Monday, August 31, 2009
Hell!, back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country, our banking system, our auto industry and possibly our health plans to the same nit-wits who couldn't make money running a whore house and selling whiskey!"
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys (sic) and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
TRUE - CHECK: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp
Seneca Says ... He scares me too!
Monday, August 24, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
I wonder how many will see that he is talking about ... Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Tax, HEW, HHS, HUD, Dept of Education, etc.
I also wonder how many will make the connection that the archetypal point is that medicine is simply one nose of the camel looking to find the edge of the people's tent.
Now, if I was a politician running for office, then I could not say these things as it would offend the sensibilities of many who are now in on the dole. But, since I am not a politician, but just a thinking citizen , I can say that this is exactly what he is talking about .. and when you come to the end of the matter, say that you must fight, with all your mind and might, and rid yourself of the the pernicious pap that you were taught that "... you are your brothers keeper" ,and rid yourself of all the altruistic implications of that, for it from this well (altruism)that all the mischief springs.
Yes, in a way it can be said that you are your brothers keeper, if by "keeping your brother", you tell him to get a job and give him tough love by schooling him in the truth that his demand does not constitute any valid sanction for you to fulfill it.
Now there are those out there that will say, "Oh you are so callous. What? If a neighbor's barn burns down, you would not help him rebuild?" As for me, I have heard that example many a time and my answer always has been, "What kind of dunce do you take me for? Of course I would hitch up my mules, go over and help. WHY? Because it is in MY best interest to do so. Why is it in MY best interest to do so? Because when MY barn burns down, I think it would be a good thing for ME if I had engendered a feeling that leads my neighbor doing the same for ME, and that if so engendered that he may act on that feeling, however, there is no demand on my part that he help me.
I say that if those of sagacious mind would but contemplate the matter, I do believe that they could see through the pap that is altruism, self-sacrifice, etc., and see that deep down it is ALL about self interest and that a stable and free society can be built and sustained ONLY on such a thing. Indeed, even if they contemplate it a bit and come to an opposite conclusion, then I assert that such a conclusion is itself based on self interest - the self interest in not wanting to see their part of the dole removed.
To prove this about altruism being a papish smoke screen and that the real motive is always self interest, consider the man that gives his money to the poor. Then ask yourself a question. Do you really think that he feels BAD when he gives his money to the poor? No man does that which in sum does not leave him, in his mind at least at the time of doing it, with a net positive result of some sort. The murderer, the thief, the parking ticket offender, the person that gives his money to "the poor', the person that harnesses the power of the government to take from you to give to others, himself included, that he deems "in need" ... ALL are doing their deed because at the moment of doing it, they, in Dr. Phil's words, were getting a net payoff - and it is this net payoff, the payoff to them, that is the motivation.
That is exactly the point of Ayn Rand, that altruism (brother keeping) is destructive to society in that it leads to these kind of things, because what better way to practice altruism than to have "Big Brother" be my keeper. The only way to keep this from happening is to take the other tack and say " Sorry Bro, you best be keeping yourself", which by the way, is the real meaning of the phrase.
Open without the kids around.
~ Video Link Courtesy of Ann
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
If reading this does not elicit an automatic abhorrence in you, you have some really serious identity problems. Of such infantile dependence is serfdom born. If you reject this as unimportant, you can only be considered willfully blind.
Hey, don't just take my word for it, the Boston Globe refers to this as " .. her creepily authoritarian vision of life under an Obama administration.
August 11, 2009
Just realized the difference between the present health system, run by insurance companies, and any proposed government plan. Here are two questions to ask your congressman:
1. Insurance companies have a set schedule of benefits that are covered, and which we know about before we buy. Where is the schedule that tells us what specific benefits will we get if we approve this government plan?
2.If an insurance company treats us wrongly, or denies benefits illegitimately, we can sue them. Will we be able to sue the government for wrongly denying treatment?
Obama on health care:
“End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we [the government] can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uhhh, not having the surgery but taking, uh, the painkiller.”
Couple of points here:
First: I do not need the government letting me know, or letting my doctors know, about things that are, or are not, going to "help". That is what I already pay my doctor for, and seeing as how I have at least a wee bit of grey matter, I can manage just fine without "the man" telling me.
Second: In Arabia they actually have a way of getting across the idea that there is a real danger in granting an entity the license to do something under an "... at least" subterfuge. It is called the nose of the camel, and as we all know, the camel is NEVER satisfied with just his nose under the edge of the tent. Indeed, it does not take much to see that this health care initiative represents the nose of a very big camel.
Third: "Public Service" messages from an entity in whose best interest it is that I go ahead and die, are suspicious.
Fourth: Everyone focused on his conclusion: that maybe the woman should take a painkiller. What is more insidious is the fact that he thinks that it is the government that should get to help her determine that she do so - or actually that the government should get to dictate that she do so.
No, Mr Obama. These are not decisions that you “are going to have to make” – and the government does not need to let doctors know anything. They already know it. In addition, using advice and counsel from their physician, it is the patients (or their appointed family) that get to make these decisions on whether to take the pill or have the surgery, on whether to pull the plug, not some insurance company .... and certainly not you.
Both my parents have suffered life-threatening illnesses – never at any time did they have to make any decision about treatment based on the cost, which combined has run well over a hundred thousand dollars. Why? Because they had purchased supplemental and catastrophic coverage so they would not have to make decisions based on costs. My mother had a shattered knee that cost thirty grand, but it didn’t cost her a dime because she added a five dollar rider to her policy so that she would not have to make decisions based on cost.
She just had three MRIs, all covered by Medicare. My father’s heart-bypass operation was completely covered by Medicare. My parents were never denied any medical coverage the doctor ordered. (And by the way, my parents raised four children with no insurance at all, except for one three-year period when my father worked for a large company, when my and my brother's birth were covered.)So don’t give us this malarkey about you, or Medicare or Medicaid or private insurers making medical decisions. They practice insurance. Let the doctors practice medicine and provide all the advice I need. I as a person paying the freight am the only person we need making decisions. I do not need to give the government any power of attorney over my life.
The truth of the matter is that Obama is wanting Medicare and Medicaid in some reconstituted form to not act as insurance, but to act as arbiters of whether a procedure is going to be provided.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
I saw a fellow reading The 5000 Year Leap, and since we had just had a TeaRally, I stuck up a conversation by asking if he liked the book. He said the he did and that he was amazed at how far off the tracks the country has moved from the ideals that made the country in the first place.
Now, here is where it becomes distressing, for these preliminaries lead to a discussion of Statism and Big Government, and in that vein, I mentioned how the "Big-Government Problem" is not confined to the Democrats, but that the Republicans are helping hand-in-hand to expand the power of the Federal Government over our lives. Essentially, it being that the Democrats come from one direction while the Republicans come from the other - with the pocketbook of the citizen in the middle. To try and drive the point home that "our" party is power hungry just as are the Democrats, I mentioned that the thing that was the straw that broke my back was when our Republican Senators Hutchison & Cornyn, and my District 21 Representative Lamar Smith, ALL voted for the first TARP bailout - over the objections of their constituents.
Now, think of it. I had just told him that the Republicans were ½ the problem. Was there any light that went off in his head? Was there any nod of agreement? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Even though that I was telling him that his Republican Senators and his Republican Congressman sold him out, he was going to avoid that ugly fact and continue to think that it is all Obama and those evil Democrats.
I am so saddened that even the people that go to the tea parties, when led by a celebrity to "boo" the Republicans and the Democrats, do so with gusto; yet in their heart of hearts, when you get them "one-on-one" to look inside, you can see that they feel that it is all the Democrat's fault, and think that if the Republicans can boot them out then things will be all good and fine. They completely ignore that it was BUSH that came to Congress and wanted a $700 billion appropriation in 3 days.
In sum it will not be good if Obama has his way, nor will not be all good and fine if the Republicans with their current brand of Corporatism and Statism come back to power, because a boot is a boot and feels the same on my neck whether it is worn by a Democrat or a Republican.
In sum, I think that it is appropriate to remember - It is Not Left vs Right - It is the STATE vs YOU.