D-Day: 31 July 2009

The Obama administration and his socialist allies in Congress have announced their intention to ram their socialist health care program down our throats by the end of July. This means that I've only got a little over 2 months to get my side of the story out. If you are in agreement with me that this is not only a colossally idiotic plan, but is also a true threat to our liberty, then I invite you to speak your mind.

We've allowed ourselves to be brow-beaten into submission. It is difficult to face the slings and arrows of our enemies - I know. They own the media. They own the college classrooms. They own the high school classrooms. They like to believe that there is no dissent, since they've been so effective in silencing it.

I happen to believe, however, that there are a lot of us who aren't comfortable with what socialist health care would mean to us and our families. I urge you to fight. Fight with the same courage and conviction that allowed a group of simple colonial merchants to declare their Liberty from their own tyrannical government. Fight with the same knowledge of right. Fight as if your future and the future of your posterity depended on it. Fight as you would fight to defend your home from a jealous and obstinantly lazy mob, armed not with right, but with clubs and torches.

Fight this way because this is in fact our struggle. Our freedom rests on our ability to fight that mob, whose single purpose is to destroy the productive. Our liberty depends on our victory over a tyrannical State, whose purpose is to use the power we've loaned them to make us their slaves. Don't give up until they are thoroughly defeated, or we leave them the rotting wasteland that is the natural outcome of their struggle. A world devoid of the productive, where each man and woman parasitizes his or her neighbor in a misguided attempt to achieve "equality" is a world without law and without hope.

Socialized Medicine 2009: What is Choice Worth?

Plumbers. Have you ever called a plumber? Have you ever called one on a weekend? It's expensive. Very expensive. Don't get me wrong - they do a very important job. I would gladly pay for their expertise in an emergency. Busted pipes can definitely ruin a weekend.

But what if you don't like the one you called? What if they rub you the wrong way? What if they are rude or surly? Ask anybody and they'll likely give you the same response. They'd flip open the yellow pages or check the internet and find a new one. No hard feelings. You see, you have a right to spend your money however you see fit. Plumbers know this, so they work to provide a service that is likely to please their customers, lest they get "fired". The arrangement between plumbers and their customers is one of a free association between two free and consenting people.

Medicine, on the other hand, is under assault in this sense. If you don't like your doctor, you have the right to go to another one that suits you better. You can decide not to associate with a doctor for any reason, or for no reason. Under government health care, however, this is destroyed.

Even if President Obama's socialist dreams of large, government-run "super-clinics" fails to come to fruition, you must realize that any professional relationship where one of the parties is forced is problematic. When a doctor is forced to see you, the doctor-patient relationship, one based on mutual respect, market pressures, and a free association is destroyed.

It is interesting to me to note that many of the same people who argue vehemently that gay marriages or civil unions must be respected because government has no right to interfere in the free association between free, consenting adults are the same people who argue with equal vigor that doctors should be forced to see whomever, under whatever circumstances the government mandates.

It is time for you to decide what your rights to free association are worth. Once government runs health care, they will have to contend with the same difficulties that have made health insurers some of the most detested companies on earth. When money is limited, there are only two ways to decrease the cost of services provided: cuts in services or cuts in who is covered.

Since "universal coverage" is the mandate that government has chosen for itself in this endeavor, this leaves cuts in services as the only viable option to cut those costs. Your choice of physicians will be secondary. If there is a doctor available, then their responsibility to you is finished. They couldn't care less if you like him or her. If you don't, you will not have any choice left. After all, it won't be your money paying for it. It will be ours. As for me, I hope they give you the cheapest option, not necessarily the best. It's my money you'll be spending.

What is your choice worth to you? And what is quality worth? What if your child needs an expensive but life-saving operation? The best place to have it done is Kansas City, but you live in Santa Fe. Oh, well. Pray that the inferior but "accredited" program in Santa Fe can get the job done. You're not taking your child to Kansas City.

Are you willing to sacrifice your child on the altar of social justice for others? Are you willing to sacrifice someone else's child? If you are, then you are a fool. If your self-righteousness is so powerful that you are willing to subject an innocent to your social experimentation, if you don't want the best for your child - just the same as everyone else, then I would classify you as a child abuser.

If, on the other hand, you (like me) are not willing to trust someone else with the health of your own child, especially an incompetent and self-interested government, then you know already what course you must take. You must oppose socialized medicine with the same animalistic furor as you would defend your child's room from an intruder, as I do. My choice is worth everything to me. It is one element of my liberty, and I would rather die than live as a subject or a slave.

You know, it seems there is no end to the meddling. Now our exalted leader even feels it is his responsibility to choose jobs for people.

In a recent interview discussing his plans to rein in "massive risk taking" in the U.S. Financial sector, he made the statement that "We don't want every college graduate with aptitude in mathematics to become a derivatives trader".

He went on to callously say that those who would have found jobs in finance would have to look elsewhere. He suggested they should try engineering.

Okay. First of all, who is the "we" he is so fond of invoking? Does he presume that all of us share his desire to "remake America" in his own image?

And is he so uninformed as to believe that someone with a college degree in finance can be miraculously transformed into an engineer?

It makes sense that he should be so naïve about the working world. In keeping with his now legendary hubris, the "Intelligentsia President" who's never had a real job is now a career expert.

Only 100 Days? Seems Like a Lifetime.

Allow me to add my name to the list of those who are responding to the 24-hour MSNBC Obamapalooza with a very clear "Who cares?".

What exactly has he accomplished? Well, let's recap. He's set a new standard for cronyism, pretty much putting any bozo who said anything nice about him in positions of authority. I mean - an anti-military communist journalist as a high-ranking Pentagon official? That really stretches the word hubris to the breaking point. We may have to expand the vocabulary to include words that adequately describe this sort of destructive arrogance. He's spent more on nothing than anyone thought was even possible. Answer to the banking crisis...borrow and print money. Answer for the credit mess...borrow and print money. Answer to the auto manufacturer crisis...borrow and print money. Oh, and lick the shoes of the unions who got us into this mess in the first place.

Oh, before I forget...what's your name? Yeah, you. The gender-bent Obama shill on MSNBC at 9:00 central in the evening. I guess someone needs to say this. You are not John Stewart. I know, I know. This is hard. Take a moment and let it sink in. Yeah. It's embarassing. I know. What's that? Oh, gosh. I really don't know what you should do now. I can't imagine you're any better at anything else than you are at making funny with the news. But don't worry. Obama the Merciful promises to reward the mediocre and the lousy with all the profits made by people that actually are good at something. Too bad he can't redistribute talent.

Here's to the next utterly forgettable 100 days, folks. Look at the bright side - there's only so much damage he can do. He's almost stolen all our money already. When it runs out, he's done. The time to go Galt approacheth.

Say What You Mean

We had some storms here the other day. A cold front pushed through the warm Gulf air, setting off an outbreak of tornadoes. We tuned in to our local weather stations, as always, glued to the weather men as they tracked the areas of greatest danger. Our tornado sirens went off several times. We readied ourselves to go to our interior room and brace for the worst. In the end, everything turned out okay.

The lesson? We've learned that we can trust the weather guys. They issue warnings when necessary, and we believe what they say. They put tremendous energy and thought into making their warnings appropriate - no crying "Wolf" but never missing a real danger - that's their goal.

So when our government's leaders - the President, the Secretary of State, the Chief of Staff - say that their policy is to "never let a good crisis go to waste", it is problematic. It makes me wonder if they are to be believed. Are they telling the truth? Or are they simply taking advantage of a crisis in order to further their goals?

Today everyone is flipping out about the new swine flu strain. Is it a true risk? The sad truth is that I have no idea. I have no idea because our government, having already declared the "Cry Wolf" policy to be in effect, has little or no credibility. What should we do? Should we be looking to them for information and leadership? Or are they simply abusing their power? Again.

Well done. You've managed to destroy any remnants of faith in your capacity to treat us with respect and dignity, and you've condemned yourselves with your own big, arrogant mouths. You've alienated all of us who think like me by labeling us as "extremists". I will be celebrating your first 100 days by continuing to ignore you.

Secession - the Last Refuge of the Disenfranchised

The world is not a black-and-white place. About the time you think you have a good rule of thumb about something, some pesky exception pops up to ruin the thing. This is true of many things in life, both large and small.

An obvious example is killing. We all know that it is illegal - not to mention immoral - to kill one of our fellow citizens for reasons of malicious self-interest. Then again, to kill someone in an act of asserting the ultimate self-interest - the preservation of our own life - is acceptable. It is so acceptable, in fact, that we even have a name for it - self-defense. Self defense is a universally recognized exception to the general rule that "you can't just go and kill somebody".

I find it oddly interesting, then, that people should be so outraged by the assertion that a collection of individuals, in the interest of promoting their ability to live freely, have the inalienable right to secede from the union of States. What could possibly be the source of the objection?

After Texas Governor Rick Perry hinted that Texas might begin to consider the ramifications of such a move, he was labeled an "extremist" (an Obama culture word that is destined to be the new word for "terrorist"), a "nut job"...I won't even mention the words used on the left-wing commie blogs - they're definitely not fit for my site. I admit that the notion of secession seems a bit old-fashioned. We generally associate the term with the effort of the southern States to separate from a nation they felt no longer served their best interests. I won't go into the history of that decision, but suffice it to say, I find ample evidence in the writings of that era (The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and The Federalist Papers, just to name a few) that they were asserting a right that was clearly understood to be theirs.

What the Southerners understood, and what we have forgotten, is a critical element of how our government is structured, and is deserving of our review - namely, that proper governmental power flows from the consent of those governed by that power. The very name of our country - The United States...- pays homage to the fact that we are to be a collection of self-governing powers who are united by common purpose.

A pro-government person might remark that we live in a democracy where the right to vote guarantees our freedom from tyranny, and makes the notion of secession silly and unnecessary. I would strongly disagree on all counts. Firstly, we do not live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Federal Republic. There is a difference. The same tedious form of government that many find irritating with its little quirks of houses, branches, electoral college, etc., is the same one that protects us from a very real threat which is being played out today - the tyranny of the majority.

Secondly, the right to vote simply gives more power to the majority. The original design of our government was to limit the powers of government so that the majority couldn't simply impose their will on less numerous members of society. This has broken down as government has become increasingly intrusive and powerful.

Just because a majority of people want something doesn't make it right. People want all sorts of things they don't have a right to. Lately, the vast majority of people want to steal money from the bank accounts of people that make more money than they do. It is a fact of life that there will always be people in a free society that make two or three times what you do. There won't be very many - and conversely, there will be vast numbers of people who want what they have. If the tyranny of the majority is allowed to play out, then the majority will simply take what they want by mob rule. It is absolutely no different than a group of vigilantes armed with torches and clubs attacking the biggest house in town and robbing and vandalizing it.

What we are now seeing is the result of this mob rule. Those who pay no taxes are being given money that belongs to someone else. The fact that this is facilitated by their representatives doesn't lend credibility to it. It is still wrong. This feeling of being unfairly punished by the mob is what leads to this secession talk. There are now so many people that feel that their government is of, by, and for someone else, that whole segments of the country find it politically acceptable to speak of secession openly. The response? To label them as "right wing extremists", to villify them as racists, to increase scrutiny on them as potential threats to the stability of our country. This has all happened before, sadly.

Why does a government that is supposed to be working for our benefit fear the notion of secession if it is not a tyrannical power? For the same reason criminals fear the right to bear arms - they fear the self-defense exception.

Government Healthcare: Let's Review.

Sometimes it's good to take a step back when considering a big decision. There are lots of things I would like. I'd love a bigger house, for instance. I imagine how nice it would be. I can see myself entertaining my family for holidays. I picture standing on a big balcony overlooking an enormous yard, walking around in spacious comfort...it would be great.

Then I have to get real. Sure, a mansion would be nice in a lot of ways. But they cost a lot of money, generally. And sadly, I don't have a lot of money. They require a lot of upkeep. More rooms to live in means more rooms to clean and fill with clutter. I look at my present, more modest house as a way of measuring my capacity to deal with a bigger one. I barely have time to keep my small yard from swallowing us up with weeds. I have a bad habit of cluttering things - the garage, the spare bedroom...you know. So when I look at my history, I realize that a big glorious house probably wouldn't be glorious for long with me living in it. To paraphrase a much more authoritative source, I haven't been faithful in a little, so I probably shouldn't be trusted with more.

So using that model as a backdrop, let's think for a moment about government health care. Government seems to be so incredibly eager to take on this monumental task, and I think it is wise for us (and them) to take a step back:

Medicare. The "safety net" that was instated to ensure that our elder citizens have access to rudimentary health care has now been expanded to the point that it requires three of us working people just to provide the benefit for one of the covered people. The enormous strain on the system has caused the benefits to become insufficient. Many, if not most elders have to take out additional private policies to cover costs not covered by Medicare. It's still not enough, though. Now doctors are faced with the fact that reimbursements for their services are likely to be cut up to 20% in the next few years. This, along with the endlessly changing and massively irritating logistical paperwork nightmare that dealing with the government entails will likely drive most of us out of the Medicare business. Not exactly a great success story by any measurement.

Medicaid. The joint Federal-State program to cover the medically indigent has forever been plagued by problems. It's not just that you get to multiply the problems of dealing with one government agency by 2. They've traditionally been slow to pay doctors, lousy in quality, and lax on regulations. Once again, not much in the way of inspiring confidence.

The V.A. system. Like socialized medicine? Why? Have you seen it in action? If not, try checking out a VA hospital. Every move is regulated - limited medicine choices, waiting lists...all the things that make it the opposite of what most of us have come to expect from our health care.

So which of these models makes government think that it is equipped to handle care for all of us? I suggest that they try to make even one of these things decent before expanding their failure to the masses. In the same way that I can't afford or even deal with the responsibility of having a bigger house, the government has shown conclusively that it is not ready for more right now.