Real time, real information is entering the debate over the Obama Administration’s health care plans. However, the problem with real time streaming information is the diminished ability to distinguish between reality and falsehood. Some political operatives fan sparks into flame for the purpose of watching the fire, and they reside in both the left and the right. These political thugs have their own reasons for creating social unrest, modeled after the Saul Alinsky school of political thought. They believe that chaos and crisis is one of the most favorable environments to push forward radical, transformational policies.

Others are willing to endure the sparks in the political and media firestorms in order to uncover the truth of a matter. Their approach may create sparks, but these patriots’ goals are to discover accurate, truthful information from which the American people can make informed decisions.

For this reason, I appreciate Newt Gingrich, and his well informed political analysis. Those who firebomb Newt usually do so because he accurate, shining the light on back room political hacks and their deals often struck out of sight from the American people. Newt also has demonstrated the ability to apply political theory and forecast the outcome of a given flight path.

Newt has done it again with a recent article at HumanEvents.com. The health care debate has been stirred into a frenzy around the topic of rationed health care. A core question is whether or not seniors will receive the same quality care in the final years of their lives as they received in their youth. Words like “euthanasia” and “death panels” have been lobbed like grenades into the public forum. While the comments reflect the feelings of those behind them, the consequences of these verbal explosions are not helpful to the discussion. What is helpful is finding sources which can tell us what a US single payer, government plan will look like. Enter again Newt Gingrich.

Check out his article describing Britain’s national health care, and the decisions which the Britain’s national health board make regarding the monetary value of a human life. How much are you worth?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33100

Timothy Burns

Light the Fire

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

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.

We want obamunism.us to be very interactive. So, we are looking for people who like to blog about politics. Generally speaking, you are qualified if your politics are anywhere to the right of Obamunism (and you can write well.) We don’t necessarily want people who are just going to write long, rambling rants (although those can be fun.) We want some serious, thought-provoking material  about current  events that can get people talking. Humor is also welcome. In fact, no style will be denied if you are a good writer. If you are interested, let us know. Send along a few links to some sample blogging you have done in the past. If we like what we see, you may just be able to become an official obamunism.us blogger. Looking forward to hearing from you.