Friend, you should have figured out by now that any time this admin, passes a measure which includes the word “fairness” in the title, the measure is meant for anything but fairness. The title is meant to lure and excite uninformed citizens to get emotionally excited: “Yea, I’ll get mine now, and be able to get back at that dirty ______________________.” (fill in the blank) But class warfare doesn’t help ANYONE. Pitting one class of the electorate against another, rich vs poor, white vs black, male vs female, worker vs business owner, whatever, is the most widely used, and most successful way an unjust govt. has stirred emotional angst within the voters as a way of justifying larger govt, expanded policies and taking away our liberty. We have got to look past the sound bites and emotional reactions to see the purpose of the legislation. Our country has been fundamentally altered forever by this current administration, and not for the better.

The country you and I grew up in, where opportunity was available for all who wanted to work hard and pursue their dreams, is GONE. The country as a protected home for liberty and freedom as our founding fathers envisioned is GONE. The Govt now owns 96% of the mortgage business, now controls the banking industry, the health industry, and will control the energy sector also if anything remotely resembling the current “Cap and Trade” legislation passes.

Don’t know about you, but I can’t find ANY country that has prospered under a large, centralized socialist govt. They are currently going broke all over the globe (England, Greece, Venezuela, France) Remember the Soviet Union, they failed under centralized communist govt. and their citizens are still suffering 3 decades later.

Which comes back to the issue of fairness. The world is not fair. We can’t make it fair. Men have different talents and we are able to work, produce and accomplish different things to differing levels of success.Some want to, and can earn a lot. some want to, and can’t create wealth. Then there are those that have talents and don’t want to use them. These are all internal issues, dealing with talent, motivation, and faithful stewardship. which essentially are moral and spiritual issues. The unequal outcomes are a function of internal gifts, personal motivation and faithfulness much more than any external govt regulation.

To tell the people that the govt will step in and equalize the outcome, passing the wealth from the producers to the non producers, is to fight against natures moral order. It is immoral to take from those that are faithful stewards and give to those who are unfaithful. It is simply theft. Now, I’m not talking about taking care of the poor, and righting injustice. The former is the responsibility of God fearing people, and the latter a just task of the govt.

The long and the short of this letter is to say that the Govt is using emotional fervor to justify taking power for itself. This approach to governing people was first described by Karl Marx, a devoted atheist, a man allowed 4 of his own children to die of starvation while he pursued “social enlightenment”, and who advocated violent bloody revolution as a just means of “taking what belongs to the people and returning it to the people.” These policies are the process of becoming enslaved to a bloated, socialist govt which is concerned about amassing and maintaining its own power, not it’s governing its people.

The messiah complex continues; or if you prefer, the cult of personality. Whichever, I invite you to take a look at the celebrity pledge in the video below:

“To be a servant of our president…”??? Do these people even have the intelligence to understand the basic concepts of Liberty and Freedom???? I seriously doubt it. This is scary stuff!

Here’s one:

“I Pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America; to hold my elected officials responsible to do the same. I pledge to speak out against socialism in all of it’s ugly forms. I pledge to teach my children to respect the inspired document that sets America apart and makes her great. I pledge to fight for free market, and to end government intrusion into our lives. I pledge to hold God as my Sovereign, to serve my fellow man, but to be a servant only unto Him.”

That’s my pledge. What’s yours?

This chart is not evidence of a global economic slowdown, but of a philosophical shift in the most prosperous and productive country on the planet – the US. The world’s marxist governments, like our current administration,  do not want prosperity for their people. A prosperous people are too difficult to control and impossible to make dependent on government.

From tea parties

Click the “Tea Parties” link to see the full sized image.  National prosperity is found in production not consumption. This chart from the OECD shows a worldwide drop in production at almost 20% in the last 9 months.

Our current administration is not working for the prosperity and freedom of its citizens. They have put policies in place which have Intentionally Created this global slowdown in order to Intentionally Create an environment in which the people will look to the Govt for a solution. The Obama administration is pursuing textbook MARXIST policies.

Hard to believe? First consider the people advising him, those whom he has willingly placed around him:

• Van Jones is self-avowed Communist. He is in the White House and advises the president on matters of economic and social policy.
• Treasury Sec. Timothy Geithner: in an interview in May he stated that Treasury policies are working to “Prevent the next economic boom cycle”
• Bill Ayers is a former terrorist who bombed the pentagon. He is a close friend of the president, and a self avowed marxist who has worked to  start a revolutionary war against the United States government in order that capitalist system could be overthrown.(1)
• Political thug Rahm Emanuel sends dead fish to political opponents.  He is the President’s Chief of Staff
• Ezekiel Emanuel: Rahm’s brother, a bioethicist and a rabid proponent of state sponsored euthansia.  E. Emanuel is writing the national health care bill and advising President Obama on health policy.
• The President’s pastor of 20 years (and I use the term very loosely) Jeremiah Wright believes that “White folks greed runs the world in need.”   and that the 9-11 terrorist events were “America’s chickens coming home to roost.”

Therefore, what would proselyte Obama  believe was his mission if given the opportunity?  You and I are watching the answer unfold before our eyes.

Pres. Obama has stated his view of prosperity is that wealth should be “spread around.”  He has stated in political campaign speeches throughout the 90’s and the recent presidential campaign that “The wealth of the nation should be returned to the rightful owners.”  Remember Joe the Plumber?

Karl Marx built his political theories on the following maxim:  “The government should take from each according to their means, to give (redistribute) to each according to their need”  This political ideal will not work in a prosperous economy.  A Govt must have its people in need or close to poverty, and then create boiling hot envy between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ (class warfare)  in order for Marxism to be accepted.  A prosperous people have no need or tolerance for this kind of oppressive, socially destructive government policies.

If you still have any doubts – take a look at the inner cities of any major urban center for the inevitable outcome of Obama’s Marxist policy:  Watts, Detroit, South Central LA, the Bronks, the South side of Chicago, Harlem.  Govt welfare policies have created and supported urban neighborhoods such as these.  Welfare programs take money from the productive sector of society and redistribute  it to the poor.  Welfare provides housing, food stamps, free clinics, etc and has done so for more than a generation – an Obama utopian society.

Birds of a feather flock together. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .

Look at the results of social economic redistribution.  I ask you – Is this the kind of America you want to live in??

Light the Fires

Timothy Burns

Postscript: Supporting the poor in our society is not the problem, and this essay should not be confused with a rant against helping out those less fortunate.  The poor will always be among us, and should be cared for by a prosperous, Christian society.  A Government that takes money is the problem.  Taking wealth that an individual or company has earned through hard work is theft.  This action is immoral, under any disguised good intentions.  Giving money to those who don’t know how to manage it is equally damaging to the person, and thereby to society.  Without teaching stewardship and putting accountability in place to be responsible for the support received, the only possible outcome is a sense of entitlement by those who receive the public assistance, and growing demands for more.

(1) Berger, Dan (2006). Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity. AK Press. p. 95.

Obamunism - it’s a thought provoking title. Yet do the majority of America’s citizens assent to this characaturization of our new president?  After all, he was elected on a groundswell of American populism (and maybe Acorn voter fraud, but who’s really keeping track).  Until recently, His poll numbers continue to reinforce his self-assumed deification, and the liberal media unquestioningly toes the party line.   With support like this, who wants to challenge the Chicago thuggery politics which have come to the White House with him?

If only we could get an outside point of view – someone who could comment on recent political evolutions in America who doesn’t have Democrat or Republican prejudice.

In april of this year, Pravda, the state run media outlet in Russia printed the following.

“It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.”

Read the full story here: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0#

This commentary comes from the Russian state run political news machine. I would suggest that this group knows communisism and marxism when they see it.

Stand up Americans.

Light the Fires

Tim

We keep hearing that 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance and need it. This number includes people who already qualify for existing government programs. It also includes people who simply choose not to buy health insurance but could otherwise afford it. The true number, I’ve read, is left at about 16 million uninsured. I wanted to get that out of the way first for two reasons: 1) You’re being deceived, and 2) It’s intriguing but somewhat irrelevant to what follows. By “irrelevant” I mean it doesn’t matter to me how many people can’t get the medical attention they need; something needs to be done to reign in the cost for those people. Obama just has no clue how to do it correctly.

Yesterday, President Obama gave a speech to the Americal Medical Association, pleading for their support regarding his healthcare plan. He outlined a number of modifications to the current system that would supposedly be “deficit neutral.” I guess to Obama, shifting the deficit to another party is remaining “deficit neutral.” The details of his plan as of now will only put hardship on the people in the trenches: the healthcare providers. I’m not talking about health insurance companies. I’m talking about the people who actually have the skills to cure our cancers and bandage our boo-boos. The doctors, nurses, and other medical staff of this country are doomed.

Consider Obama’s plan for incentivizing doctors to cut costs. He intimates that doctors spend too much time and money ordering useless tests and procedures when in the end, with the advantage of retrospect, it would have been just as efficient to skip them. Counterintuitively, he suggests that the only (silly little) reason they do this is to prevent themselves from being sued for malpractice if they were to miss something of vital importance. He goes on to say that he does not favor putting a cap on malpractice suits. Is any of this starting to sound ridiculous? Being a nation of litigation as we are, doctors will be sued at the drop of a hat for any minor detail, but Obama wants them to stop thinking about that. They’re not supposed to be worried about being sued; they’re supposed to be worried about healing their patients. That’s it. You tell me how a doctor is supposed to operate under those conditions. When there is a high percentage chance that your patient is going to try to sue you anyway, how can you be expected to treat him without that fear?

Some people say medicine should not be practiced for profit. While that’s a dreamy proposition, it’s just not practical or fair. Few people know or understand what it takes to become a doctor. It is a high-risk venture. The effort and sacrifice is more than most people could handle. The biggest risk-takers should be able to reap the biggest rewards. If you don’t want to take the risk of hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans, don’t be a doctor. If you don’t want to risk neglecting or even losing your family and friends, don’t be a doctor. If you don’t want to risk having zero quality of life, working the longest hours for an ungrateful herd of freeloaders ready to litigate, don’t be a doctor. Now, Obama proposes that if you don’t want to be subjected to government mandates while you deal with all of the above, don’t be a doctor. What kind of doctor is this going to produce? I thought we wanted to encourage people to become doctors. We need our brightest minds in the field, but those minds will go elsewhere if they think doctoring will be a dead-end job.

Phase 1 of my plan: limit litigation. I think it is unfair for people to expect perfection from doctors. Everyone who sees a physician should be aware that there are always risks. Too many people run to the doctor for every little thing as it is, many just want their doctor to screw up once so they can cash out. Where’s the personal responsibility for your own care? Stop trying to make other people responsible for your life. If you want to be protected from medical malpractice incidents, purchase AD&D or disability insurance. Don’t make doctors pay to protect themselves against you. They’re trying to help you after all. Are you getting a liver transplant? Guess what: something might go wrong! Putting caps on malpractice payouts is just a start. Frivolous litigation bogs down the entire system and sends ripples of fiscal irresponsibility through everyone’s wallet, including yours and mine. Medicine for profit? The patients do it every day, and they don’t even need a degree.

Let’s discuss the “freeloaders” I mentioned. I’m sure you are aware that no one can be denied healthcare for lack of health insurance or ability to pay, right? Every day people abuse this policy. Hospitals are overcrowded with people who will simply never pay (and some who will never leave.) Obama wants to cut costs by reducing the amount the government reimburses hospitals for treating uninsured patients. He justifies this by saying that as people move onto the public policy, the number of uninsured patients will go down. There is no incentive for healthcare providers here. There’s not even a choice! Say your hospital currently gets $100 (an arbitrary example for the sake of easy math) per uninsured patient. Now say Obama’s plan wants to reduce that to $75 right off the bat (this is not any figure he has given as far as I know, just a random number to continue our example.) The number of uninsured patients in your hospital has not changed at this point, but you are already getting less reimbursement for them. “Deficit neutral” is now a 25% deficit for your practice. Obama wants healthcare providers to take over even more of the burden of paying for your free health care.

Phase 2 of my plan: limit free doctor visits. This may sound a bit draconian, but if you actually knew the rampant problem that is hospital freeloading, you might be inclined to agree with me. It’s not just the litigation profiteers. It’s also the drug-seekers. It’s also the people who just want to be serviced as if in a hotel. It’s the hypochondriacs. It’s the people who needed an ambulance ride to an air-conditioned building or to buy cigarettes at the gas station next door. If you think I am exaggerating, then you are too far removed from the problem and have no insight into what I’m talking about. These are real first-hand examples. These are the people draining the system. Stop blaming the doctors. They are trying to help you in spite of yourself!

Health insurance is a pain. I know. The stranglehold the insurance companies have on the industry is bewildering. However, they get their cues from programs like Medicare and Medicaid. “If the government only pays this much, that’s all we’re going to pay,” they say. When you see a doctor you have no idea how many other people or services are going to be added onto your bill. There’s no way to know for what your insurance company will pay and what you will pay. One doctor may charge this much, and the next doctor that looks at your chart adds this much more. The person who carries your chart down to the lab may not be part of your network and cost you however much out of pocket just for the short walk down the hall. The idea of getting healthcare can be frightening when you have no clue how much it is going to cost even when you have health insurance.

Phase 3 of my plan: transparent billing via doctor-patient decisions. Patients should be able to see upfront how much their treatment will cost them, alternatives to that treatment if any, and how much will be covered by insurance. It should be no different than ordering off the menu at McDonald’s. Patients will then make treatment decisions with their doctors and only with their doctors. There will be no interference from any bureaucracy. There will be no denial or preapproval necessary from the insurance company because if the doctor and patient agree that it is the best treatment, insurance has to pay up. You will pay one agency only. You will not have a separate bill for labs and rehabilitation. One treatment plan equates to one bill for one payee. This also fits nicely with my limited litigation plan because an informed patient has less recourse for litigation. When you and your doctor are left to make decisions together, you become responsible for your own care and cannot reasonably be allowed to sue the doctor trying to help you.

It’s a complicated issue; I know. There’s no panacea, but I believe my plan is better than Obama’s, which is to throw everyone’s cash at the problem. Hopefully the AMA will cut some new teeth and really fight back with a better plan. It’s insulting really. I do wish the most unfortunate of us had a way to get treatment, but the reality is: they do. Go to the hospital. They can’t turn you away. That’s the system that needs to be fixed.  It’s not the fact that people don’t have insurance; it’s the fact that they don’t need it and someone else is already footing the bill. Be careful when you get on Obama’s plan. He’s going to tell you what you can and can’t do from now on. Forget asking your doctors for help. Remember, they were the ones trying to help you to begin with. From now on, you report to the Medicine Czar.

“It’s not just any company we’re talking about. It’s GM.”

-President Barack Obama, June 1st 2009

Every day I see and hear about more people losing their jobs. I myself have been unemployed since November of 2008. If only I and those like me had not been working for “just any company,” perhaps we would still be working at your expense as well. There is a certain amount of arrogance in every new announcement by the Obama administration that just infuriates me. I am tired of being told what is best for everyone is for me to sacrifice more so that those deemed worthy of the federal government can continue to siphon cash from the treasury. Their latest decree is that GM, a company worthy of the praise of the gods, is more important than your company. Why?

“…so your children and all of our children can grow up in an America that still makes things…”

Apparently, these things America makes happen to only be worthless cars. I would certainly hate for my future children to grow up without the ability to buy an American made clunker. Speaking of which, my wife and I don’t have kids yet. Why? We can’t afford it. We are actually saving to support our children. It’s a novel idea, I know. I’m so glad that President Obama has forced me into being part owner of the new failing GM so that my unborn children will have a secure future. Meanwhile, I am already supporting scores of other people’s children, people who think they have a “basic human right” but not a “basic human responsibility” to be parents.

But enough about my kids I may or may not ever have. Let’s discuss GM. First and foremost, let me just clarify that I would never want the government buying any part of a private company. Now, let’s analyze this as if it were actually a viable solution. Obama has told me that I am now part owner of a 60% stake in the new GM. (Get ready for the avalanche of problems with this plan.) First, I never would have invested a dime in GM when it was a non-government entity. It has long been known to be a floundering has-been corporation with no future. Second, only the most extremely risk-tolerant and savviest investors would dare attempt to buy into any company after it has declared bankruptcy. This means the majority of average investors (and certainly those who never invest in anything) would never go near this company, be it GM or “just any company.” Ok, so where are we at this point? Oh yes, the American taxpayer has now been forced into being part owner in one of the riskiest business deals in history, something even Warren Buffet wouldn’t touch alone. Let’s add some insult to this injury, shall we? Not only are we going to be the majority shareholders, the President has waived our voting rights.

“The federal government will refrain from exercising its rights as a shareholder in all but the most fundamental corporate decisions.”

Who knows what a “fundamental corporate decision” is, but it sounds to me like we have no say in how the company is run. So, now where are we? We are holding a 60% majority stake in a company over which we have no control. The Obama administration has successfully completed its socialization of risk, and with no defined exit strategy, it is certain there will be complete privatization of all reward. Meanwhile, they still fully expect those of us who lost our jobs to continue buying the only things America makes. We foot the bill on both ends, and since I am now part owner of GM, it is a conflict of interest for me to buy anything non-GM, right? If I don’t buy GM, I am risking billions of taxpayer dollars.

On top of all of this, Obama’s grand plan includes a bulk order of fleet cars for the federal government. We invest all of this money and then get in line to be the first customer for the worst cars on the market. I guess on one hand it shows that we’ll eat our own dog food, but who are we trying to entice to join us? Ourselves? We are forced to take ownership, and then we are forced to buy a fleet of unneeded cars, all for the sake of compelling ourselves to buy more from ourselves. Oh, don’t forget, we are also backing our own warranties with taxpayer money.

I’m not sure at what point companies became “too big to fail.” First it was the financials; now it’s the auto industry. What gives these people the right to make mistakes and not get the axe? The government does not exist to keep people employed. I don’t care how many people you work with, as few as ten or as many as tens of thousands, if your company fails, it fails. Look for another job like the rest of us. You have a right to work but not a guarantee. There is a huge difference. If the Obama administration truly believes the American auto industry is viable, they would let the failures fail and the new generation rise. There are plenty of small auto companies just waiting for the chance to penetrate the market but have been held back by years of favoritism toward the giants. Apparently, perpetuating this favoritism is Obama’s version of “change we can believe in.”

I thought I might take a moment to reflect on Presidents past, specifically George W. Bush and how he compares to Barack Obama. It’s obviously no secret that I dislike the direction Obama is taking the country, but one thing you may not know is that not all anti-Obamunists were pro-Bush. In fact, there is a vast number of us who felt just as bad over the past 8 years as we are feeling now: completely controlled by unrelenting dogmatic philosophies on how everyone should live. With Obama, we teeter on the brink of becoming a socialist nation. With Bush, the threat was a church-state. Why do we have to keep electing such polarizing idealogues? Where are the fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidates? Where are the people who can think and reason critically?

I live in an area where being white makes me the minority. It’s difficult then to let anyone know that I am an Obama detractor. Immediately, I am simply a “racist” in the eyes of his supporters. It boils my blood that someone would assume that I look past all of Obama’s policies and land on the color of his skin as his “flaw.” When Bush was president, I lived in a different area where not liking him made me either a “terrorist supporting liberal” or a “satanist.” Of course, you can see where I am going with this. I am none of these things that people assume, but the Presidents we elect seem to give the people carte blanche to make such assumptions. It’s simply not healthy for half the country to always be ready with such an angry, thoughtless attack.

Whenever I can actually have a civil conversation with someone about my politics, they are often surprised to find out that I am not an Obama supporter. After the first few incredulous exchanges, I can eventually start explaining the problems I have with socialism. When I get to the part about how to solve problems without government intervention, I start getting nods. “Oh yeah,” they say, “that’s more of how I feel about it too.” So many people do not realize that they are centrists until you get them to say it out loud. Generally, until that point, they haven’t seen far enough down the road to understand the consequences of what is taking place.

Too often our “problems” are boiled down to “rich versus poor” or “black versus white” or “religion versus non-religion” or (under Bush) “good versus evil.” I believe that generally people want to do the right thing. It’s just that no two people are ever going to agree on how to do it. Is it sad that there are poor people? Yes, absolutely. Should you legislate the “rich” (I put that term in quotes because as of late it means families with $250,000 whereas in my eyes you aren’t rich until you’re well into the millions) to pay for the poor? Absolutely not. Redistribution of wealth is not a right of the federal government. Is it unethical for “rich” people to sit on the sidelines while the poor flounder? Maybe. But do you know how many “rich” people already give large amounts of money to various charities? Do you have a tally of all the humanitarianism in which each “rich” person takes part every year? Most pragmatically, have you thought about how many jobs that “rich” person has created with his or her wealth? People don’t care about those kinds of questions because the leader tells them they don’t have to.

My point is that the pendulum is swinging too far. Extremism may seem admirable, but in practice it only alienates and divides. Bush and Obama are no different in this regard. Abstract away the details of their respective agendas, and you have the same figurehead destined to help rip the country apart. Hopefully, eventually, the pendulum will lose momentum and land somewhere in the middle, bringing us a leader that can actually unite and not just campaign.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Guns. Guns. Guns.

It’s pretty much guaranteed that wherever you stand on the ‘gun issue’ you’re most likely one way or the other. Very few people have an apathetic attitude towards firearms. By now we’ve all heard, and come to terms with our elected president’s views and opinions on our right to bear arms.

Now before we even think about jumping down the rabbit hole that is the Obamusnistic gun law ideals, lets take a quick look of the basic pros and cons of gun control.

The pros would be among many things including self-defense, and home protection. The cons are everywhere on the news, ‘murder, death, chaos!’ School shootings, and drive-bys. We’ve all seen the news reports; but what we have yet to consider is that taking away guns is not going to prevent the crimes. People kill people, not guns. If someone wants to commit murder, they’re not going to be detoured by ‘gun laws’ or ‘gun bans’, they’re going to get a gun, and they are going to kill. Now, you have an armed man or woman, with intent, and helpless, unarmed civilians alongside potential victims. You have just made it that much easier for the murderer to complete his plans.

On the flip side, if people are able to have guns, (and are properly trained and licensed if they wish carry them,) then we have a means of prevention. Imagine if the teachers at Columbine had had guns? If there had been some kind of armed guard on duty. How many lives might have been saved? When an armed burglar breaks into your home, would you or would you not want the right, the God-given American right, to bear arms. To protect you, your family and home?

Taking away guns is not the answer. In fact it is a clear contradiction to the Constitution, but then again if you truly believe that gun control will stop gun crimes, then perhaps you’ve never felt threatened enough to have the need to defend yourself; or perhaps you trust that our government is capable of protecting you from speeding bullets. If so, I’ve got sad news: it’s not. Not even the mighty-and-holy Obama can stop gun crimes.

I don’t know about you, but I find a president who is willing (even desiring,)  to rid, or even just highly complicate our ability and right to own guns, as well as making nice with many of our country’s enemies, a very disturbing notion. The fact that he would so willingly desire to twist the constitution, and pervert our bill of rights, is a disgrace. It is unsettling to me to think that the same people who flew planes into our world trade center, are enamored with, and love our current president. I also find it terrifying to think that he may someday intend to neglect our nation’s interests and safety in the name of extending a hand; and if that day comes, if ever my freedom is compromised, my safety threatened; you can bet that I sure as hell will want to utilize all my rights, especially my right to bear arms.

After all what more can I do but cling to my guns and religion?

Whether or not Obama is successful in changing gun laws, and whether or not he says whatever need be said to appease the current crowd before him; the fact will always remain: he is trying to compromise our rights. No president, nor any one man, should have the power to distort the constitution to his own vision and ideals, no matter how ‘good’ the intentions be.

Never.

– — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – –

Check out ‘GunbaNObama‘ dot com

Click Here to see a brief bi-partisan record of Obama’s gun control voting record, as well as his basic stance on the issues.