Gov't Spending Change from 2006
2006	4099	13,377	0	0
2007	4361	14,028	651	262
2008	4720	14,291	914	620
2009	5017	13,939	561	917
2010	5245	14,526	1,149	1145

Government transfer payments are normally excluded from GDP because these monies are accounted for in other measures of GDP. In other words, the government gives someone money, that person spends it on alcohol and cigarettes, then the BEA measures it when it computes the production of alcohol and cigarettes. If it counted it as government expenditures towards GDP it would effectively be counted twice.

If you’re a liberal, you’re thinking that I’ve just proven social welfare works to stimulate the economy. “See! When the government spends everyone wins!” However, if you’ll put down your granola and “medicinal herbs” I can explain why this isn’t a good thing. The fact that government spending accounts for the apparent increase in GDP explains why there are no jobs: there is no recovery. In fact, there is further economic decline. It might be tempting to suggest the government’s spending improved the economy, but these transfer payment increases are mostly attributable to unemployment benefits or “stimulus” monies; all of which are temporary and limited either by mandate or by national debt crisis, or both. Bona fide economic recovery by the private sector would be based upon long-term prospects and real economic benefit (such as real demand).

Real government stimulus would build new infrastructure that generates new economic activity. It would be evidenced by continued economic output after the government’s spending was completed. However, there has been no such stimulus coming from the U.S. government; therefore, there will be no government-funded economic recovery. It is questionable if there ever has been (don’t get me started on FDR and the Great Depression). The bottom line is that we will not see job recovery until the private sector has reason to believe it is safe and profitable to invest in U.S. jobs. For the slower readers (if you voted for Obama you’re a slower reader…in case you were wondering), that means United States must become business friendly again: less regulation, or at least stop adding more regulations; more favorable tax structures; and a secure national currency.

The Government Car Buying Program: An Analogy

2010-11-10T15:26:00.000-08:00

Imagine for a moment the government determines owning a late model automobile is the right of every American (actually, this isn’t too hard to imagine). Congress and the President rationalize that it isn’t fair for only a small percentage of the population to afford a new car. They believe it is their prerogative to introduce and pass legislation establishing a government car-buying program to grant every American the “right” to own a new car. Further, they defend their position by asserting the Founding Fathers couldn’t have even dreamt of modern automobiles when they wrote the Bill of Rights; if they had, they most certainly would have included the right to own a new car. Moreover, the constitution calls on the Feds to support the general welfare of the populous – and a new car is most assuredly necessary for the general welfare.

Bolstering the urgency of implementing a car purchasing program is the rampant increase in car prices over the last decade. Car dealers have been unscrupulously charging more and more for their cars leaving poor Americans at an ever greater disadvantage. The President launches a town hall style crusade to sell Americans on the need for a car purchasing program. He rants against the greedy car dealers who have been including options on their cars at higher costs to consumer just to make more money knowing the banks will cover it as part of their car loans. Various guest speakers come to the podium to lament the plight of owning an old car that breaks down routinely causing them to lose hours at work, rack up a horrendous repair bill, and make it even more difficult to purchase an ever more expensive new car. A few dissenters in the audience ask the President questions, but he manages to avoid answering them by sticking to his lengthy talking points.

The banking industry already provides car loans to consumers and is concerned the government wants to establish a single-payer system for purchasing cars. Their lobbyists go to D.C. and defend their interests. After much negotiation and promises for generous campaign contributions, the legislature amends the draft bill, despite the outcry from purists in the party who believe a single-payer system is the only way to properly implement a fair car purchasing program. The new bill resembles a compromise of interests. It requires banks to lend to everyone, regardless of pre-existing payment problems or bad credit. Banks are also forbade to establish restrictions on the total amount of cars or total dollar value of car loans a person can have at any given time. Offsetting the banks’ worry that these restrictions will undercut their profits, the bill further mandates all Americans to enroll in the car purchasing program – after all, people not choosing to have car loans are taking unnecessary risks by assuming their old cars won’t have mechanical problems. The bill provides for government subsidies for Americans the government determines are unable to afford monthly payments of a car purchasing program on their own. In addition, the bill creates a public option car purchasing program at no cost to enrollees who qualify.

Paying for this massive new bill becomes a point of contention. The legislature bounces revisions back and forth with the CBO until the initial analysis suggests a deficit neutral tax structure. Private car purchasing programs offered by the bank that are too generous will be taxed, a true “Cadillac” tax. In addition, the government is going to cut back Medicare costs by eliminating the free mobility scooter program. Despite the new taxes and Medicare cuts, the President assures the bill will bring affordable new cars to all Americans without adding to the country’s deficit.

The bill passes the House and Senate and is signed into law by the President. As soon as the law’s provisions go into effect several banks inform customers that their monthly payments will be higher than thought because the provisions in the bill increase their costs. The President launches a tirade of accusations at the banks and suggests their opposition is because of their loyalties to the other political party. He accuses them of loving the failed status quo that left millions of Americans without new cars while making the banks rich beyond imagination. Still other banks cut back their existing programs because they fear them being taxed as “Cadillac” plans. Some banks cease offering the plans altogether because the law controls how much profit they can make and the provisions make it impossible for them to compete. These banks refer their customers to the government’s car buying program instead.

By the time the government’s car purchasing program is launched, four years after the bill was signed into law, millions of Americans are clamoring to join the government program because many more banks have stopped offering the program. The government welcomes them with open arms and begins righting decades of social wrongs by allowing all Americans to have new cars.

As the government program gets underway, the enrollees begin to purchase new cars. Contrary to the assumptions made by Congress and the President, enrolled Americans use the program to purchase cars without concern for the price. Driveways, garages, and public housing parking lots fill up with luxurious SUVs, trucks, and sports cars. Americans with old and new cars begin trading up to newer, more expensive models. In less than a month the entire year’s budget for the government car buying program is evaporated. In an emergency session, Congress agrees to double the funds for the program. Again, those funds evaporate as millions of Americans flock to the new cars. With a surge in demand, car prices rise quickly, but Americans take no notice because they car purchasing program continues irrespective of the costs. Where once they purchased based on what was affordable, now they are completely insensitive to the costs.

Seeing the impending budgetary doom, Congress holds another emergency session. Suggestions vary, but none of the politicians offer to repeal the program because owning a new car was deemed a fundamental right. Taking away the “rights” of Americans would spell doom for their reelection campaign and provide much campaign ad fodder to the opponent. Congress decides they need to use their significant purchasing power to negotiate better rates with the car dealers. Because the majority of Americans are on the government car buying program Congress tells the car dealers they will either play along with the new pricing or they will lose most of their customers. Car dealers agree to prices that are 50% of what they were originally charging. The President launches a media blitz to tout the success achieved by having a (almost) single payer system.

Private banks still offering the car buying programs attempt a similar tactic with the car dealers, but their smaller customer base is a less compelling negotiation. Several banks merge to create a greater customer base and improve their negotiating position. Car dealers yield some but private car buying plans are still paying rates far in excess of the government program. Several customers leave the banks in favor of the lower cost public option, even if it offers less choice. The small banks that didn’t merge and can’t compete either declare bankruptcy or cease to offer car buying programs. A few car dealers begin to participate only in private car buying programs because they are more profitable. Still others shutter their businesses because they can no longer make a profit. Remaining dealers lower their cost structures by reducing customer service and deferring maintenance on their facilities. Car manufacturers also feel the pinch and begin to lower their costs. They stop producing some models entirely, they begin to reduce features, and use lower quality parts to cut costs and stay financially viable. Several manufacturers go out of business entirely. The reduction in car dealers, banks, and manufacturers puts hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work and commensurately more people join the rolls of the government’s “free” car buying program.

Despite the efforts and negotiated pricing, Americans are still buying new cars in record numbers and at alarming frequency. Congressional budgets are blown away with the excessive costs of the car buying program. Congress takes action and implements what it terms “common sense” restrictions on the car buying program. Enrollees in the program will be restricted to one new car every five years. In addition, only certain cars are allowed under the program. Married or single Americans are only allowed to purchase sub-compact cars. Americans with one to three dependents are allowed to purchase a compact car with a rear bench seat. In order to encourage more carbon-neutral family sizes, the government decides the cost of purchasing anything larger than a compact car will be borne by the consumer. The change brings demand for anything other than sub-compact and compact cars to near zero. Most manufacturers stop production on all other vehicles and more jobs are lost.

The car buying program makes used cars virtually worthless as Americans prefer using the mandated programs to buy new cars. The result is a rash of vehicles flooding junk yards all across the country. When the restrictions were implemented there became a market for used vehicles that were larger and nicer than the few remaining choices. A couple manufacturers continued to produce nicer, larger luxury vehicles and a handful of dealers remain in business by refusing any form of car purchasing programs and selling the nicer cars and the used cars now in demand. Of course, only more affluent citizens are able to purchase these vehicles. Cries of unfairness rise up from the population and the politicians begin to worry about their reelection.

Citing discrimination and environmental concerns, the government passes a new law making the selling of vehicles outside a car purchasing program illegal. Additionally, dealers are no longer allowed to accept private car purchasing programs while not accepting the government’s program. When a new car is purchased, the law mandates the old car be confiscated and sent to a recycling facility. The government further mandates that all new vehicles be manufactured 100% from recyclable materials. Citizens in possession of an “old” vehicle are allowed to keep it as long as they don’t attempt to purchase a new vehicle through the car buying program.

The change puts the dealers and manufacturers that were not working with the car buying programs out of business completely. In their stead, a black market for used vehicles takes root. Being traded covertly, these vehicles are not subjected to any provisions in the massive government regulations concerning automobiles: no emissions checks, no gas mileage limitations, no recycling, no safety standards and so forth. A few people are caught and imprisoned, but several large cartels manage to survive and many people become very rich from the scheme.

Customers no longer see the benefit of the private car buying programs which were higher cost, but offered better selection. Private banks begin to declare bankruptcy as their customers flock to the government program. Deeming them too big to fail, the government buys out the failing banks and rolls the last remaining private car purchasing program participants into the government program.

Although small in comparison, the new enrollees in the government program put additional cost pressure on Congressional budgets. The government again increases the interval between car purchases and imposes even more cost restrictions. More dealers shutter, requiring consumers to travel great distances to find a dealer only to be met with massive lines, product shortages, and non-existent customer service. Sensing the angst among citizens, the government steps in and assigns Americans to specific dealers with specific dates they are allowed to pick up their new car.

The government restrictions cause all but one manufacturer to remain in business. Further cost constraints cause the sole surviving manufacturer to declare bankruptcy. The government determines this manufacturer is too important to fail and takes over the company. Under the government’s control decisions are made by unqualified bureaucrats hired by career politicians who are beholden to special interest groups through their campaign donations made necessary for reelection. Costs sky rocket, innovation ceases, and quality nose dives. Only two car models are produced. They are then shipped to dealers based upon which politicians manage to sneak earmarks into unrelated bills thereby allocating cars to his or her district as a ploy to “buy” votes.

Amid increasing costs due to rampant mismanagement of automobile production, the government is again forced to take budgetary action. They extend the new car purchasing interval to 10 years. In addition, they determine anyone aged 26 or younger can simply use a parent’s vehicle; thus, only Americans older than 26 are allowed in the car buying program. Additionally, the elderly are deemed a safety risk that shouldn’t be allowed on public roads. Furthermore, the elderly could die at any moment which would be a potential waste of a new car; therefore, no one over the age of 60 is eligible for the car purchasing program.

Mismanagement continues to run rampant within the government. Concerned about the poor outcomes, the government hires thousands of new bureaucrats to try and rein in the problems. Strangely, things continue to get worse. Americans begin to protest in the streets over the poor quality and rumors of even more government restrictions on the car buying program. Congress takes to action again. They convert the car plant into a commuter bus plant and outlaw all non-bus automobiles at the urging (meaning big donations) of environmental lobbyists. The government concludes that the right to own a car had been improperly stated – it is really only a right to have transportation...

Obama’s Only Crisis Plan

2010-07-07T22:14:00.000-07:00

The Obama Administration pulled out its favorite, and only, tool for dealing with a crisis: file a lawsuit. Responding to Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law, the Administration filed suit alleging usurpation of the Federal government’s Constitutional role in foreign affairs, namely immigration. For those of us with a clue, this move is as idiotic as it is transparent.

President Obama’s disdain for our nation and its founding documents is no secret. Therefore, his abject failure to secure our borders is no surprise; in fact, his motivation for the suit is solely to draw attention to his latest proposed legislation: immigration reform. His solution is to give amnesty to illegals – if you don’t have any illegals then there can’t be an immigration problem (in his little mind). Moreover, Obama and his ilk need more votes and what better way to get them than by importing them from Mexico? Therefore, this lawsuit is symbolic because it firmly shows Obama’s true motives and lets American citizens know their security, prosperity, and our Constitution are a distant second to our Marxist Fuhrer’s political and socioeconomic aspirations.

Equally noteworthy is the repeated use of lawsuits for policy-making by Obama. Instead of going through the appropriate (Constitutional) avenues, Obama prefers judicial activism as evidenced by his prior writings, speeches, Supreme Court nominees, and his administration’s persistent use of lawsuits. In addition to being an affront to our Constitution, this approach is entirely ineffective at producing the desired results, further divides our country, and is a symptom of incompetent leadership. Given his track record, I wouldn’t be surprised if he delayed his Afghanistan troop decision while he tried to figure out who he could sue. He couldn’t sue our military personnel because it would be too difficult to send that many certified letters. He couldn’t sue Karzi because then it would be too awkward when he bowed to him. The Taliban is out because he didn’t have a proper address. Al Qaeda wouldn’t work because they are his muslim brothers. He couldn’t sue George W Bush because Bush would probably mess that up too. All that’s left was Israel, but that didn’t work out since Obama doesn’t recognize it as a sovereign nation – so there wasn’t anything to sue.

President Obama is like Wally from the Dilbert comic strip. Wally is always finding a way to get out of doing his work and Obama shirks his responsibilities by cranking out a lawsuit rather than a solution. Instead of working with BP and the oil industry to find solutions to the existing spill and the potential for future accidents, Obama sues BP. Instead of doing his job and enforcing the existing immigration laws, Obama sues Arizona.

More to the point, Arizona’s law would be entirely superfluous if the Feds would do their job and secure the borders. Contrary to Obama’s view of the Constitution and our nation, Arizona is a sovereign state that chose to join the Union and become a State for the apparent benefits of so doing. If the Federal government is failing to provide any benefit, it is within Arizona’s right to dissolve its union with the United States of America. Considering that the Fed is derelict in its constituted duties (common defense, international relations) while infringing upon States’ sovereignty through an ever-expanding overreach of its Constitutional bounds (healthcare, welfare, uber-taxation) it may be time for Arizona to secede – along with all the other disenfranchised States.

Standing Up Against Fradulent "Science"...Again

2010-06-18T12:41:00.000-07:00

Occasionally, I check the internet to see how my posts are being distributed and potentially misused. I came across such misuse with a citation to my site posted on a website devoted to the religion of Humanism and Darwin worship (URL withheld intentionally). The posters regularly refer to creationists as “cretards” and seem incapable of formulating an argument based upon logic or fact, preferring instead to find solace for their foolishness in ad hominem attacks. In this instance, they pondered why creationists also frequently “deny” anthropogenic global warming. Contrary to their prolifically foolish notions, evolution and anthropogenic global warming are discounted by creationists because they are examples of determinism and unscientific theorizing based upon unsubstantiated bias.

The America Heritage Dictionary defines science as (a) The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, (b) Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena, and (c) Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. Too often definition (b) is misinterpreted to imply that observations of natural phenomena can only be explained by natural phenomena, but this is a self-imposed assumption that has no basis in the laws of logic. We can most certainly observe natural phenomena to understand the effects of unnatural or supernatural phenomena. Humanists routinely dismiss creation science out of hand because they claim science is only valid within the parameters of naturalism; thereby, they conclude that creation is unscientific. However, this conclusion is purely out of contempt for creationists and in ignorance of science.

All but the most remedial areas of study require inductive logic (as opposed to deductive logic) for the formulation of conclusions. The scientific method provides an excellent methodology for induction. Evolutionists and Creationists both rely upon inductive reasoning to reach scientific conclusions via the application of the scientific method. However, conclusions derived through induction can only be based upon examination of particular instances or generalities determined through experience. Because it is impossible to examine every instance it is likewise impossible to justify inductively determined conclusions. The reliability of a conclusion can be bolstered (although not proven) by repeatability; for instance, if an experiment is repeated and the results are identical, then it is possible to have high confidence in the conclusion, especially if it is repeated numerous times and by many different people. It is impossible to test evolution, creation, or AGW; therefore, the conclusions relative to these theories are not reliable in a scientific sense.

Consequently, we must develop models based upon our presuppositions (e.g. Creation, Evolution, AGW) and determine if real-world observations confirm or deny the model. For example, soft tissues discovered in a T-Rex fossil in the Hells Creek Formation in Montana bolster the Creationist model that predicts recent (thousands instead of millions of years) dinosaur extinction. Yet a single data point is insufficient for arriving at reliable conclusions; the aggregate data must also fit the model. Additionally, our bias should not cloud our judgment: Dr. Schweitzer concluded the soft T-Rex tissue indicates there are processes, heretofore unknown, that preserve soft tissue for millions of years. Similarly, our biases can confound our ability to reason soundly. AGW supporters oft refer to melting glaciers or the rate of temperature changes as proof of their models, but this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent because other possible explanations cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, the creationist is not untowardly critical of evolution and AGW because they are theories espoused by unrepentant sinners (as some posters contended), but because they are theories that can only be supported when data is interpreted through biased lenses. Granted that creationists also interpret through their own bias, but the difference is that evolutionists and AGW proponents are increasing the number of peripheral theories that must be affirmed to explain the unknowns in their observations while creationists are reducing the number. In the case of the soft dinosaur tissues, another theory (with no observational evidence) was developed to “explain” soft tissue preservation over millions of years.

Most importantly is the derivation of biases. Creationists’ bias is based upon a historical account from an infallible source which is repeatedly confirmed through evidence, for example: 1) anthropologists research historical accounts in the Bible and consistently find the Bible is accurate, and 2) geologic evidence is resoundingly consistent with the global flood described in Genesis. Furthermore, the premise of inductive reasoning is that the physical laws in effect today must have been, be, and continue to be consistent; otherwise, inductive scientific conclusions are useless as there would be no repeatability. Creationists rely upon the Biblical promise of the omnipotent God to maintain the laws of our universe, which he put in place, when they assess the reliability and cogency of their scientific knowledge. Humanists’ only assurance of consistent natural laws is that they haven’t changed within the span of recorded history. While this may seem cogent inductive reasoning, i.e. ample documentation of its repeatability, it is highly unreliable given their own assumptions: 1) if the universe is 14.5 Billion years old then their observed repeatability spans less than 0.0000003% of all time, 2) if the universe and everything in it came into being through entirely naturalistic (random) means there is absolutely no reason to believe the natural laws in effect today will not randomly change in the future, and 3) number two is bolstered by considering that for the universe to form per humanistic theories would require a decrease in entropy (taking the Universe as a closed system) between its emergence and now, thereby indicating the second law of thermodynamics, as it is understood in present time, has not always been consistent – clearly refuting their claim to repeatability. Therefore, humanists must rely upon a Biblical framework in order to successfully conduct scientific inquiry; yet, they routinely insist upon denying Biblical truths when drawing conclusions – which are often in stark opposition to the Bible.

AGW is deeply rooted in humanism, but it is not the reason it is largely discredited by creationists. Creationists are accustomed to recognizing fallacious reasoning and the illogical defenses for it. The fallacies of ad hominem, appeal to authority, false dilemma, affirming the consequent, and the complex question are rampant in rationalizations put forth by evolutionists; thus, when they appear in defenses for AGW, creationists easily recognize them and are suspicious. Humanists think nothing of arriving at conclusions by developing far-reaching assumptions with the pretense of investigating them later. AGW is no exception. Personally, I have analyzed the data and read the IPCC reports concerning AGW and found them to be rife with unfounded personal bias and unsubstantiated claims. The entirety of AGW rests upon the poor correlation between CO2 emissions and global average temperatures (which are reported only after absurd amounts of data reduction and without standard deviations) and the predictions of un-validated computer models which are programmed by persons with a bias towards believing that CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature anomalies and which have already been shown incapable of predicting temperatures.

In conclusion, I first base my decisions and opinions on logic and common sense – neither of which apply to humanism. Second, I recognize I have a bias based upon faith in an infallible God while simultaneously realizing humanists have a bias based upon faith in randomness. Third, my bias is logically defensible while humanism breaks down under simple reasoning. Forth, as more evidence is collected and analyzed, both evolution and AGW have a divergence of proof with a geometrically expanding list of unknowns requiring immense amounts of unfounded faith in the hope that someday the evidence will reverse course and begin to converge. Suggesting that my disregard for evolution and AGW is based upon religious fanaticism is both inaccurate and sophomoric. The real reason creationists dispute both evolution and AGW is because of their common element: spurious logic.

President Obama vs. the Gulf Oil Spill

2010-06-14T22:18:00.000-07:00

For 56 days crude oil has been streaming into the Gulf of Mexico through a failed Blow Out Preventer situated on the ocean floor. President Obama is not responsible for the accident that caused the oil spill, nor is he responsible for fixing the leak; however, he is responsible for his ardent failure to lead the Executive branch of our Federal government in the performance of its duties.

Recently, Obama struck out against small government supporters saying (paraphrased), "Some of the folks who have been saying they want government to do less are now complaining that the government isn't doing enough." Certainly, one should expect more from a constitutional law "expert" such as the president, but given his bent towards destroying the Constitution his comment is not the least bit surprising. Perhaps he should read the words of the founding fathers, both the Constitution and their ancillary writings - such as the Federalist Papers. Through those works he would discover that the Tea Party movement is interested not just in repealing the damage done by an over-intrusive federal government; rather, it is also concerned with restoring the government to a form consistent with its Constitution. As such, the job of the federal government is to 1) provide for the common defense (of the states - not unions), 2) provide standards and measures, 3) resolve disputes between the states, and 4) FOREIGN RELATIONS.

Although our government is certainly incapable of solving the oil leak and oil cleanup because it lacks the expertise and equipment - it has a duty to negotiate and coordinate assistance from other nations per its foreign relations purview. Small government minded Americans are not asking for greater government involvement - we are asking for the federal government to do the job it is supposed to while ceasing to do the work it is not supposed to! When another country offers oil skimmers, it is the responsibility of the Feds to facilitate the assistance in spite of old laws that may preclude foreign vessels from working in U.S. waters. A real leader would have found a way to make it work.

Although the EPA is arguably beyond the scope of the federal government, it nonetheless exists and has the ability to regulate. Therefore, the President bears responsibility to waylay the EPA when it insists on an environmental impact assessment before permitting Louisiana to protect its sensitive coasts from encroaching oil. I'm quite certain many Tea Partiers would support a smaller EPA, but so long as it exists and has regulatory power it must perform its function - which would seem to be enabling the minimization of environmental impacts from the Gulf oil spill - not making it worse by beating a governor over the head with senseless bureaucracy.

Although we know the President can't resolve the oil spill problems because our government lacks the ability and equipment to do so (and the leadership, apparently). I certainly would not assign Obama the responsibility for the remedy or cleanup, but he assigned it to himself by accepting full responsibility. Once he realized he couldn't "suck [the oil] up with a straw," he backed off his claim to responsibility by blaming BP and instructing Eric Holder to investigate BP for criminal negligence. Although BP is clearly responsible for this disaster, investigating them in the midst of trying to fix the problem is a waste of resources and an abject failure to work towards a solution.

Lastly, we are witnessing a president who is so ensnared by his popularity rating that he is a complete failure as a leader, prefering to exhibit false anger and posing for endless photo ops in appeasement of the masses while getting nothing accomplished. A leader is forward-looking (i.e. stop blaming Bush), forthright (no you weren't there since day 1), and solution oriented (stop making more problems). Every American is well aware of the deft Obama spin machine, but the election is over and we need someone who knows how to lead the executive office of the United States of America.

President Obama, I don't need you kicking anyone's a** until you get your head out of your own.

Would Jesus Advocate Government Welfare?

2010-04-04T21:26:00.000-07:00

Today is Easter - the most sacred of all Christian holidays; yet I have been sent messages claiming that Jesus would want us to institute government welfare because he said we should support the poor and care for our fellow man. While I certainly don't disagree that one of Jesus' primary teachings was to love our neighbors, the suggestion that neighborly love, benevolence, or generosity should come via our government is neither Biblical nor wise.

Throughout the Bible we are told to give to our neighbor, but never to give to our government so that our government can take care of our responsibility to be generous. Matthew 22:21, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." In this passage Jesus clearly delineates between what is of this World and what is of God. If taxes paid to the government belong to the government and not God, then how would paying taxes be a substitute for doing God's work? Does anyone honestly pay their taxes in the belief that by so doing they fulfill God's intent for us to be generous and caring towards our neighbors? Wouldn't it be handy to just pay taxes and have all your Christian responsibilities to your fellow man taken care of? It's a nice thought (not really) but God knows the true intent of our heart: 1 Chronicles 28:9, "...for the Lord searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts..."

Although God warns us to respect our government, he never suggests that we are to fulfill his will for our lives through government. The notion that God would want us to enact welfare programs through government is unfounded. Moreover, compulsory giving, a.k.a. taxes, is not genuine giving. Government benevolence is an oxymoron and rampant examples reveal how ineffective it is at meeting genuine needs. Most importantly, though, is the fact that God does not ask us to offload our responsibilities for caring for one another upon someone else, much less the government. It is our sole responsibility to directly help those in need and to, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

America Doesn't Need Pay-As-You-Go or a Balanced Budget

2010-02-26T13:29:00.000-08:00

Several times during his presidency President Obama has espoused the virtue of a balanced budget and enforcing pay-as-you-go for Congressional bills. Moreover, he revels in chiding the "previous administration" for not doing so. Not only are these vitriolic criticisms and notions of fiscal responsibility entirely laughable coming from the biggest deficit spending president of all time, they are not what the United States of America needs.

Pay-as-you-go may sound fiscally responsible, but only from the perspective of a politician. Paying for new legislation before passing it requires new taxes or cuts to other government expenditures. In other words, legislation has to be cost neutral...from the government's perspective. However, what Obama and his liberal ideologues fail to grasp is that such legislation is not cost neutral to taxpayers; likewise, to the whole of the U.S. economy. Liberals/Marxists/Progressives fail to comprehend (...a lot of things, but I'm addressing this specific topic only) that our federal government was developed to serve the good of the citizens - not the other way around. Furthermore, they do not understand that the public is not a financier for their unbridled spending.

More importantly, though, America doesn't need pay-as-you-go nor do we need a balanced budget because both imply the same, or greater, government engorgement upon our hard-earned money. We already can't afford the spending we have now - we can't afford the general budget, we can't afford the existing entitlement programs, and we certainly can't afford anything new. What America needs is a drastic reduction in government agencies, a drastic reduction in discretionary budgets afforded to our elected officials (Nancy Pelosi, for example), privatization or outright elimination of entitlement programs, elimination of foreign aid...in short, a complete overhaul of our government.

There is nothing wrong with our country's foundational principles or its constitution; in fact, if they were properly adhered to we wouldn't be in this mess. Starting from our Constitution and founding principles we need to rebuild our government. Only absolutely necessary programs or agencies should be reinstated, and only if they can be paid for with a modest tax. Taxes should be applied evenly across all citizens (i.e. no progressive tax), double taxation prohibited, and a maximum rate of 10% imposed upon the government via a new Constitutional amendment. Anything short of this approach is campaign rhetoric and prolongation of our government's fiscal disaster.

The Logical Fallacies of Anthropogenic Global Warming

2010-02-24T20:54:00.000-08:00

Climate-Gate has certainly dealt a tremendous blow to the validity of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory, but some die-hard ignoramuses continue to assert it is true. Aside from outright reductio ad absurdum, AGW enthusiasts also frequently justify their belief using logical fallacies. I will cover a few of the more common logical fallacies (note that these are commonly used to defend many other ill-contrived ideas):

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

This is arguably the most oft used fallacy in the AGW debate. It's exhibited in statements like, "Global Warming is obviously happening because glaciers all over the World are melting." However, there are a lot of reasons why glaciers melt. In fact, glaciers have been melting ever since the ice age concluded - far earlier than the supposed commencement of man-caused global warming.

In fact, the assertion that the Earth is warming as a result of man made greenhouse gases (namely CO2) is itself a fallacy of affirming the consequent because there may be many reasons the Earth is warming (assuming, of course, that the Earth is actually warming). This fallacy can be spotted wherever someone is making the claim that a consequence is occurring as a result of a specific event or condition when there are other explanations that have not been eliminated from possibility.

The Fallacy of Appeal to Authority

The AGW faithful commonly claim that their position is valid because, "like, all the scientists say it's true!" This is the fallacy of appeal to authority (and is also flatly inaccurate). There is only one truth; even if every single living person earnestly believes something to be true doesn't necessarily make it so. It is not enough for "experts" to simply say something is true - the truth stands on its own and only through the use and understanding of incontrovertible facts can an expert, or anyone, come to understand the truth. Experts are individuals with a vast amount of knowledge in a particular area, but they're not infallible. People don't make the truth, they discover the truth.

A good example is NASA's Dr. James Hansen, a favorite AGW expert of Al Gore's. If relying on the expertise of "experts" such as Dr. Hansen was reliable, then we should be in the midst of an ice age because Dr. Hansen was among the "experts" declaring we were on the verge of it in the 1970s. Apparently, his flawless scientific mind made a goof and we were really on the cusp of a global warming epoch - or, perhaps, he was just confused about the freezing temperature of water.

The Fallacy of Reification

"The science clearly says mankind is causing the Earth to warm catastrophically." No, science does not, and cannot, say anything. People say things; as such, people must interpret scientific knowledge, observations, and data. Then they present their findings. Clearly, what is really intended by the quote is that an "expert" says something which refers back the previous fallacy, but what is connoted is that somehow the facts are self-evident although they most certainly are not.

The Fallacy of Ad Hominem

This fallacy is always presented when someone has no viable argument nor logical basis for his or her position and is a favorite among AGW fanatics. "You're just not evolved enough to understand the science!" Demeaning an individual, group, or competing idea is the lowest form of debate because it both fails to support the person's argument or defeat his opponent's position, and it has no relevance to the issue. If someone is resorting to the fallacy of ad hominem he is doing so in a feeble attempt to discredit the person - most likely because he believes appeals to authority are valid proofs and if an opponent is discredited then she would be unfit as an authority.

The Fallacy of the False Dilemma

This fallacy can be more difficult to spot, but it is also very prevalent in the AGW debate. For example, "either you realize that AGW is occurring or you don't think humans have any affect on their environment." In this case, the false dilemma is between agreeing with AGW or believing that humans have no impact on the environment. Realistically, you can comprehend that humans affect the environment, but causing calamitous worldwide warming isn't part of some make believe, all inclusive humans-ruin-the-Earth package.

Another example would be, "If you don't believe in AGW then you don't believe in science." Quite to the contrary actually.

Conclusion

While I could fill books with example after example of logical fallacies in the AGW debate, this should provide a succinct summary of the most common classification of fallacies often relied upon by the AGW faithful. Should you find yourself in a debate on this topic be sure to point out to your opponent his use of these fallacies. When you consider all the arguments presented as proof of AGW, they all fit within one of these categories (or possibly another logical fallacy not listed here). The two tenets of AGW are the correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global average tempertaure and the climate computer models. While not strictly a logical fallacy, correlation never proves causation - and the correlation is pitiful; it is only made presentable by using annual global average temperature variants because using raw data would render it completely statistically void. Computer models are only worthwhile if they can be validated and a global climate model can never be validated, not to mention that pesky little detail that the models have already failed to correctly predict average global temperatures. Finally, never forget the most important question, "What exactly is the correct temperature for the Earth?"

The Communist Manifesto: Summary and Analysis (and origin of "Progressives?")

2010-02-22T21:57:00.000-08:00

I finally read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Having read several commentaries on Marxism I felt it time to read the actual Manifesto. Considering the nexus of all communist ideology is the Communist Manifesto, and given the vast number of its "followers," I prepared myself for a deeply intellectual assault on my capitalist ideals. Surely, the bastion of all communism would be based upon solid reasoning, keen economic knowledge, and adept sociology...right? Let's just say I was grossly over-prepared.

For those more accustomed to Twitter than Tolstoy, I will provide my synopsis in two sections: one short, the Summary; one long, the Analysis.

Summary: The Communist Manifesto is a sophomoric, ill written brochure with a few valid, but overtly generic, observations overwhelmed by a multitude of ignorant ideas concocted by the intellectual equivalent of a petulant schoolboy.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Analysis:

1) The most illogical notion of Marxism has only been further revealed for its idiocy through reading this original manuscript - the idea that a Worldwide amalgamation of "workers," a.k.a. the Proletariat, will rise up against the "evil" Bourgeoisie, preside over the masses in a new form of government, and eventually unleash the utopia of true Communism. I certainly don't contest that a large group (although never Worldwide) could rise up, pretend to represent the working class, and affect political change; however, to assert that it would instill an improved form of government is asinine. The primary motivating contention of Marx and Engels is that class warfare, or "antagonisms," is the impetus behind any such provocation of the Proletariat. But what would any form of government, new or otherwise, require? Leadership. Simple logic, not to mention ample history, reveals that a government will establish a separate class - the ruling class.

Absent a wealthy class - because the Bourgeoisie would be overthrown by the Proletariat - the only classes remaining would be the rulers and the non-rulers. In a communist form of government, the people, i.e. the "commune," control the means of production (NOTE: this is a poorly defined economic concept that Marx and Engels inaccurately try to develop in later writings). Regardless of how the government officials are selected for their positions, they would be responsible for determining the division of provisions and means of production. This gives the communist political leaders far more power than the so-called Bourgeoisie wherein means of production are diversified across thousands of people, many of whom have no real political authority. A mere glimpse at the authoritarian rule of communists in all levels of government within the U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, and Cuba is ample proof.

Marx and Marxian philosophers somehow miss or dismiss this point. In the case of Marx and Engels, it may be that they simply never asked, "Then what?" "We overthrow the capitalists, set up our new government, and then what?" More modern Marxists do not have the luxury of whimsically dreaming up global takeovers without any real consequences - they have to contend with the reality of failed, or failing, communist states. Not quick to realize their inherent folly, they often attribute such failures to A) the oppressive economic sanctions imposed by other nations, namely the U.S.A. (i.e. that silly capitalist country that prospered) or B) they legitimize their Marx-mania by asserting the leaders of these "great" nations weren't true Marxists and they didn't understand Marx correctly. Oh they understood him perfectly...and I rest my case.

2) Marxists also fail to comprehend the human psyche. Yes, workers may be willing to rise up against their "oppressors." Yes, they may want to form unions and political parties. But why? Because they want to commune in eternal brotherhood sharing their hard earned money with everyone else? Not a chance. The motivation behind such actions is the same selfishness the Communist Manifesto attributes to the profit mongering capitalists. Would any worker join a union if he didn't believe it would improve his income and benefits? Unionization is done purely for financial gain. This is the very same motivation that ensures my first point will always be true. There will never be a Utopian society of commune-ists because the opportunistic profit motive lives in all of us and ensures power will be wielded whenever possible. Therefore, a society will always contain profit and/or power maximizing individualism. For true Marxist Communism to exist would require every individual to willfully submit to the collective. Doing so is not normal for the vast majority of people; therefore, any attempt towards communism requires a political body to enforce the required collectivism. Hence, a powerful political class has formed in all "communist" countries in an attempt to alter the natural sociological characteristics of humans. This is also why Utopian Communism, as defined in the Communist Manifesto, can never be realized. Ironically, egocentric individualism is the part of the human psyche that makes capitalism work so well.

Of course, Marx said it best when he wrote in the Manifesto, "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class..." Thank you Dr. Marx for, once again, making my point for me.

3) Marx and Engels were correct that capitalism would suffer from periodic failures - this is one of those overtly generic observations I referred to in the summary. Capitalists refer to these events as corrections. They may be short, long, unnoticeable, or devastating, but they are necessary shocks for renewing and revitalizing economies. In the USA, history has further revealed that these events are best dealt with via minimal government intervention. Therefore, I will relent to Marxists that capitalism does suffer periodic, even devastating, shocks. That would be in comparison to only one devastating economic shock occurring under communism... it begins when communism begins and ends only when communism ends.

4) In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels lament the bygone days of feudal society, although it would be a stretch to say that either of them actually experienced life during those times. In the Manifesto, and purportedly in Marx's Capital, Marx decries capitalism for its advances in technology of both communication and productivity. The motley duo claim that capitalism has reduced workers, i.e. not Bourgeoisie, to mere sources of labor. Because of such advances as railroads (keep in mind it was first published in 1847) and large business entities, the Bourgeoisie are evidently able to take advantage of workers owing to the competition among laborers. Further that the difference in price of the goods sold less cost of labor is the source of profits for the capitalists thereby motivating the Bourgeoisie to keep asunder the working class. Therefore, the authors reason feudal times must have been much better for the lowest classes because they were not considered a labor commodity - forced to sell their labor for a mere pittance, barely enough to survive.

I wonder what these Communists might have thought of feudal society had they actually been alive for much, or any, of it? More notably, their line of reasoning shows their economic naivete. To assume people did not sell their labor during feudal times is to confuse the concept entirely. Take for example a tailor. Although it may seem a tailor working independently is not selling his labor by contrast to an individual working in a large garment factory - the difference is not as compelling as Marx portends. The independent tailor is, in effect, selling his labor to himself, although the pay per unit of labor is a variable as a function of the price he garners for his goods or services and the time is takes to complete the same. Being an independent tailor is no guarantee of less servitude or greater financial gain than being a direct laborer; in many instances it is less so.

In addition, the technological advancements Marx derides as the tools of Bourgeoisie oppression can also give the worker advantage. By opening new channels of communication and transportation, workers are able to take advantage of new and distant markets for their labor. Marx et al argue that only the Bourgeoisie can manipulate new technologies for gain. The reality is that macroeconomic conditions dictate who will have the advantage: in good times the workers will be in greater demand and able to command higher wages; in poor times jobs are scarce and workers must compete with each other for jobs at bargain wages. It is no coincidence that Marxist ideologies return anew during economic downturns when jobs are scarce and wages low(er). However, the panacea is not greater government and central planning (the affects of this approach can be seen in the protraction of economic recession following the 1929 crash and the 2007 recession). Instead, workers are well advised to work diligently in the good times, live responsibly, and save for the inevitable bad times.

Interestingly, Eric Hobsbawm, author of the forward to the edition I read, acknowledges within his glowing praise that Marx had an underdeveloped, even flawed, knowledge of economics when he and Engels wrote the Manifesto. I'm sure this has nothing to do with Marx's effective academic failures, much less his failure to contribute productively to society - other than his concerted efforts to undermine it. Even more ironic is that in the forward to the 1872 German edition of the Communist Manifesto, Engels and Marx conclude they shouldn't revise the document because of its historical nature. That preface addressed much of the antiquity of the Manifesto's cultural references, but completely ignored the economic errors pointed out by Hobsbawm, though Hobsbawm also claimed Marx developed more advanced economic knowledge in the years after first writing the Manifesto. Perhaps Marx just never really understood economics (ding, ding, ding, what have we got for him, Johnny?)

5) The Communist Manifesto makes use of the term "Progressive." I'm sure this is not the only, or first, time the term is used in historically significant documents, but it certainly seems appropriate considering the context. Most notably, compare the principles of the Bull-Moose Party to the ten measures of communist takeover listed in Section II of the Manifesto. For instance, a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Moreover, the insistence that Progressives bill themselves as a political ideology more than a political party is strikingly similar to the notions of a Marxist ideology.

6) If you destroy the means of production, then what? In several passages, the Manifesto calls for destructive protest by the Proletariat against the means of production. Were the Proletariat successful in their overthrow of capitalism by this tactic, then what would remain to produce the much needed outputs: food, clothing, shelter, Etc.?

7) Bourgeoisie get their wealth from the Workers. Really? This is like saying economies grow by government spending from taxation. In order for the Bourgeoisie to gain wealth from the Workers they would have to pay them as much, or more, than their gross sales. In a capitalist economy, some wealth is obtained by the aggregation of sales of a product or service across a particular market; other wealth is gained by the non-monetized change in asset valuation (such as increase in market value of property or stocks without selling). It will also be true that there are some "Bourgeoisie" who gain wealth and some that lose wealth within any given economy. In a truly free society with free market capitalism even the Workers have the opportunity to advance, e.g. Oprah, Bill Gates.

8) Here is a great passage that I think well illustrates the level of "thinking" required to be a Marxist, "In bourgeoisie society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in communist society, the present dominates the past." Evidently Marx invented a time machine.

9) "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." Later Marx contends that he doesn't mean abolition of the Worker's property, because there isn't much to take. Clearly, the intent of Communists is purely selfish gain: when innovation and hard work elude you, just take it from someone who has more via collective acts of violence. Marx further argues that the abolition of private property would not halt production and "universal laziness will [not] overtake us." However, this is completely without justification in the Manifesto (or elsewhere). Private property is a store of wealth for all "classes." In the concept of Communism there is no motivation for hard work (probably because Marx and Engels were content to live off Engels' family's business income and Marx's inheritances from his in-laws; the two wouldn't have known hard work if it hit them head on). If there is no store of wealth, then for what purpose should an individual strive to be better?

10) Marx, and Communists in general, have a vexing hatred of religion. "But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience." Oh, so that's how they justify violence and stealing...these act are no longer immoral because, in their minds, morality doesn't exist. Furthermore, they effectively explain why communism is so illogical - when you "[abolish] eternal truths" there really can't be any such thing as logical relevance. I think this is the single most revealing aspect of the whole Communist Manifesto, no less communist ideology in general. Don't like the truth? No problem, just ascribe to Marxism and deny there is truth.

___________________________________________________________________________________

I could expend great multitudes of time and effort describing all the intellectual shortcomings of communism and the Communist Manifesto, but I hope this abbreviated version has been enlightening, or at least validating. Perhaps I will elaborate further in a future post. In addition, Capital is on my reading list - I'm sure I will have more glowing praise for that fine work of intellectual vacuum.

Colorado "Republican" Sues to Bring Down Taxpayer's Bill or Rights

2010-02-11T21:12:00.000-08:00

In my home state of Colorado we have a little thing called the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, or TABOR. TABOR is a ballot measure that was passed in 1992 by the citizens of Colorado to limit the State from imposing new or higher taxes on Coloradoans without the consent of the citizens via referendum (taxes can escalate based upon population growth and inflation). Herb Fenster, an attorney in Boulder, Colorado, is now suing the citizens of Colorado over TABOR claiming that it violates Article IV, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution which requires the Feds to ensure the States provide their citizens with a republican form of government. He asserts TABOR is a form of pure democracy that prevents the State legislature from performing its most important functions, "tax[ing] and spend[ing]." (View an article about the pending case here.) Aside from the fact that only someone from Boulder would consider himself a Republican (as does Mr. Fenster) still initiate this lawsuit, his contention is completely without merit.

First, a republican form of democracy means that the citizens elect, by popular vote, their politicians (there may be an electoral college involved depending upon the political office up for election). Those politicians are the ones empowered to make decisions and cast votes, presumably as a representative of the citizens by whom he was elected. The differentiation between an outright democracy and a republic is that outright democracy allows a small majority to rule (i.e. less than 50%). For instance, if there were multiple candidates for President and all New Yorkers voted for one candidate while the rest of the country voted for different candidates, it would be possible for New Yorkers to send their candidate to office although they only represent a small fraction of the total voting population. The Founders wrote of this threat whereby a minority ruling faction could take hold of the political process in the country against the will of the actual majority. Is it any wonder the Progressives are in favor of pure democracy?

TABOR was put in place after Coloradoans voted in favor of the amendment to Article X of the Colorado Constitution in 1992. Douglas Bruce was the Colorado representative who authored the amendment. The Colorado Constitution delineates the process for amending the same in Article XIX which stipulates that any proposed amendment must first go to vote in the State House and Senate and must pass both houses by a two-thirds majority. Thereafter, the proposed amendment goes to the ballots where it must pass by a majority vote of the electors. To reiterate: TABOR had to first go through the Colorado House and Senate. In other words, TABOR was a by-product of a republican process established in the Colorado Constitution. If TABOR represents a violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, then Article XIX of the Colorado Constitution would have to be in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and would never have been accepted when Colorado joined the union of States. Clearly, TABOR was enacted via a republican process and any pure democracy was only an additional check and balance required per Colorado's Constitution.

Instead of going through the process of initiating a "corrective" amendment to the Colorado Constitution - which would be the proper way to do it in a republic - attorney Herb Fenster is obviously hoping for an activist judge to side with his contorted views. Herb, and many like minded Coloradoans, don't like that TABOR caps taxation because they say it hurts Colorado by limiting things like funding for education and road repairs. Put another way: Herb and his ilk don't like tax caps because it doesn't let Colorado be completely irresponsible with it citizen's money. Yes, times are tough and some hard choices have to be made. Guess what? Privately employed Coloradoans are very well aware of those hard choices and I'm guessing most of them aren't too sympathetic towards the "poor poor politicans" who have to buck up and find a way to get things done on a more frugal budget. Herb, stop the whining and start providing solutions, not more problems.

My two cents: the rest of the nation could benefit from a TABOR!

Is Obama's Bush Bashing Really Just Motivated by Bad Economics?

2010-02-09T20:35:00.000-08:00

While doing research for an upcoming book, I came across an interesting bit of economics research from UC Berkeley which I believe may explain President Obama's continuous Bush blaming. The report, "THE MACROECONOMIC EFFECTS OF TAX CHANGES: ESTIMATES BASED ON A NEW MEASURE OF FISCAL SHOCKS," addresses the implications of tax changes on economic output. In a nutshell, the authors divided motivations for tax changes into endogenous and exogenous categories. Endogenous changes are those intentioned to correct or preempt an undesirable economic outcome, such as preventing a recession. Exogenous changes are not done to correct the economy; they are done for other reasons.

The report concludes by stating that endogenous tax changes have little affect, i.e. statistically insignificant, on economic output while exogenous tax changes have a three-fold impact on economic output, i.e. tax change of 1% of GDP results in 3% of GDP economic impact. However, it caveats that tax changes implemented for the purpose of reducing an "inherited deficit," a subset of exogenous changes, have no statistically significant impact on economic output. It would seem the authors are attempting to justify a tax increase for the purposes of deficit reduction. Ironically, they are quick to explain that endogenous changes may have little economic impact because the economy is already headed in the "intended" direction. Somehow, this explanation is not considered a possibility when describing the deficit reducing motivation for a tax change even though this is highly likely. In other words, politicians are unlikely to increase taxes during a recession, even if it's purpose is to reduce a deficit - they would probably only undertake this during good economic times because very few politicians are into career suicide. Therefore, small tax changes during good economic times are far less likely to impact economic output.

Okay, so what does this seemingly obscure report have to do with Obama? It turns out one of the authors is Dr. Christine Romer, President Obama's Chief Economic Adviser. It begs the question: Is Obama constantly trying to blame Bush for the deficits because he wants to be seen as raising taxes to reduce an "inherited deficit?"

If this is the case, then it is a clear indication he and his adviser have the economic literacy of a common garden slug. The paper by Dr. Romer is still listed as a draft, probably because it could not pass peer review. Furthermore, the conclusions and obscurity of referring to "inherited deficits," as if this is the only kind of deficit in existence or of concern, show that the report was not written for the benefit of economic knowledge. If not written for a 2008 Democratic Presidential contender, it can only be explained as a justification for the Clinton tax increases. Similar to the deterministic "science" prevalent in the IPCC's Global Warming, this report is an excellent example of trying to make the "research" fit the desired conclusion.

If my accusation is correct, then Obama's constant Bush blaming is not just representative of a pitiful lack of accountability, it's also a completely asinine attempt to affect an economic outcome by wrapping increasing tax burdens from his overspending into a psychologically more pleasing package. Of course, the approach will be a miserable failure because it is based upon even more miserably misguided economists. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions - you can obtain a PDF copy of the study here.

Religion of Science

2009-12-23T22:21:00.000-08:00

Emails from a number of high profile climate scientists (e.g. Phil Jones at University of East Anglia) were leaked to the world revealing intentional efforts to manipulate climate data and report results inaccurately for the sake of globalism. Any self-respecting individual who has been told with a straight face that science is and objective methodology for obtaining knowledge should now be questioning how it is possible that something so profoundly objective could produce "Climate Gate." The answer is quite simple: it's the Religion of Science.

The emails reveal a sordid tale of personal bias overpowering objectivity, thus revealing the fatal flaw in scientific methodology: humanity. I've always found Wikipedia's version of the scientific method the most honest and revelaing, note step 6, "Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis." This is the first stumbling block because it requires the human mind to filter the data and observations into a conclusion, or set of conclusions. However, if that individual has a predetermined bias, the conclusions he or she draws may be tainted by that bias.

For instance, if you believe dinosaurs were completely obliterated by the Chicxulub meterorite 65 Million years ago, then you would conclude that soft dinosaur tissues found in the Hell Creek formation in Montana are a result of some yet unknown process that preserves soft tissues for millions of years, just as Dr. Schweitzer concluded. Her follow-on research might include study on long-term preservation of soft tissues. However, if some dinosaurs survived, as more recent research suggests, then her bias may have skewed her conclusion and there may in fact be no process that preserves soft tissues over 65 million years. Although the repititious nature of scientific methodology is supposed to account for these judgement errors, i.e. follow-on research excludes the possibility of soft tissue preservation over 65 million years, if the individual is strongly biased she may continue to reject findings and iterate fecklessly making the same conclusion.

Some people would suggest the peer review process is used to account for this kind of personal bias, which may be true except when a large scientific community, i.e. the peers, share the same bias. This introduces the Religion of Science whereby a particular view or bias permeates a scientific community and results in the promulgation of erroneous conclusions. The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) issue offers an apt example (as does Molecules-to-Man Evolution, Big Bang, etc.). Some scientists are compelled towards their bias not because of scientific reasons, but because they share a political or ideological zealousy for globalism, marxism, socialism, progressivism, or environmentalism. Others are motivated, conciously or unconsciously, by their need/desire to continue their research and receive grant money. Some are purely motivated by the financial gain (as evidenced by the recent reveals of various fossils perported to be the fabled "missing link" despite the scientific evidence agaisnt such claims).

The Humanist Manifesto 2000 offers an excellent glimpse into the religion of science by revealing a complete doctrine of aethistic religion. Religion is defined as a belief held to with ardor; Humanism fits this definition well - even coming complete with ceremonies, symbology, cathedrals (our public schools and universities), and priests (e.g. professors). It should be no surprise that Richard Dawkins is a signatory to this document, and may be the pope.

Similarly, AGW has clearly become a religious following. Many people continue to rigerously defend AGW despite its pitiful "scientific" basis. It has descending into comedy in many instances with its staunchest allies proclaiming that Global Warming will cause cooling in some parts of the globe. In order to keep their faith, the AGW prognosticators point to every climate event as further "proof" of AGW while it may at best only be a proof that climates change. Furthermore, assuming that any anomoly in climate is proof of AGW first requires a faithful assumption that AGW is true - a clear indication of deterministic science. Of course, the University of East Angila emails also show a clear political motivation; perhaps the religion being observed is more centered around political ideology than climate science.

Ultimately, the success of the religion of science is caused by the failure to educate our children, and past generations, how to think instead of what to think. We stifle true inspiration and science by constantly attempting to first teach others what they should think if they are to be responsible members of society rather than teaching and enabling them how to think. You may strongly disagree with my positions in this post, but I challenge you (even if you do agree) to reflect on your own positions and determine if they are based on sound provable science, or personal belief.

Your Government is Lying to You (About Abortion Coverage in the Health Care Bill)

2009-11-24T15:55:00.000-08:00

Given the Obama Administration’s lack of transparency and honesty, not to mention Congress’ similar failure to act honestly and responsibly, it should be no surprise that America was lied to about abortion coverage in the Health Care Bill. HR 3962 was passed by the House of Representatives after promises spewed from Congressional leaders that the American public would not fund abortions (directly or indirectly) via their tax dollars. A reading of the Bill (available here) exposes blatant misrepresentation of the “compromise” sold to Americans and members of the House.

Page 109 describes the supposed prohibition on abortions. It would have been beneficial for your congressmen to actually have read this part of the bill before they signed up for destroying our country because the prohibition on abortions is slippery at best. While the bill says the Health Choices Commissioner cannot require abortion services to be provided as part of a health plan, it doesn’t exclude the possibility. Page 110 says, “The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for [abortions for which federal funding is allowed]. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of [abortions for which federal funding is prohibited].” The section goes on to say that these two categories of abortions (federally funded or not) are to be based upon the prevailing federal law. Therefore, not only does the bill indicate that the public health plan may or may not provide abortions of all types, there is also a loophole that opens the door for abortion coverage should future laws on federal funding for abortions change.

Section 258 prevents the bill from superceding any state laws on abortion – either prohibitions against it or requirements to provide abortion. Yet another proof that the bill of goods sold to congress and the public is not consistent with the actual bill.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t take much to dupe Congressmen, the media, and millions of pro-government Americans. Yet if this issue is so blatantly misrepresented, then imagine how all the other “selling points” of the bill are mere fabrications (hint: almost all of them). I encourage everyone to take time to read the bill and, more importantly, call your senators to express your outrage and ensure him or her you will not be voting for them if they pass this health care bill.

Why You Should be Very Worried About the Government Health Recommendations

2009-11-21T21:22:00.000-08:00

In the last weeks, two recommendations have come from government sponsored panels that suggest the current standards for mammograms and pap smears, those supported but the American Cancer Society, encourage women to get these screenings too frequently and too early. There has been significant push back from the public and various organizations, but the government is downplaying the recommendations as mere suggestions based upon scientific inquiry. However, if you care about the women in your life and their ability to get these important cancer screenings you need to be very concerned because the Health Care Bill proposes to incorporate these "harmless recommendations" directly into your health insurance.

The Health Care Bill (I’m referencing the version passed by the House, HR 3962, because we don’t yet know what the Senate version will look like exactly; however, this language has appeared in all versions I have seen since July) contains several sections whereby advisory committees are established for the purpose of determining what treatments result in the best health outcomes. It may sound reasonable, even sensible, until you juxtapose it with the recent recommendations on mammography and pap smear. Section 223 establishes the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee” (Page 111 of the Bill, which can be viewed here). This committee is a “public-private” partnership with the express directive to “…be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.” In other words, the committee gets to decide what should be covered by your health insurance. Section 224 then gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to incorporate those recommendations.

Other examples from the Bill abound, such as page 1392 which states, “The program

19 under this section shall be designed to administer vaccines consistent with the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for the annual vaccination of all children 5 through 19 years of age.” Page 1478, “The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Center, in coordination with the Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services, shall— ‘‘(A) promote and fund research in emergency medicine and trauma health care; ‘‘(B) promote regional partnerships and more effective emergency medical systems in order to enhance appropriate triage, distribution, and care of routine community patients; and ‘‘(C) promote local, regional, and State emergency medical systems’ preparedness for and response to public health events.” Page 1494 establishes the “Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee” with duties to include “make recommendations to ensure that the activities of the National Institutes of Health and other Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Veteran Affairs, are free of unnecessary duplication of effort;” How about this little gem on page 1507, “Before issuing the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding the final regulations described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall hold a public hearing before an advisory committee on the issue of which class II devices to include in the definition of covered devices.” In other words, there will be yet another committee deciding which medical devices should be covered by Medicaid and which shouldn’t.

I could certainly list more, but a simple search of the Bill for the word “committee” will allow you to find most of the other sections establishing a Government run committee for the purpose of making determinations about your level of coverage. However, let’s put this all together and see how sinister the purportedly innocuous recommendations really are. Section 241 of the Bill (page 131) establishes the Health Choices Commissioner who is to be appointed by the President. This Commissioner is tasked (section 242, page 132) with establishing the benefit standards for “qualified health plans.” Per Section 202, all health plans, even the plan you get through your employer, must become a “qualified health plan” within the sooner of 5 years or when any term or condition of your plan changes. At that time the Health Choices Commissioner will be the individual in charge of determining what your health plan covers and if the Committee established in section 223 decides women shouldn’t get mammograms until they’re 50, then guess what your health insurance plan isn’t going to pay for?

Admittedly, the Health Choices Commissioner establishes the minimum benefit standards for qualified health plans, but if your insurer provides better than the minimum it will probably be deemed a “Cadillac” plan and excessive taxes will be assessed. Naturally, no self-preserving insurer would subject itself to unnecessary taxation; therefore, mammograms will be paid out of your pocket until you’re 50. That assumes, of course, that you can find a doctor that will provide mammograms if this bill passes.

The moral of the story: call you senators and tell them to vote a resounding NO against the health care bill.

Debate Team's Secret Weapon: The Racism Card

2009-09-16T21:18:00.000-07:00

We would probably laugh out loud if a participant in a formal debate contest accused the other team of being racist. Why? Because it would be a clear indication the participant had no viable counter to the other team - a sure sign of defeat - and was using the charge as a hail mary attempt at humor. Yet I watch aghast at the spectacle of no less than Jimmy Carter accusing all people who have oppositions to Obama's policies of being racist. Of course Carter is not alone; he is in the company of many other Democratic politicians, columnists, and the individuals commenting online.

One individual responded to an opinion piece on CNN.com, which declared the opposition to Obama wasn't rooted in racism, by saying that any opposition to welfare legislation was racism, "...why don't you people get this?" If I were Ross Perot I would be recalling my failed presidential campaign wherein I was eternally chastised for referring to the black community as "you people" and wondering why the reciprocal isn't racist. However, conservatives are not afforded any grace - even, perhaps especially, when we're correct.

I hate to get this remedial, but evidently it is necessary to pull up the formal definition of racism (from dictionary.com):

1.	a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2.	a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.	hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

While I don't deny that racism still exists in this country, and there are people opposed to President Obama solely on the basis of his race, to accuse anyone who dissents from his policies of being a racist is unfounded and indefensible. Disagreement is not racism. In the aforementioned hypothetical debate, the success of the debaters is based upon their ability to disagree using reasoning and logic. If disagreement were racism then the debate could simply degenerate to each team calling the other racist and, per the example set for us by Carter, they would be fully justified to do so.

There is nothing in Wilson's "You Lie" outburst that fits the definition of racism. Any assertion that his motivation was racist is contrived and without merit. In short, it is an ad hominem attack designed to distract from the truth about illegal immigrants and the health care bill.

(As an aside - the illegal immigration issue regarding health care cannot be resolved by the health care bill. If illegals are given health care then it is at the detriment of the American taxpayer. If illegals are not given health care they will continue to use our health care system without paying, to the deteriment of the American taxpayer. The only way to solve the problem is through tough immigration reform.)

It is important to recall that race is a human construct (see my earlier post on this topic). Arguing that someone is better or worse than another person on the basis of race is like arguing that someone with blonde hair is inferior to someone with brown hair. However, there are cultures that often develop among races, but those cultures may be multi-racial if geography combines races. In other words, a white kid growing up in Harlem would likely emulate the same cultural tendencies as an African-American kid in the same environment. Our persistence to distinguish ourselves on the basis of race is absurd and only serves to propagate the negative consequences of race based distinctions. For instance, anyone can easily comprehend the stupidity of indicating your eye color or hair color at the end of an employment application. Why then do we persist to ask for racial identification?

My point is to show that the accusations leveled against Obama's critics, and the continued emphasis on racial preferences and quotas, only serves to intensify the perception or outright prevalence of racism. The racist charge should only be applied when the evidence clearly shows racism is the underlying motivation for a particular action - and no such motivation can be assigned to the vast majority of Obama's opposition.

Notably, we can find examples of racism (per the definition) from pro-Obama factions. For instance, a plethora of black voters admitted they were voting for Obama because of his race. This fits definition 1, above, because they believed his race was more fit to lead America than was John McCain's. Giving preference to minorities for jobs, student grants, college acceptance, and loans fits definition 2, above. In addition, it promotes the delineation of our population along racial lines. It is done in the name of "diversity" but note that a person's race does not determine the diversity of their views or experience; instead it is their culture and the totality of their background that provides the much proclaimed diversity. Finally, declaring that all protestors of Obama's policies are racist fits definition 3 because those who make this claim are decrying those who oppose Obama without attention to their argument; instead, they fully loathe them as "white haters." That is to say, they hate them only because they are white. Even self-loathing white liberals hate the white race with no basis.

In conclusion, I think this is best summed up with a sign from the September 12th, 2009 March on DC which said, "I doesn't matter what my sign says, you're going to call it racist." The Racism argument is nothing more than a distraction from the truth and a clear indication that the liberals have no logical defense for their policies.

The Real Reason the Main Stream Media isn't Covering the ACORN scandal

2009-09-16T20:48:00.000-07:00

Despite five videos disclosing corruption and despicable behavior at 4 ACORN Housing locations (Baltimore, Washington D.C., Brooklyn, and San Bernardino), there has been little coverage from the major TV networks - ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC. What coverage has appeared typically gives voice to the leaders of ACORN or an ACORN sympathizer who senselessly characterizes the videos as a racist attack by conservative Republicans. Not to mention the Census Bureau's recent severed ties with the organizations and the Senate's overwhelming vote to withdraw any further HUD grants - merely a whisper at best from these so called "news" organizations.

The ACORN videos are the kind of scandal the media would normally jump all over themselves to cover. It is said ad nauseum, because of its truth, that had this kind of corruption and absence of morality occurred within an organization tied to Bush it would be headline news for weeks. One must believe that broadcasters are in the business for profit; generating revenue (even despite the current deplorable ratings of these former media giants). So why are these networks ignoring this story?

The answer is so simple that I put it on a bumper sticker (click here to order):

Simply put, the main stream media is ignoring this topic because it is toxic to their personal bias, fundamental beliefs, and idolatry of President Obama. If they report on the corruption and immorality of ACORN then they must also address its ties to Obama. President Obama has inextricably linked himself with ACORN; after all, its where he got his big "start."

Eventually the media heads and their producers will be replaced with individuals willing to make the reports that are relevant and important to Americans because the parent corporations will tire of failure. Until then, expect more sputtering about the inconsequential statements by Joe Wilson and false claims of racism.

The Media's Assualt on Free Speech and Logic Continues

2009-09-10T20:18:00.000-07:00

This image adorned the front page of the Colorado Springs Independent "newspaper" today. Evidently, it is racist and hateful to portray President Obama as The Joker, but perfectly acceptable to portray Glenn Beck as the same fictional character. I have written often of the illogical nature of subjective morality, but this offers another illustration (pardon the pun) of how it is used to rationalize impropriety as propriety. The editor and author, Anthony Lane, undoubtedly decided that because it was done to Obama they were justified to do it to Beck. Similar arguments abound in the liberal mind. Just today I read a comment to an article on FoxNews.com wherein the contributor justified Obama lying to the Nation about the Health Care bill by saying Bush lied about WMDs (I'm not declaring a position, just repeating what was said). Either lying is bad or it's not. One immoral act cannot be used to justify another immoral act.

In the accompanying 5 page article, the author blabbers about the purported puppetry of 9-12ers, Tea Partiers, and other similar conservative organizations; proclaiming Beck is their puppet master. While the author levels ample criticism at Beck, he never once in the article presents a refutation of Beck's claims. Surely Beck's vitrolic rhetoric being as dangerous as Lane claims - even using a highly credible (sarcasm in case you're not accostomed to my style yet) "progressive think tank" as a resource - deserves a concise debunking? Not so. Lane attempts to philosophically connect Beck to the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, suggesting Beck's books and broadcasts are fueling a violent conservative movement. Lane further suggests that should a hypothetical person associated with the 9-12er movement commit an act of violence it would be the fault of the 9-12ers and Glenn Beck - never mind personal responsibility, it doesn't exist in the Progressive's world.

The article is squarely critical and mocking of Beck, resorting to ad hominem attacks to craft an assault against the talk show host saying on page 17, "The clip is Beck's cue for outrage, and he starts contorting restlessly at his desk like an angry, spiky-haired bobblehead doll." This description was associated with Beck's discussion of Obama's civilian national security force proposal. Interestingly, no where in the article does Lane refute what Beck claims regarding the CNSF. Apparently, baseless character assassinations are more fun than actually doing research and discussing the merits of an argument. Lane also belittles Beck as being a misguided conspiracy theorist. I'm not particularly fond of Beck's personal style, but I have researched his claims and found them to be true. It's a little difficult to argue against video clips depicting what you're describing. Of course, you can also visit the websites of the SEIU and the Apollo Alliance and they do most of the verifying for you.

What is truely ironic about Lane's lambasting of Beck, the 9-12ers, and the Tea Partiers is his complete absence of disdain for the same, or worse, efforts made by the Progressives, Socialists, Unions, and Marxists. For instance, visit HAARM.org. The SEIU has established a fake organization that is a parody of Obamacare protesters. They protest with signs as if they were against health care reform but with completely idiotic messages in an attempt to mock and discredit people with legitimate opposition to Obamacare. I guess that's just harmless fun? What about the Obamacare opponent whose finger was bitten off by an SEIU member during a fight in California? I suppose the massive protests in favor of Obamacare organized by the SEIU and other unions is legitimate in spite of the billions in tax dollars they stand to get if the Health Care bill passes (see this prior post)? I'm not using the same tactic I decryed at the beginning of this post by claiming conservatives are justified by the tactics used by liberals; rather, I support the rights of individuals and groups to protest and speak freely regardless of ideology. What I'm pointing out is Lane's opposition to such freedoms for conservatives amid his omission of any opposition when the same freedoms are exercised by liberals. (UPDATE 9/11/09: the murder of Pro-Life protestor in Owosso, MI highlights that manufactured fear of conservative violence is baseless. All people are capable of violence regardless of ideology. Where are the people who blammed conservative TV and Radio hosts for the murder of Tiller? By their logic wouldn't today's killing be the fault of liberals?)

Lane could have taken the noble route, upheld his journalistic oath, and presented an unbiased, fact-based expose behind-the-scenes with the 9-12ers. However, quality journalism and integrity are clearly not in his DNA. Absent any bona fide or defensible dispute he resorts to character attack in accord with his predetermined bias and lack of research. Guess whose editor is going to get a lot of mail? Join me in responding en masse by writing to the Independent at letters@csindy.com. It's not about defending Glenn Beck, it's about defending our God given right to a different opinion and the public voice to air that opinion.

45 Minutes of Nothing

2009-09-10T20:09:00.000-07:00

I’m not exactly the most succinct writer, but for my assessment of Barack Hussein Obama’s September 9^th speech to Congress I will forgo my usual verbosity. Bottom Line: the President said nothing we haven’t already heard.

I have addressed the issues he claims are misinformation previously; you can read that post here: http://aaronopine.blogspot.com/2009/08/rebutting-misinformation-misinformation.html

Here are some quick summaries regarding some of the things I didn’t address in that post:

1) Republican input – FALSE. The 5 committees working on the health care bill have not included Republican input and Republicans have systematically been denied input throughout the process. Recall comments such as, “You don’t even matter, so I’m not going to talk to you.” [Democrat talking to Republican]

2) Coverage not provided for illegal immigrants – FALSE. In the July 14^th version of HR 3200 it specifically excludes illegals, but more recent committee versions provide insurance for illegals. Regardless of the approach, the illegal immigration issue MUST be addressed to curb health care costs because they leave the American taxpayers to pay their way if they’re given subsidized insurance or if they use our hospitals without paying.

3) Obama will consider tort reform – FALSE. He said he would initiate a study, but (assuming he actually does) it is completely separate from the health care bill. Note he said nothing of including it in the bill.

4) Obama let go of the government option – FALSE. He said he wanted a triggered gov’t option in the event private insurance isn’t affordable enough. Hmm…wonder who decides if private insurance isn’t affordable…couldn’t possibly be the government? This was purely political pandering with no substance. Obama spoke at length about the necessity of a public option to “compete” with private insurers. Furthermore, the provisions of the health care bill will cause insurance premiums to rise – guaranteed. When they rise the government “trigger” would activate and the public option becomes reality.

5) The public option will not compete unfairly – FALSE. I’ve already debunked the “fair competition” lie in my previous posts, but I’ll add a little to it here also. The President claimed the public option would only make money from premiums, but this is false for three reasons (a) the bill sets aside appropriations to get the public option started, (b) the bill allows the public option to hold an undetermined (unlimited?) reserve for unforeseen circumstances while expressly limiting private insurers loss ratios, and (c) if the public option is triggered because private insurance isn’t affordable and is likewise necessary to make it affordable, then the government would not be allowed to let the public option fail, aka government subsidies.

6) The Health Care Bill won’t add to the deficit – FALSE. Sorry…had to stop laughing before I wrote this… The President is flatly ignoring the CBO estimates that predict the Bill would increase deficits by several hundred billion dollars. In addition, he is making his claim based upon the notion of savings from efficiency gains – the kind of nonsense that government has been promulgating for decades but remains elusive.

Throughout this debate it is critically important that we remember the distinction between health care and health insurance. Obama is proposing health insurance for everyone (CBO estimates also say there will be several million people left uninsured by this bill) but this is not the same as health care for everyone. In fact, further insulating people from the market price of health care treatment and medications will only cause costs to increase. I’ll use a few examples and analogies to illustrate the problem.

First, let’s understand the costs related to health care, pre-HR 3200:

For simplicity, assume a family income of $100,000 per year. That means the wage earners and their employers will contribute $2,900 in FICA taxes to the Medicare system (1.45% employee and 1.45% employer contributions). On top of that the family might pay $2,400 in health insurance premiums while their employer pays about $12,000. In addition, the family might pay $2,000 for cost-sharing, i.e. co-pays and deductibles. The insurance company may pay out $14,000 in health care claims for the family. That means the total health care costs paid for the family are $33,300 per year, or 33.3% of their pre-tax income.

The point is to illustrate that health insurance is not free and the cost of health care extends beyond health insurance. Just because you provide health insurance to someone doesn’t mean health care costs go away – the insurer is paying the majority of those costs; likewise, employers are bearing the brunt of the cost of the insurance. Additionally, almost 9% of the total annual health costs are going to a government health plan (Medicare) which is of no present benefit to the taxpayer.

Second, more health insurance will not reduce health care expenditures – it will likely increase them:

Recognize that the health care purchased during a given time period is not reduced by the existence of more widespread health insurance (there are some caveats I’ll get to soon). We can categorize the health care purchased into one of three categories: (1) what’s purchased and covered by health insurance; (2) what’s not covered by health insurance but medically necessary and is thus purchased anyway; (3) what’s not covered by health insurance, is not medically necessary, but is still desired sufficiently to pay the costs directly, e.g. cosmetic surgery.

There are some who assume a disproportionate amount of (2) could be moved into (1) if more people were insured by plans that paid for regular preventive care and screenings. While this may be true in part, it ignores that those screenings still cost money. It may sound draconian, but from a purely economic standpoint, the assumption also misses the medical costs paid for a person who survives a life threatening disease and purchases health care for the remainder of his or her life that wouldn’t have been purchased had the disease ended their life. (Cass Sunstien, Ezekiel Ehmanuel, and Obama realize this and thusly advocate for “taking a pill” instead of getting treatment.)

In addition, lower co-pays and lower co-insurance would be likely to increase the purchases of health care under category (1). For instance, when my family had lower co-pays and no deductibles we would take the kids to the doctor with far less ominous symptoms than we do now as a result of a more expensive plan. Similarly, we could expect currently uninsured to purchase more health care once they become insurance because of the cost-shift to the insurance company.

Finally, health care purchases under category (3) would likely change as the economy changes, but do not contribute to economic trends in medically necessary health care because they are paid for in advance and there is no cost-shifting.

The Health Care bill would induce no change in total health care spending, at best, and would likely increase the overall spending on health care. In addition, there is nothing in the bill that would influence prices down; in fact, the effect would be quite the opposite because costs are hidden from the purchaser through the insulation of insurance. In the next few sections, you will see why this will cause everyone’s costs to rise.

Third, Moral Hazard explained:

Insurers are all too familiar with moral hazard. Insured are too, but often don’t realize they are. To better illustrate the phenomenon I’ll use an analogy.

Assume I offer you a Car Purchasing Program. Here’s how it will work… you pay me $3,600 per year for the plan. You are then allowed to get a new or used car from any one of our in-network dealers; you pay 10% of the costs up to your $2,000 co-insurance limit. It has to be classified as a passenger car – we don’t permit trucks or SUVs. You have a $500,000 lifetime cap on how much you can buy, but we don’t restrict you on price, make, model, etc.

So what are you going to get? You know you’re going to get a car of some kind because you’re paying into the plan and you don’t want to waste your money. At most, it’s going to cost you $2,000 for the car plus the monthly premium for the plan. There’s no restriction on what you buy, so you can purchase a used Chevrolet Caprice, or you could purchase a Lexus LS. You might divide the $500,000 lifetime limit by the number of cars you expect to purchase over your lifetime and arrive at a price. On the other hand, you may just take it one car at a time. Either way, you’re going to get the most car for your money, right?

Likewise, you can go to any in-network dealer. So…are you going to go to the dealer with the old, cruddy building that’s across town or the one with the new building three blocks from home? I’ll bet you already decided even though I didn’t tell you the closer dealer charges $5,000 more per car, on average. I’ll bet again that you didn’t change your mind after I told you that. Why? Because price doesn’t really matter to you under the plan…and that is moral hazard.

Fourth, why insurance companies and the government MUST ration health care:

Continue with our car purchasing program plan. Initially, you probably thought about that $500k lifetime cap and wanted to make sure you wouldn’t be driving a Bently for the rest of your life (nice car, but are they really that reliable). But what if the government came along and said I can’t put a lifetime cap on the plan? Bugatti here you come!!! The problem is that I can’t make money anymore, but I can’t cancel your plan either. So what am I going to do? I will now put restrictions on the plan. You can now only purchase a car once every 7 years. Furthermore, it has to be a Fiat or Hyundai. Finally, it can’t cost more than $25,000 or you make up the difference.

I have to put on these restrictions or else I won’t make money. If I don’t make money, or I lose money, I can’t stay in business. Similarly, if I’m the government, Congress somewhat arbitrarily decides how much money I have for the program for the year (we’ll ignore things like deficits and tax revenue because Congress ignores them too). Because I have to be “fair” to everyone I will divide the budget by the number of people covered and base my terms and conditions on those numbers. These are the reasons why government and insurance companies ration – because money is finite.

Fifth, why insurance premiums would go up with the HR 3200 bill:

If you accept that the total amount spent on health care wouldn’t change (or would increase) if more people are insured, then it logically follows that premiums must go up. Let me illustrate:

Assume total medically necessary health care purchased in a given year is $1 T (I’m making up numbers for the sake of example). Of that, $700 B is paid by health insurers. Now assume there are 300 Million insured and 30 Million uninsured. Therefore the total collected in premiums and Medicare taxes must be no less than $700 B plus the costs of overhead (contrary to Obama’s rhetoric, the government has a very high overhead cost – it’s just not subjected to the same GAAP accounting rules and therefore associates its costs differently). Assuming the overhead is 15% of outlays that means total premiums and taxes must be $805 B. That means the premium/tax burden per person would have to be $2,685 for this hypothetical example.

In fantasy land, everyone would be covered by insurance with the proposed health insurance reform; therefore the total premium/tax revenue must be equal to $1.15 T for a new premium/tax burden of $3,833 per person.

In reality, the people already paying premiums would receive disproportionately more of the new tax burden from passage of the health care bill PLUS a disproportionate share of the increased insurance premiums. Additionally, we know from ample past experience that government programs ALWAYS cost more than expected (and they always under-deliver). Add to that the inevitable increase in medical costs caused by increased moral hazard and you have all the elements for making health care cost substantially more for everyone through increased insurance costs; increased direct, out-of-pocket health care costs; and increased rationing.

Sixth, no pre-existing condition exemptions sound good, but what’s the ramification?:

Nothing sounds more cold-hearted than an insurance company refusing to insure someone with a pre-existing condition. However, keep in mind that health insurance does not equal health care. Health insurance is a service provided to people for the purpose of protecting their financial well-being against unforeseen health circumstances which require expensive health care. Bankruptcy is another mechanism by which people can recover from unforeseen financial ruin via release of debt holds and creation of a repayment plan, albeit an unfavorable option.

Waiting to buy health insurance until you have cancer is like trying to buy life insurance just before they disconnect you from life support. From the perspective of those already insured, having a someone recently diagnosed with cancer trying to get insurance is like the person who didn’t want to pay into the lottery pool suddenly demand to buy in after the pool wins the jackpot. Health Insurance is not a magical source of health care; it is a risk pool. If everyone in the risk pool has the same amount of medical expenses then there might as well be no pool because paying those expenses directly would save the cost of insurance company overhead. Similarly, when someone with higher medical expenses enters the pool it costs everyone in the pool more money.

For instance, assume there are ten people in an insurance “pool” with hypothetical annual health care costs of $4,000, $12,000, $28,000, $2,000, $500, $3,500, $11,500, $8,000, $9,500, and $3,000. The total health care costs paid by their insurance provider are $82,000. Using the same 15% overhead cost rate, the insurance company should have charged $9,430 per year per person if it wants to remain viable (in reality, they don’t know these numbers in advance and use actuaries to estimate their risk from a statistical analysis and thereby determine premiums.) It would not be unlikely for a person needing cancer treatments to spend $250k or more per year on health care. If he wants to enter the risk pool with the 10 original insureds it would cause the rates to jump to $34,709 per year per person, although, actuarially speaking, it would be less because the statistical risk to the insurer would not increase by my simplistic algebraic formula. Regardless, you see the impact of eliminating the pre-existing condition exemption.

I absolutely do not condone insurers from dumping seriously ill customers on the basis of undisclosed and unrelated pre-existing conditions. There should be a statute of limitations beyond which the insurer can no longer dump customers regardless of what undisclosed pre-existing condition they dig up.

Lastly, Obama’s health care plan STILL misses the point:

I’ve made this argument before, but I’ll repeat it because it is so important. The health care reform that MUST be passed is reform that reduces the cost of health CARE. Nothing in the plans floating about the labyrinth of Congress addresses the rising cost of health care in America. In fact, their plans will increase the cost of health care while also reducing covered services and reducing access.

People who claim conservatives have no alternative are either not listening or are too committed to their Marxist philosophies to admit the utter failure of their plans to solve the real problems. A health care reform plan that addresses the root causes of high health care costs must do the following:

1) Address illegal immigration – Illegal immigrants can take advantage of our medical facilities ONCE; upon leaving the medical facility they will be handed over to the INS for immediate deportation. We should streamline the citizenship process (not necessarily make it easier) and we should improve our worker sponsorship process. Any such policy must also make improvements to the system for tracking people who overstay their sponsorships or “vacations.”

2) Address tort reform – I don’t necessarily condone caps on medical malpractice awards, but I do support making the plaintiff pay the defendant a sum equal to the damages they were requesting should the judge or jury find the lawsuit to be frivolous. This would help reduce the number of malpractice suits; thereby, reduce malpractice insurance costs, settlement costs, and reduce defensive medicine.

3) Reduce moral hazard – Health care reform must make patients more responsible for managing the costs of their treatments. Health savings accounts are an excellent, and proven, means to accomplish this. In addition, it allows individuals to save towards their inevitably higher health care costs as they advance in age. Catastrophic coverage could supplement this plan.

4) Improve the new drug certification process – Reduce the cost and duration of the drug certification process through the FDA. For all the talk of inefficiencies in the health care system, nothing has been said about the bureaucracy of the FDA processes. I’m not advocating reducing requirements, but I am suggesting we could do much better.

5) Health care exchange and portability – I actually like this aspect of the current plan. Note that it is only about 1% of the page count in HR 3200.

6) Reduce government involvement – Obama talks incessantly about waste, inefficiency, and the overhead/profit costs of insurers. Does he REALLY think the government doesn’t have overhead costs? His plan drastically increases the size of the government machine, reporting requirements, and adds a multitude of new government agencies. Efficient government is like saying lean lard – it makes no sense. I propose they dismantle much of the existing web of bureaucrats as they serve no purpose.

7) Provide the right tax incentives - the government should allow individuals to write off the cost of independently purchased health care, not just businesses. Instead of paying more efficient medical facilities more government money, they should give tax breaks for investments in efficiency and efficiency improvements. Why route the money through government only to give it back, minus the cost off all that government overhead (I know the reason – politicians want the control)?

Let’s face it, the real change that’s needed isn’t going to happen under Obama or a Democratic Congress. It’s not likely under a Republican president or Congress either, which is all the more reason to oppose Obama’s “health care” plan because once it’s enacted there will never be enough politicians with the fortitude to repeal it and make the right choices. For my last analogy: remember that taking power away from a politician once he has it is more difficult than pulling light out of a black hole. Keep fighting Obamacare, our nation’s survival depend on it.

Call Your Senator Before This Blog Gets Shut Down!

2009-09-01T22:21:00.000-07:00

Being the proverbial engineer, I want facts and data. So once again I heard rumblings about another Bill before the Senate and I wanted to decide for myself if this is a bad deal for Americans and to know who is telling me the truth. This time it is Senate Bill 773, “Cybersecurity Act of 2009.” While I think cyber security is an important issue, the government is once again overstepping its bounds into an area in which it really has no business, nor any expertise. From my reading of the Bill, it is loaded with ambiguity and massive amounts of control afforded solely to the President without any timely, or any, check and balance by Congress.

Given the recent news that conservatives are outnumbering and outperforming liberals on the internet, plus Obama Administration efforts to silence talk radio (the other format where conservatives outnumber liberals), this bill has a more sinister character. There is nothing to prevent the President from shutting down an internet site under the false premise of national security and there would be no appeal. I have included excerpts from the bill below along with my comments. The excerpts are indented and underlining added for emphasis (my emphasis). You can read the bill for yourself here: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text.

The bill opens with this paragraph:

A bill to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.

“…and for other purposes.” I don’t know about you, but I’m totally comfortable with this kind of ambiguity when we’re giving even more control of our lives over to the Government (complete sarcasm).

The premise of the bill is that terrorists could deal a crippling blow the U.S. economy by waging a cyber attack on our nation. While this is true in many ways, it begs the question: do we really want the government being responsible for our internet security? Government agencies are some of the worst protected in terms of cyber security, why would we want them to spread more cyber-dysfunction? The answer is given in Section 2 (13):

“We know that cyber-espionage and common crime is already on the rise. And yet while countries like China have been quick to recognize this change, for the last eight years we have been dragging our feet.’ Moreover, President Obama stated that ‘we need to build the capacity to identify, isolate, and respond to any cyber-attack.’”

Let’s think about that for a second…what does China do for “cyber-security?” Oh, that’s right, they tightly control the internet, spontaneously shut down sites that conflict with their public agenda, and randomly disrupt all internet communications. While there may occasionally be legitimate reasons for doing this (please name one if you know about it), these takeovers by the Chinese government all seem to happen when there are issues surrounding free speech or public dissent. Is there a single freedom loving American that wants for our internet the same “security” that China has?

Once again we see the foot in the door approach for “non-profit groups.” But what non-profit would be involved in this issue? Oh, I don’t know…maybe ACORN? Section 3 describes the composition of the new “Cybersecurity Advisory Panel”:

(1) [The President] shall appoint as members of the panel representatives of industry, academic, non-profit organizations, interest groups and advocacy organizations, and State and local governments who are qualified to provide advice and information on cybersecurity research, development, demonstrations, education, technology transfer, commercial application, or societal and civil liberty concerns; andComments Close Comments Permalink

(2) may seek and give consideration to recommendations from the Congress, industry, the cybersecurity community, the defense community, State and local governments, and other appropriate organizations.

Am I being unduly biased against President Obama? Certainly he would never appoint his communist, socialist friends to such an important team…right?

Not to worry fellow conservatives, paragraph (c)(7) makes it all better. The new advisory panel (all presidential appointees) are going to make sure societal and civil liberties concerns are addressed. Maybe that would be the job of the “unbiased” ACLU members? Perhaps American’s for Democracy Now? Not only that, but they’re going to report out every 2 years per paragraph (d). Let’s see, that will be 2011, 2013, 2015…what do those years have in common? Hint: they’re non-election years.

(7) whether societal and civil liberty concerns are adequately addressed.

There’s more money and power for ACORN in section 5. Nothing about this section worries me, though (more sarcasm):

(a) CREATION AND SUPPORT OF CYBERSECURITY CENTERS- The Secretary of Commerce shall provide assistance for the creation and support of Regional Cybersecurity Centers for the promotion and implementation of cybersecurity standards. Each Center shall be affiliated with a United States-based nonprofit institution or organization, or consortium thereof, that applies for and is awarded financial assistance under this section.

Again, what non-profit is currently an expert on cyber-security? If there aren’t any, then why is this money being awarded to a non-profit? Let me guess, the presidential appointed committee gets to decide who is awarded the funding?

(3) APPLICATIONS; SUPPORT COMMITMENT- Any nonprofit institution, or consortia of nonprofit institutions, may submit to the Secretary an application for financial support under this section, in accordance with the procedures established by the Secretary. In order to receive assistance under this section, an applicant shall provide adequate assurances that it will contribute 50 percent or more of the proposed Center’s annual operating and maintenance costs for the first 3 years and an increasing share for each of the next 3 years.

Of course, you know the liberals and MSNBC are going to say that conservatives are just trying to distract from the facts. This bill is about establishing security standards for the federal government and defense contractors. However, Section 6 should be read carefully (note the underlining below):

(A) PROTOCOL- [NIST] shall establish a standard testing and accreditation protocol for software built by or for the Federal Government, its contractors, and grantees, and private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks

From paragraph (d) of the same section:

(1) enforce compliance with the standards developed by the Institute under this section by software manufacturers, distributors, and vendors; andComments Close Comments Permalink

(2) shall require each Federal agency, and each operator of an information system or network designated by the President as a critical infrastructure information system or network, periodically to demonstrate compliance with the standards established under this section.

The last paragraph of Section 6 would seem oddly placed under any other administration, but under Obama it is quite sensible…if you’re a miserable, communist loving tyrant:

(e) FCC NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN- In developing the national broadband plan pursuant to section 6001(k) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Federal Communications Commission shall report on the most effective and efficient means to ensure the cybersecurity of commercial broadband networks, including consideration of consumer education and outreach programs.

“Consumer education and outreach programs” is code for statist propaganda and instructions on how to be a productive member of the new society unless you want to go to the Gulags.

I wonder if everyone will be required to wear the little red, white, and blue Obama “O” as part of the certification process and agreement defined in section 7?

(b) MANDATORY LICENSING- Beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any individual to engage in business in the United States, or to be employed in the United States, as a provider of cybersecurity services to any Federal agency or an information system or network designated by the President, or the President’s designee, as a critical infrastructure information system or network, who is not licensed and certified under the program.

Section 8 basically says that the government is going to put tighter controls on the domain name registration. While ostensibly vague, the section poorly disguises its true intent behind the veil of “what’s good for cyber-security.”

Section 11 deals with Cyber Security R&D. While some of it sounds good, there were a couple sub-paragraphs that caught my eye:

(6) How to determine the origin of a message transmitted over the Internet.

What…flag@whitehouse.gov wasn’t good enough?

(8) How to address the growing problem of insider threat.

Like the wild conservative terrorist groups?

Section 12 is a nifty part of the bill that proposes paying students for their education if they commit to working for the Federal cyber-security organization for an equal duration following graduation. Not too unlike the military ROTC program or military academies. One notable difference – this adds to the list another new, Presidentially controlled government agency. Of course, what government program would be complete without a little racial discrimination in its preferences for selecting candidates for the program:

(1) consider, to the extent possible, a diverse pool of applicants whose interests are of an interdisciplinary nature, encompassing the social scientific as well as the technical dimensions of cyber security

Section 17 is about eliminating the “anonymity” of the cyber world:

Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the President, or the President’s designee, shall review, and report to Congress, on the feasibility of an identity management and authentication program, with the appropriate civil liberties and privacy protections, for government and critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

Section 18 is where it gets interesting. I recommend everyone read this section in its entirety as it specifically (or generally) gives the President certain powers over the internet. While Dems will try to contend this is about Federal Cyber-Security, Section 17 belies that notion; here are some specific excerpts:

(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;

Here’s the problem – what is a cybersecurity emergency? How would anyone know if such an event were happening or not? Also remember the President gets to decide if a commercial or private “information system or network” is critical to our security; therefore, he would ultimately have total control over the internet. Foxnews.com I’m sorry but this Bill looks like the end of the road for you guys.

(3) shall designate an agency to be responsible for coordinating the response and restoration of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network affected by a cybersecurity emergency declaration under paragraph (2)

Oh, and they’ll get right on fixing that problem for FOX too.

(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security;

Never mind fixing that problem, Foxnews.com is just too risky it and rushlimbaugh.com are going to have to be shut down forever for the safety of America.

Bottom line: you MUST call your senator and voice your opposition to this Bill. It is yet another attempt to take over the country by the socialist Marxist revolutionaries, to put it mildly.

Another Stupid Argument: Heath Care is a Right

2009-08-31T20:42:00.000-07:00

Proponents of a government-run health system would like us to believe that universal health care is a right owed to every citizen of the United States of America (and illegal aliens). However, this assertion is plagued with the typical liberal-logic, which is almost always completely devoid of any actual logic and common sense. Let’s examine their notion in greater detail.

First, we must understand what exactly is meant by the “right to health care.” For instance, do they intend that everyone have access to health insurance, health, or health care? Clearly, no one can reasonably expect everyone to have access to “health” because there is no way to control a person’s health, and all of us will eventually die regardless of government efforts. While the liberal mind may actually believe everyone deserves “health” we will avoid discussing this possible interpretation because holding this belief is easily dismissed as lunacy.

In contrast, one is able to make an argument that everyone has a right to health insurance or health care. The latter case is actually useless to argue (from either the conservative or liberal viewpoint) because everyone in America can have health care today – they just have to pay for it. Being unable to afford health care is an entirely different argument than not having health care. (As an aside, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act passed by Congress in 1986 prohibits hospitals from refusing medical treatment to an individual with an emergent medical need, regardless of ability to pay.) In fact, America’s highest-in-the-world heath care expenditures are a reflection of our unabridged access to health care because those figures include cosmetic surgery, cosmetic dental work, and other treatments not paid for by health insurance. In the United States, if you have the money you can have the treatment. In addition, anti-discrimination laws preclude refusing treatment for discriminatory reasons – when discrimination does happen in relation to medical treatment it is not for lack of existing laws. Arguing that the high cost of treatment is discriminatory against the poor is baseless because they can have the treatment if they pay for it, just like everyone else. The corollary would be arguing that a car dealer is discriminating against a poor person by not giving them a Maserati – you have to pay for what you buy.

We can clearly demonstrate that the issue is not about receiving health care; therefore, the government-run health care proponents must be arguing that everyone should be given medical treatment regardless of their ability to pay. In their small minds, this equates to having health insurance; therefore, they argue in favor of health insurance for everyone. Those who cannot afford health insurance should be given it free of charge and those who can afford it must purchase it, plus pay for those who can’t afford it. However, health insurance is not about access to health care. Health insurance exists to protect the insured’s financial well being in the event of an unexpected medical condition. Because insurance pools the risks among all the insured there are limitations placed on what treatments are covered by the policy, i.e. the “pool” of money paid into the plan is finite and not all procedures can be covered without running out of money. It doesn’t matter if the insurance is provided by a massive federal government (e.g. Medicare, VA) or private insurers: resources are limited in both cases. In the macro or national view, there are both the financial constraints and the provider resource constraints (the number of nurses, doctors, facilities, etc.). As a result of financial constraints, insurers (including the government) place limitations on what treatments they will pay for, how much they will pay for those treatments, and how often or under what circumstances you can receive those treatments. The physical constraints in the health care system result in limitations on physician availability, appointment flexibility, and treatment scheduling. In Canada and the UK, the governments’ strict financial limitations results in a lack of physical resources (owing to lack of profitability or even ability to provide salaries and equipment) and consequent scarcity of appointments, general practitioners, and procedure availability. We refer to this collectively as “rationing.”

Therefore, anyone who believes heath care is a fundamental right must answer to what aspects of health care an individual has a specific right? Who decides what treatment is a right and what isn’t? If the government mandates that free health care is a right, then wouldn’t it be denying that right to the wealthy if they are to buy their own insurance and pay additional taxes for health care insurance for the “poor?” Does everyone have a right to stem cell therapy for the treatment of leukemia, or is only chemotherapy a right? How do we know? The danger of declaring health care a right that must be provided regardless of ability to afford it is that it places the answers to these questions in the hands of the government. While some point out that private insurers are already rationing on a financial basis, they fail to realize that insurance is not synonymous with health care. Even though insurance does not pay for everything we are still free to pay for our health care on our own.

When government declares universal access to health care (i.e. irrespective of ability to pay) is a fundamental right, but then defines what will and will not be paid for, it is selectively determining our rights. In addition, will the government then outlaw the private purchase of additional medical treatments? In Canada, the government enacted public health care and quickly banned private insurers from competing because it was deemed “unfair” – a two-tier system where the wealthy got better care than the poor. If the government decides a specific treatment isn’t a “right” then it is likely to ban anyone from receiving said treatment because no one would have a "right" to that treatment.

The cruel irony is those who want health care reform to look like it does in HR 3200 miss the point. Health care in America is too expensive. Health insurance is partly to blame because it isolates the customer from the costs (moral hazard) and allows prices to rise unabated. HR 3200 would expand the role of health insurance and worsen the moral hazard thereby furthering the divide between costs and access. Americans need and want REAL reform that brings costs down and has less government; the Obama – Pelosi - Waxman plan does neither. Remember, if government decides health care is a right then the only change is that government can decide who doesn’t get health care.

Is Barack Obama our Moral Compass?

2009-08-25T21:13:00.000-07:00

On August 19th President Obama attempted to bolster the case for his failing Health Care Bill by telling a crowd of religious leaders that we are morally obligated to support the Bill. Despite the obvious irony of proclaiming that his opponents “bear false witness” on the issues and concerns in the House Bill (see my previous posts for the truth about the Health Care Bill), the linking of favorable morality with passage of the Bill is especially disturbing. Furthermore, I wonder if leaving 17 Million Americans uninsured after the Bill’s acceptance (as per CBO estimates) is therefore immoral. If so, the Bill would render Obama’s moral imperative impaired. By his own qualification, the Bill must therefore be immoral and unethical.

Nonetheless, let’s delve into the concept of morality in politics – an oxymoron by any standard. Unfortunately, perhaps inevitably, our Federal Government has become deeply intertwined with moral and ethical issues. The wanton murder of millions of helpless, innocent unborn children is arguably the most notable. Politicians have also argued for and against our involvement in military conflicts on moral and ethics bases. Yet the moral imperative attached to social welfare programs is particularly vexing. In these instances we see the greatest blur between political ideology and ethos. The liberals contend that big government (their raison d’etre) is necessary to “provide” for the needy. The conservatives believe that a small government is necessary and paramount to enabling the success of the needy, and charity is best left to private individuals.

Considering our country’s Judeo-Christian origins, its majority Judeo-Christian composition, and the Judeo-Christian audience on August 19th I will review the argument from a Judeo-Christian context:

We must first agree that if we are going to make moral arguments there must be a basis upon which to judge morality. If we succumb to the progressive’s temptation towards subjective morality any argument is fallacious because such a moral “code” is subject to constant change. Specifically, subjective morality lacks a basis; it cannot answer the very fundamental question: what is moral? Its proponents often counter that what feels “right” is moral, but to whom must it feel “right”? Does morality only apply to our own self-conscience? In other words, does everyone have their own moral code and what is right by that code must therefore be universally accepted as moral? By that standard, how can we consciously enforce any law, for even the most heinous sociopath would merely be obeying his own moral code? The common counter-argument is that morality is determined by a democratic majority. Yet this response still lacks an absolute – it will forever change. How can something in 2010 be moral when the majority voted it immoral in 2000? Furthermore, what defines the democratic majority? Is it literally everyone within a political boundary, or just those with the right to vote within that political boundary, or those that turn out to vote within the boundary? Why a political boundary and not a geopolitical context? Which boundary do we use? In the event of a tie vote, who decides the outcome? In summary, there is no conceivable way to determine morality, or ethics, on a subjective basis.

Therefore, we must use an objective source of morality; in the Judeo-Christian context, that source is the Bible. Opponents argue that the Bible is subject to interpretation and many of the laws in the Bible are not enforced today anyway. While true in part, the Bible provides an absolute, objective moral framework – whether we actively practice the absolute does not deride its authority. There is, after all, an absolute Truth no matter how inconvenient to our modern society.

Using the Bible as our moral guide, we notice there is no reference in the Bible to the imperative of governments to provide for the needy (send me the book, chapter, verse if you find it). However, the Bible is replete with examples and commands for individuals and churches to take care of the needy. It’s, “…whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me,” (Mathew 25:40) not “Whatever the political body you pay your taxes to does for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” Paying taxes is compulsory and we are in no way guaranteed that our money goes towards aiding the needy; therefore, mandatory taxation hardly fits the moral imperative to take care of the needy.

Knowing that we are personally obligated by our objective moral code to care for the needy allows us to point the finger right back at President Obama. He is a millionaire, yet for how many people has he personally provided health care? He even admitted he didn’t pay for his grandmother’s hip replacement. Nancy Pelosi is worth $58 Million, but whose medical bills has she paid? If we decided to cast out logic and reason and resign ourselves to the notion that government sponsored health care is the moral high ground, then how do we rationalize the money lost in collecting taxes (both IRS expenses and individual/corporate expenses to prepare and file), administrative expenses, overhead, and misdistribution of resources? Would not the loss of those funds to the bureaucratic machine be immoral?

Proponents of the Health Care Bill would argue that private insurers are also subject to profits and overhead costs – which would also be immoral by my criteria. Note, however, that I am not suggesting health insurance is the moral imperative; rather, the imperative is providing for the needy. This can be done without health insurance and without the government. Non-profit health clinics are one means, and donating to those in need (or those clinics) is another. The USA is one of the most benevolent nations on Earth but there is an inverse correlation between our tax rates and our philanthropy; therefore, taxes are a detriment to morality.

Anything that further separates the needy from the ability to get health care would also be immoral. Considering the CBO analysis says the current Health Care Bill would increase health care costs, the Bill is thus immoral. In fact, the moral hazard in the doctor-patient-insurance relationship is largely to blame for the rising prices because, without price sensitivity, there is no market force to properly influence prices. In addition, nothing in the Health Care Bill would correct this problem; it would worsen under the Bill’s provisions. Furthermore, the government rationing (yes, it is actually in the Bill, read my post on "Rebutting the Misinformation Misinformation…") would further deny needy people health care – it would even exacerbate the unmet health care needs problem.

Yesterday, my wife, playing the devil's advocate, asked me who is supposed to provide health care for those who cannot afford it because obviously their needs are not currently being met. While it may sound harsh at first blush, the solution is not to create a massive government program to provide health care insurance. The longer, but moral and effective, solution is to actually solve the cost issues. Once basic care is affordable there is sufficient capacity for benevolence to care for the treatment of advanced diseases. Those with private health insurance would also benefit from low costs and maintain their security against unexpected illness through their existing insurance. While it affords the appearance of solving the uninsurance problem, a government run health care system still leaves millions uninsured and rations more care away from more people then if we do nothing.

In conclusion, the Health Care Bill is itself immoral. The moral high road would be to solve the problems in the Health Care system while also encouraging private donations through tax incentives (unlike the President’s current proposal to disincentivize donations). Providing health insurance to the needy is not the moral imperative – reducing costs and personal charity are.

Behind Enemy Lines: Trip Report From Grand Junction Obama Town Hall

2009-08-20T20:35:00.001-07:00

I was among the roughly 1,000 people in attendance at Obama’s Grand Junction, CO “town hall” meeting on August 15th. (See my photos in the "Grand Junction Obama Town Hall" album to the right.) Above all, I hoped to ask one of my questions, but I was resigned to the likelihood that I would not be called upon. However, I can provide a synopsis of the event. Despite being diametrically opposed to President Obama on almost every issue, I will offer an honest and candid assessment of the event.

I do not know how people were chosen to attend the event. I entered my information, but was not chosen. However, my father-in-law was and he offered me his guest ticket. My father-in-law is a registered Republican, but has no other glaring political “marks,” such as a history of writing to the President to inform him of his fallacies. Nonetheless, I am not aware of any biased screening of attendees through the ticket request process, picking up the tickets, nor entering the event.

Upon arriving at Clifton High School we got our first view of some protestors, both for and against the House Bill, HR 3200. By number, those in favor of the Bill were in the vast majority. They occupied a large area of a dirt lot across the street from the high school. The area had been adorned with a multitude of “Standing together for health care reform, healthcare.barackobama.com” signs. There were a few hand painted signs (about equal in number to the hand-painted signs held by the opposition). Along with the healthcare posters were “Organize for America” posters. There was a table with a large sign reading, “Check In Here.” For those of you who don’t already know, Organize for America is an organization spawned by the DNC in January, 2009 armed with the names and contact information for over 13 Million Americans who had supported the Obama campaign.

I don’t have any issue with organizing, and I don’t take issue to them being present and in force at the Obama “Town Hall.” However, I do have a big issue with Democrats, the liberal media, and uninformed Obama sympathizers gasping and cursing the organization efforts of conservatives, much less accusing conservatives of hatemongering and discouraging debate when they are the ones actively organizing and impeding debate.

A plethora of volunteers greeted us at several points along the long march into the parking lot and through the security screening. They wore non-descript “volunteer” badges, but were all Organizing for America volunteers. Some were handing out cups of water; one person in line asked if it was Kool-Aid. We proceeded without incident to our seats in the bleachers. We stood for a couple of hours waiting for the event to begin – which offered ample time to observe the attendees and listen to the conversations around us.

Most people were Obama sympathizers. A woman seated two rows in front wore a t-shirt with “TEAM OBAMA” in large letters on the back. Obama could have looked her in the eye and told her he was going to torture her and she would have been pumping her fists in support as she did almost constantly when he spoke. Several others wore Obama ’08 T-shirts and some had homemade “I love Obama” shirts. From the conversations going on around me it was apparent that people were more interested in seeing President Obama than having a serious discussion about Health Care. They were Obamabots to their core. By the end of the event they were practically drooling over themselves because President Obama was such an eloquent speaker.

One woman at the bottom of the bleachers in front of me was reading a document with the heading, “Building a Political Movement.” It was put together by the CWA (Communications Workers of America). I did a little searching online and found this link to the document: http://files.cwa-union.org/healthcarevoices/learnmore/ObamaHealthPlanFactSheetCWA.pdf … Apparently it is supposed to be a “fact sheet” about the Health Care Bill. Talk about playing “soft” ball with the real issues! The greater point is that there are special interests actively promoting the Health Care bill, organizing, and distributing information in an attempt to control the debate. This is yet another proof. Notice how vague and detached the “fact sheet” is? That’s because they can call it “fact” so long as they don’t tell their members the truth about the details in the Bill (see my earlier post, “Rebutting the Misinformation Misinformation about Health Care.”).

The arrival of Senators Udall and Bennett, Governor Ritter, Secretary Salazar, and Congressman Salazar occurred with a good deal of fanfare and preceded the arrival of President Obama by several minutes. However, Obama’s arrival was greeted with a standing round of applause (I remained seated except for the chance to snap a few photos). Obama delivered a speech, with Teleprompters, about the great “success” of the “stimulus” bill and tried to make the case that Health Care reform was necessary for the recovery of the nation – Just like Bill Clinton’s dire warning in 1993 that our economy would collapse without health care reform. The speech was the same one delivered in New Hampshire and Montana earlier in the week.

After delivering his talking points the Teleprompters dropped, Obama took off his coat, and he rolled up his sleeves and prepared for questions from the audience – evidently this is good for his image because he did exactly the same thing in New Hampshire and Montana. He took approximately 7 questions. He answered 0. Obama never strayed from his talking points, I’m guessing because he doesn’t know anything else and it is incredibly apparent he hasn’t read what’s actually in the Bill. There were a couple of questions from conservatives, including a challenge to an Oxford style debate from a college student, but the question he avoided that was most disturbing was, “when are we going to be able to do something to stop all of this misinformation?” The logical and proper response would be to say that this is America and the First Amendment gives everyone the right to speak freely, even if it’s not the truth. However, Obama gave a lengthy monologue about how good debate is okay, but [anything that disagrees with me] is not okay. Regardless, he stuck with his talking points.

There were a few challenges from people in the audience who shouted when Obama again blamed Republicans for all that is wrong in the country. And a conservative asked Obama to answer the question at least once. It was shouted from the audience because Obama was the only one with a microphone for 98% of the time. In total, I would estimate the crowd was 70% in favor of Obama and 30% opposed. Which is striking because Coloradoans are 52% to 36% opposed to the Health Care Bill. However, I still don’t believe the tickets that were handed out were selectively given to liberals or Obama supporters.

There are two fundamental reasons why the crowds at Obama’s events are uncharacteristically in favor: 1) As my mother said, “I have no interest in going to see that man!” Most conservatives know it’s a one-sided event before it gets started whereas the Obama zealots jump at any chance to see the messiah in person. I would bet that Obamabots outnumber conservatives 8 to 1 in requesting tickets to his events. 2) The people seated behind Obama and in the front rows are Volunteers for America volunteers. These rows were reserved and filled in after the rest of the crowd arrived. According to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, the seats behind Obama (100 – I counted) were reserved for people who had volunteered 500 hours for Obama. The front rows (about another 100 seats) were also his volunteers. Thus, at least 20% of the crowd was predetermined to be in favor of his policies.

Although I wasn’t called on to ask a question, I did share some facts directly from the bill with a woman seated behind me who kept insisting people with private insurance would get to keep their insurance because, “He said they get to keep it!” We had a good, civil discussion and though I don’t think I pulled Obama off her pedestal I was effective in putting questions in her mind. Even if it’s one person at a time, we must get the truth out to Americans!

Rebutting the Misinformation Misinformation About Health Care

2009-08-19T16:35:00.000-07:00

Accusations are flying about misinformation in the health care reform debate. President Obama, Democrats, and the drive-by media accuse Republicans, talk radio hosts, and “ignorant” conservatives of spreading lies about the House Bill (HR 3200) and their efforts to “reform” the system. Who’s telling the truth? A quick examination of motives could easily answer the question, but doing so would not give the truth much more credibility as the argument would invariably turn back to baseless accusations. Instead, I’ll go point-by-point through the talking points and reveal the truth more concretely.

First, let me address the issue of Health Insurance. Health Insurance, or sickness insurance, didn’t appear in this country until about 1911. Therefore, we have not always had Health Insurance; but we haven’t always had much in the way of healthcare either. I doubt anyone would have purchased insurance for the rare instances they went to a doctor to be bled out. Nonetheless, we talk about Health Insurance as being inextricably linked with Health Care. However, this is a mischaracterization. Absent Health Insurance one can still get Health Care – they just have to pay for it directly. Doing so is quite feasible as long as you are not beset by a major illness or injury. Even with the high cost of Health Care, paying out of pocket can be achievable for many people as doctors and medical facilities offer discounts to people paying directly and they will arrange for payment plans.

Still, many people have medical issues come up that are extremely expensive. Just having a baby can rack up a 5 digit bill. Therefore, we buy Health Insurance to offset the risk exposure to expensive Health Care costs. Contrary to the view of the President, Health Insurers do not (and cannot) exist to pay exorbitant Health Care costs for everyone. They hedge their bet by insuring large numbers of people. The gamble is that more insured will remain healthy and use less Health Care than will be unhealthy and require large sums of Health Care. If insurers don’t make money (even non-profits) then they won’t exist. In spite of their profit motive there is a symbiotic relationship between insurers and insured; if there wasn’t, they wouldn’t have any customers. Insured benefit because they mitigate their Health Care cost exposure while insurers benefit by making money – this is the impetus behind every business.

Now let’s start debunking some myths:

(A) You get to keep your private health insurance

I attended the Obama Town Hall in Grand Junction, Colorado on August 15^th. During that event, President Obama said twice that Americans would get to keep their private Health Insurance plan and their doctors. He further criticized opponents for suggesting otherwise. A woman behind me, an ardent Obama fan, repeated the mantra before and after the event. I finally turned to her and told her that was a lie. On what basis did I say that? Am I an ignorant fear mongering Nazi?

It turns out that I have read the entire House Bill. Section 102 specifically states that you can only keep your existing Health Insurance the shorter of 5 years or when any term or condition changes. Terms and conditions are defined in the bill as co-pays, co-insurance, premiums, etc. Therefore, when your insurer raises premiums to offset the additional financial risk imposed by the “consumer protection” sections of the bill, e.g. “free” preventive care, no lifetime caps, no refusal for pre-existing conditions, your Health Insurance plan must become a qualified plan. The Bill doesn’t expressly define a qualified plan. It provides some minimum standards of coverage, but it leaves the details to the Health Choices Commissioner. Section 142 establishes the Health Choices Commissioner who is to be appointed by the President. This new unelected official is aptly named because he or she will get to decide what your health choices are. Specifically, the duties assigned to the Commissioner include defining and enforcing the benefit standards for qualified health plans.

Could your Health Insurance plan remain in place as a qualified plan? Perhaps, we don’t know, but it’s not going to be your choice or your employer’s choice…it’s the choice of the Health Choices Commissioner – ultimately the President’s choice. If your Health Insurance changes it’s also entirely possible your doctor will not accept that insurance plan; therefore, per the bill, you will not be able to keep your Health Insurance plan as it exists today and your ability to keep your doctor (other than paying out of pocket) is in jeopardy. But don’t worry, the government will decide for you.

(B) Rationing

All the King’s helpers and all the King’s men claim that the Health Care Bill won’t let government rationing begin. (Sorry for the knock-off of a Children’s fairy tale, but I think all fairy tales should rhyme) Meanwhile, Republicans, conservatives, and talk radio says quite the opposite. Who’s right?

It doesn’t say anywhere in the Bill that the government is going to ration care, but no one in their right mind would write it that way. However, the authority and mechanisms for rationing Health Care are rampant throughout the Bill. As mentioned above, Section 142 establishes the Health Choices Commissioner to define covered benefits in public AND private Health Insurance plans. If the government determines colonoscopies for people over the age of 70 aren’t cost effective, then guess what’s not covered?

Section 123 establishes the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee,” chaired by the Surgeon General (also appointed by the President), to “…recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.” Section 124 provides the process for “…adoption of recommendations; adoption of benefits standards…” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (appointed by the President).

If you took the exact words from Section 3121 and put them in a document describing China’s Health Care system our State Department would be issuing grievances against China for trying to manipulate their population through Health Care. China’s plan would be called sinister and controlling. Apparently when it appears in our Bill it is going to promote better health and efficiency and lower costs. This section describes the development of a “…national strategy that is designed to improve the Nation’s health through evidence-based clinical and community prevention and wellness activities…” The strategy will be implemented by the “Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services” described in section 3131.

Throughout the Bill there are sections (the above sections included, you can also check out section 1401, “Comparative Effectiveness Research”) describing research with the intent of determining the best quality of care and best medical outcomes. While this sounds great on a purely philosophical level, the words “cost” and “effectiveness” appear as qualifiers for the research conclusions. Therefore, the Bill is promoting the coverage for procedures or treatments that are the most cost effective. This is no different than the exclusions found in Canada and the United Kingdom wherein their government’s decided certain drugs or procedures were not “cost effective.” Although this may seem reasonable, you have to realize these decisions will result in rationing on an economic basis. For example, Drug A might extend, on average, Grandma’s life 3 years but it costs four times what Drug B costs which will extend Grandma’s life 1 year on average. The entire population will be reduced to averages and the government will decide how much an extra 2 years of your life are worth.

As long as resources are scare – money and Health Care – there will be rationed health care. It’s unavoidable. President Obama and his ilk contend that private insurers already ration care, which is true. However, the difference is that private insurers have an incentive to provide better coverage and offer more options: they want more customers and the bigger profits that come with more customers. The Government only has incentives to limit options and coverage. Furthermore, the government will generalize its "effectiveness" research to all Americans regardless of geographic or cultural differences that impact health care outcomes.

Finally, regardless of your position on rationing, it is expressly apparent that HR 3200 would grant a massive amount of new control over our Health Care to the Federal Government. This cannot be disputed. I challenge anyone to find the section in the Bill that explicitly says the Government will not ration our Health Care.

(C) We will pay the costs of the Health Care Bill through savings in Medicare.

I lost count of how many times President Obama has said this. He wraps it together in a nifty package that includes a statement with some element of truth. He claims that our country’s massive deficits are exacerbated by Health Care costs, specifically the cost of Medicare/Medicaid. That’s were the truth ends in his monologue.

Obama contends we can reign in deficit spending by improving efficiencies in Medicare. This is a lie for two reasons: 1) The CBO estimates the savings in Medicare via HR 3200 will amount to less than $219 Billion over 10 years (read it for yourself at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf) and 2) Medicare has an unfunded liability in excess of $60 Trillion.

No amount of modification of the Health Care Bill will overcome the massive fiscal black hole of Medicare. While efficiencies in Medicare are needed, the reason behind the unfunded liability is the rapidly growing disparity between those who are working and paying FICA to those who are retired and drawing benefits. This disparity is going to increase dramatically as the Baby Boomers retire in droves in the next decade. Even if impressive efficiencies were garnered from Medicare (laugh) the sheer number of people on Medicare will outpace the revenue. The only ways to resolve the financial disparity is to cut benefits (ration), cut the number of insured or increase the age requirements, and/or increase taxes. All of which the President claims will not happen.

Compounding the issue is the fact that the Trust Fund established for Medicare is a joke. For decades FICA revenues have been sufficient to pay the cost of our social programs and the surpluses were put into a trust fund. The money in the trust fund was “invested” in Treasuries. This sounds like a good idea – earn some interest on the surplus. However, the money paid to purchase the Treasury Securities was then spent by Congress to fund its deficit spending in the General Budget. In theory, there is a massive Trust Fund to pay for Medicare, but in reality there is no money to pay back those Treasuries. The Government must either raise taxes or borrow more money to pay back the Trust Funds.

No matter how you spin it, Medicare is BROKE. Claiming that we will pay the cost of the Health Care Bill with savings from Medicare is like telling the bartender you’re going to pay for your tab with savings from happy hour on all your future drink purchases. It’s illogical and irrational.

(D) The Public Insurance Option is needed to keep private insurers honest / Level playing field

You would have to be the biggest economic ignoramus to believe this argument. In addition, it is belied by this inconvenient little thing called the truth. Recently, President Obama has backed down from his staunch support for the Public Option in the Health Care Bill. However, he now appears to be backing a co-op plan. To borrow from Shakespeare, a pile of donkey poop by any other name should smell as horrid.

First, let’s talk about a level playing field. While HR 3200 does state that a public option must conform to the requirements for a “qualified” health plan, this requirement is hardly enough to equalize the public and private plans. President Obama claimed in Grand Junction that the public option would have to negotiate rates with doctors just like the private insurers do. However, the Government currently pays 47% of the Nation’s Health Care costs; it has tremendous negotiating power. The 1,200 private insurers together pay about 35% of the Nation’s Health Care costs. Medicare pays $0.55 on the dollar for reimbursements to doctors while private insurers pay an average of $0.85 on the dollar. One would expect similar results with a public option. Therefore, the public option immediately has a cost advantage.

Obama also claimed the public option would have to collect premiums. Fine, but what happens when the public plan’s expenditures exceed revenue? A private insurer would have to make changes, cut costs, raise rates, negotiate better deals. A public insurer can borrow money from America’s grandchildren and deficit spend. Just because you collect premiums doesn’t mean you’re subject to the same rules and have the same resources.

Finally, the Bill expressly defines a disparity in the playing field. Section 116 mandates a “loss ratio” (which translates into a mandated profit ratio) for private insurers. This ratio will be determined by the government. However, section 222 allows the public option to maintain a “contingency margin” to offset unforeseen outlays. These are two distinctly different ratios for public versus private insurers and both are determined by the government. Thus, the Bill obviates any chance at a level playing field.

What about keeping private insurers honest? Well, the bill already mandates a maximum profit per Section 116. The bill also provides several coverage requirements private insurers must meet throughout the 100s sections. In addition, the Bill gives the Health Choices Commissioner the power to determine what benefits each private insurer must provide. What more could a public option possibly do to “keep private insurers honest?”

The truth is the public option functions as a fall-back when all the private insurers go out of business – it is the doorway to a single-payer system. With the provisions in this Bill the private insurers will be unable to compete. Premiums will necessarily increase to offset the cost of “free” preventive care, no lifetime maximums, lower co-insurance, and preexisting condition exemptions. If any insurers remain following the implementation of the Bill, the Health Choices Commissioner can finish them off with more draconian requirements. This may sound like far flung conspiracy theorizing, but we know Obama wants a single payer system per his campaign speeches to the SEIU and the vehement support for the public option among liberal Dems is further evidence. Several Democrats have said there is no reform without the public option. Such a statement is so incongruous that it clearly evinces the true motivations behind the public option.

(E) The Health Care Bill will provide Health Care for all Americans.

Talk about setting your goals low – all Americans already have Health Care, they might not be able to afford it, but they absolutely have it. The real issue is the affordability of Health Care, not its availability. However, the Bill addresses Health Insurance and does nothing to change the fundamental problems in the system that drive up Health Care costs. If you disagree then tell me which sections in the Bill will improve the trajectory of Health Care costs.

Aside from the Bill being a misplaced hernia of massive government, the Congressional Budget Office released a report on July 17, 2009 that said 17 Million Americans would remain uninsured if the House Bill was signed into law. Therefore, even the ill conceived goals of the Bill will be ineffective. Despite the breathy sales pitch from our politicians and media, the Bill fails to even meet their tantamount claim – that it will provide Health Care for all. Want more proof? Section 1112 provides the Bill’s definition for significant reduction in uninsurance as a reduction in the number of uninsured by 8%. Check my math, but 8% doesn’t seem very close to 100%.

(F) Medicare recipients won’t be affected.

Considering 63%, by page count, of HR 3200 consists of modifications to the Social Security Act (Medicare), this contention is hard to believe. The entirety of Division B of the Bill concerns Medicare. Just by the sheer complexity of the Act and this Bill there are bound to be unintended consequences, but from reading the Bill it is apparent there are intended consequences as well.

As referenced above, the CBO reported there would be a $219 Billion reduction in Medicare. That’s not all because of efficiency either, it’s because they are cutting parts of the program out. Furthermore, the Bill contains numerous “Pilot Programs” designed to test pay for performance incentives to participating Medicare providers with the intent to implement those programs at a later date. Like a few things in the Bill, this sounds good upon initial review, but pay careful attention to the success criteria.

In one program, the providers with a lower per capita utilization rate will be compensated better than those with higher utilization rates. While you might be inclined to think this is a great way to incentivize doctors to reduce waste, there is a more dire consequence. If you compare utilization rates between Fort Collins, Colorado and Buloxi, Mississippi the doctors in Fort Collins will almost assuredly have lower utilization rate because the population is very active and healthy compared to Buloxi with its highest-in-the-Nation obesity rates. Therefore, this program would take resources away from an area that is more likely to need those same resources. The Bill states that no more money can be spent in the pilot programs than otherwise would have been spent without the program; therefore, some will get more and some less.

Additionally, Section 1401, “Comparative Effectiveness Research,” is in Division B of the Bill. This section, among many others, describes research intended to determine more cost effective treatments. While being cost effective is important, this section is a guarantee the government will reduce covered benefits for Medicare recipients.

(G) Small businesses will benefit from the Bill.

…and drinking six beers a day is good for your liver. Both of these statements are patently false.

Section 313 of the Bill describes the increased payroll taxes on small businesses with total annual payroll outlays of $250,000 or more. In a CBO analysis on the preference for private versus public Health Insurance (which is flawed because it assumes private insurance premiums will remain unchanged) the CBO uses $40,000 as an average worker’s salary. Given that assumption, this Bill will start imposing additional taxes on companies with 6 or more employees. I’m not sure about you, but in my book a company of six (including the owners) is still a small business. Even those small businesses currently providing some form of Health Insurance to their employees may be subject to the tax if the government decides, at its discretion, that the employer’s coverage is not “sufficient.”

Section 312 would again penalize small businesses with a minimum contribution requirement if the government deems the employer is not contributing enough money to the employee’s Health Insurance.

Finally, Section 441 imposes a surcharge on high income individuals (those making $350,000 per year or more). This ignores the fact that most small businesses are partnerships or LLCs. The member owners of these type of business formations pay taxes on their percentage of the profits from the business as if it were personal income (i.e. they are taxed on their salaries from the business AND their profits from the business). They pay these taxes even if all the profit is reinvested in the company. Therefore, this provision will effectively tax small businesses making more than $350,000 per year; it’s not just about individuals.

Section 421 provides a tax credit to small businesses providing Health Insurance to its employees…provided they have fewer than 10 employees (prorated for each employee beyond 10)…and provided the employees don’t make more than $80,000…and provided they employees don’t make more than $20,000 (prorated beyond that). At best, the employer gets a tax credit for 50% of the cost of providing the insurance. In Grand Junction, Obama told a woman who owns a small software company in Colorado Springs that while he wasn’t sure, she would probably be better off with the Health Care Bill. However, his statement completely ignores Sections 312, 313, 441, and the caveats of Section 421; not to mention the fact that most software engineers make more than $80,000 per year.

The Bill well illustrates the mentality in Washington DC that employers owe their employees Health Insurance. Our Federal Government treats business as its personal check book as if there is an unlimited balance available for their unabridged use. This ideology forgets that employers provide Health Insurance to their employees as a competitive advantage – to attract the top talent. There are industries where employment is not as competitive and the company may have no incentive to provide Health Insurance.

Wal-Mart is a common mark for liberals who despise free markets. They absolutely loathe Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart doesn’t provide Health Insurance to its normal hourly workers, but let’s examine the facts. 1) A full-time, minimum wage worker at Wal-Mart will make about $17,000 per year. 2) Providing individual insurance for that worker would cost about $3,000 per year ($11,000 for a family plan). 3) Wal-Mart has a backlog of employment applications. Given these facts, why would any sane manager at Wal-Mart spend 18% (65% for a family plan) of an employee’s salary on a Health Insurance plan? To lure the hundreds of other people who already dropped off an application? If Wal-Mart is required to provide insurance to all its employees, or else face an additional 8% tax on its payrolls, to whom do you think the additional costs will be passed? Everyone, including the Wal-Mart workers. This is effectively a tax on all Americans through higher consumer prices. Even those who don’t shop at Wal-Mart will experience higher costs at other retail centers because the same laws apply to other stores, and retailers that benchmark against Wal-Mart will commensurately raise their prices.

(H) The Bill will make Health Care more Affordable

There is no reason to believe this is true. While some Americans may get Health Insurance that didn’t have it already, thereby cost shifting to other Americans, nothing in the Bill addresses the root causes of our high health care costs. In fact, the CBO said the July 14^th version of the Bill would increase Health Care costs.

The primary drivers behind our high cost of Health Care are:

1) Medical Malpractice – insurance for malpractice costs in excess of $150,000 per year per physician. Furthermore, doctors often perform more tests than necessary to insulate themselves from malpractice suits. There is no malpractice/tort reform offered in the Bill.

2) Illegal Aliens – Illegal aliens use a disproportionate share of our emergency rooms but don’t pay for their treatment and don’t pay taxes. The Bill excludes them from Government insurance coverage (as it should) but also doesn’t mandate they purchase their own insurance (in contrast to the requirement for citizens to purchase it). Likewise, there is nothing in the Bill to address the porous border with Mexico.

3) Innovation – Up to 50% of our increase in Health Care costs can be attributed to advancements in medical innovations. The Bill does not address innovation in any way – and it shouldn’t. Turns out, I’m willing to pay higher costs for advanced treatments.

4) Moral Hazard – Americans with insurance, private or public, do not make decisions about their Health Care based upon costs. Because insurance insulates individuals from the actual costs of the services provided there is no incentive to spend less. Health Savings Accounts address this in part by making the individual responsible for managing the funds available to pay for their Health Care. However, the House Bill makes Moral Hazard worse by mandating “free” preventive care and trying to further insulate the consumers from the costs. Instead, the Bill shifts the cost decision making to the government, i.e. government rationing, and provides incentives for doctors to cut costs – decisions that should be made by the patient in consultation with the doctor.

(I) Death panels for Grandma

No…the Bill doesn’t have a section with the words “Death Panel.” However, it must have a section that effectively means the same thing because the Senate leadership said that section (1233) would be dropped in the Senate version of the Bill.

Section 1233 authorizes Medicare to reimburse doctors for providing consultative sessions to patients on end-of-life planning. It’s not that end-of-life planning shouldn’t be discussed – it’s the existence of this section in the Bill juxtaposed against President Obama's speeches wherein he lectures on the benefits of taking a pill to ease your pain over elective surgery that may not extend your life very long. Furthermore, conflate the Bill with Presidential advisor Ezekiel Emmanuel’s writings noting that our Health Care dollars are better spent on individuals aged between their teens and 40s because investing in small children may not pay dividends and old people have a diminishing value to society. Taken in context, Section 1233 is disturbing. Furthermore, a physician should not be given the responsibility of explaining living wills, healthcare proxies, and medical powers of attorney. Those are documents an attorney should be discussing with people.

Moreover, what doctor needs a special session to explain to a patient the benefits of palliative care? Do you think a doctor wouldn’t explain pain management to an elderly person writhing in pain from cancer treatments unless it was in the Health Care Bill? Do doctors really not tell you about your treatment options, and chances for success of each, unless they’re given a special consultation fee? If they don’t that is a bad doctor, not a lack of government incentive.

When you look at section 1233 in the context of the rest of this Bill it is remarkably obvious the intent is to “sell” seniors on the benefits of dying instead of trying to extend their lives. Extending your life isn’t very cost effective.

(J) Special interest groups are trying to prevent passage of this bill.

This is about 50% true. I represent a special interest group…my family…and they’re pressuring me to oppose this bill because my 2-year-old doesn’t want to work the rest of his life just to pay for the government’s takeover of this country. However, there are a lot of special interest groups that want the Bill to pass.

Some insurance companies and pharmaceuticals are in bed because they get inked into the plan with sweetheart deals. Insurers want the plan because it mandates people to buy insurance (not realizing or being willing to admit the government has it in for them too). Big Pharma pledged its support and didn’t get completely shafted in the Bill. The American Medical Association signed on after Congress cut it a sweetheart deal worth $250 Billion.

However, section 2251, “Cultural and Linguistic Competency Training for Health Care Professionals,” offers some insight into another special interest group that’s very interested in the Bill’s passage. Subparagraph (3)(d) says that, “In awarding grants and contracts under this section, the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: (1) Addressing, or partnering with an entity with experience addressing, the cultural and linguistic competency needs of the population to be served through the grant or contract. (2) Addressing health disparities. (3) Placing health professionals in regions experiencing significant changes in the cultural and linguistic demographics of populations, including communities along the United States-Mexico border. (4) Carrying out activities described in subsection (b) with respect to more than one health profession discipline, specialty, or subspecialty.”

Hmm…I wonder what kind of organization has that type of experience? Oh! I got it! Service Employees International Union! Let’s see…SEIU is directly linked to ACORN (same office and same founders) which is directly linked to President Obama (who he used to work for). In addition, we know that SEIU has been actively involved in crafting the Health Care legislation and its representatives have visited the White House on numerous occasions to discuss Health Care. The SEIU website is replete with “information” as to why we should support the Bill and counters to “conservative lies.” And who has been sending buses of people to Town Hall meetings around the country? I’ll give you a hint, they wear purple shirts and it rhymes with Ess Ee Eye You. Their website also lists all the ways you can support the bill including, shocker, protesting at Town Hall Meetings.

But surely mention in one little section of the Bill isn’t enough to garner so much support, right? Well, in addition to section 2251, the same language appears in sections 2531, 1222 (includes a direct provision for “Community Organizations”), 1302 (The SEIU represents Home Care providers and the Bill’s language would give them preference), 2213, 2214, 2215, 2232, 2252, and 3151. I may have missed a few sections where the preferences are in clear favor of the SEIU.

Thus, the record is set straight. The real impetus behind special interest support comes from the President’s buddy list – the very organizations that are literally writing themselves into the Health Care Bill.

Parting thoughts

The Health Care Bill is a mechanism to realize the goals of Socialist Liberals in their efforts to put control of our lives in the hands of government. While some liberals may be genuinely ignorant about how the World really functions, most are hungry for power. Their supporting constituents fail to understand the implications of massive government expansions, despite an ample history of failures throughout the World - they pay no taxes and therefore have no reason to oppose a handout at the cost of the “rich” whose success they despise in light of their own failures. When the health care bill results in higher consumer costs and undermine their purchasing power they will again blame the free market.

Do not succumb to the liberal spin machine. They are on the run. Unable to defend their plans with facts and data they are resorting to calling their opponents names and accusing them of resorting to the underhanded tactics they openly promote for advancing their agenda. Remain calm and continue to dispel their myths with facts and logic. Someone unable to defend themselves will lash out in an attempt to intimidate their opponents, but it turns out President Obama and Nancy Pelosi need to do better than “nyana nyana boo boo” to convince America it should impale its future on the sword of Socialism.