Present Discontent

—–

I may post here from time to time, but for now I am posting full time at Conservative Hideout 2.0, so please stop by and check it out.

—–

In his much hyped speech about health care to the joint session of Congress President Obama told a very sad story about a lady who had cancer and lost her insurance right before a much needed procedure. Why did she lose her insurance? She lost it because she failed to report a case of acne. That is awful and another example of those evil insurance companies!

But it seems that Joe Wilson was right about one thing. Our dear President was lying. Let’s refresh our memories on what exactly he said about that poor lady from Texas.

“Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne.  By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size.  That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.”

Seems that Robin Lynn Beaton, 59, of Waxahachie, Texas, did have her insurance suspended; and it was suspended right before a life saving procedure that she needed. But the problem is that she wasn’t suspended for an unreported case of acne. She lost her coverage when she failed to disclose a previous heart condition when enrolling in the plan. She also fibbed about her weight.

All was not lost, though, Ms. Beaton’s Representative, Republican Congressman Joe Barton and his staff worked with the insurance company and got her coverage reinstated. She got her surgery and she credits Barton and his staff with saving her life.

What we have here is a classic case of what Ann Coulter said – “If you want to know what the left is up to, pay attention to what they are accusing the right of.” Obama is just fear mongering. Yep, that is what the right has been accused of all summer and then the left’s fearless leader gets up on national TV and does it big time.

But to be fair, he said that transparency and accountability were going to be the touchstones of his administration. He said nothing about fear mongering, so that is evidently fair game.

Conservatism is by today’s standards closely associated with Edmund Burke’s philosophy. I think it goes beyond that, in that it is more than merely a political doctrine. It is, in my estimation, a way of life, a code of conduct that associates one’s property with one’s liberty. For how can one truly be a free man when his property is not his to do with as he wishes? Russell Kirk, a man who has had a big impact on 20^th century conservatism and has helped to shape it going into the new millennia was quoted as saying that conservatism is “the negation of ideology.”

How is that ‘negation of ideology’ translated into today’s conservative movement? By its very nature the term conservative is derived from the Latin verb, conservare, meaning to preserve or to save. So how do we arrive at what seems to be an oxy-moron such as ‘modern conservatism?’ How does one combine 21^st century thinking with a traditional approach to life and politics? It’s not that difficult, really. I think Kirk was onto something important when he called it ‘the negation of ideology.’ For if one is to look at the Statist’s modus operandi, it is clear that amassing power and expanding the role of government in the life of the “masses” is his number one priority. It has been said that the far left, which is the controlling faction of the Democratic Party at this time, is part and parcel with big government. In other words, the Democratic Party needs big government for power and big government needs the Democratic Party to exist. It is a symbiotic relationship that is troubling to say the least and dangerous in the extreme.

To be honest, some Republican Presidents have increased government spending as well. Let’s look at Ronald Reagan. He did increase government, but he did it in a slightly different way. Reagan dramatically cut the role of the Federal Government in domestic programs and shifted the focus to increasing the military. Of course, this is well known today to be one of the leading reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union.  So this begs the question, did Reagan increase or decrease the role of government in our lives? On the domestic front, he dramatically decreased it, so the argument can be made that he was a small-government conservative. If one takes into the account the expanded size of the Federal Government due to the military build-up during the Reagan years then the answer seems less clear unless you remember one key factor, our Constitution. It specifically calls for the Federal Government to provide for the common defense; it does not call for entitlements, or other socialistic programs. So in retrospect, Reagan was definitely a true conservative. It is very unfortunate that we do not have a true conservative in the White House at this time.

Obama is the most pure statist in American history to ever occupy the Oval Office. If you look at the unprecedented spending undertaken by this administration, then you see that we are on a course of financial ruin.

·        $787 billion stimulus package

·        $410 billion omnibus spending bill

·        $700 billion Wall Street bailout package

·        $3.6 trillion budget

To assail his critics, Obama promised to find $17 billion in cuts from his gargantuan budget. If it weren’t so scary, it would be laughable. As Senator Judd Gregg (R N-H) said, “It’s as if you took a teaspoon of water out of the bathtub while you left the spigot on at full speed.”

But it actually gets worse. Projections from the General Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office show that spending on entitlements will outpace economic growth from 147% to a whopping 331% by 2030. That means with our Gross Domestic Product at 72%, we will be spinning our wheels as a nation to try and cover the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention any universal health plan that Obama may get passed.

So what we, the American public have been stuck with is the bill for a pure statist’s Utopian dream. Can we afford this? Can our children or our grand-children? The answer is no. This is only one of the many reasons why we need conservatism so much right now.

Stephen Smith, the personality most well known to fans of ESPN was recently interviewed on the Mark Levin radio show. I was astounded. Not that he is a black man that is also a conservative, because studies show that there are a great many black conservatives in America. No, what really struck me, was in the way he put into words how he felt about, not only our President, but also about what it means to be a conservative. He is eloquent and direct. And as Mark asks him in the interview, he could very well run for President, or at the very least, public office. This man is exactly what the Conservative cause needs at this time.

Mark Levin: Now Stephen, one of the things that impresses me about you is, you fundamentally understand liberty. Doesn’t mean we agree on everything.

Stephen Smith: Right.

ML:  But you fundamentally understand that this is what we have to defend. I don’t care who we’re defending it from, this is what we have to defend.  What do you make…what do you make of what’s going on today with all the government push and all the racism charges and all the rest of it?

SS: Well I’m disturbed to be quite honest with you. Ah, you can hear me clearly, correct Mark?

ML: Yes sir.

SS: Yes sir, I’m very, very disturbed. I mean, you know as an African American growing up in the streets of New York City I understand what poverty is all about, I understand, you know, what trials and tribulations mean. But at the same time, I’m looking at what we’re witnessing from our President, a man that I voted for; a man that I was proud to vote for at the time simply because, from a historical perspective what he represented. And then I’m looking at, you know, what I consider to be a government takeover. And I’m quite alarmed; I don’t think it’s what he campaigned on. I know that his record was radical, I listen to Sean Hannity a lot and Sean Hannity made it a point to say that everyday. But I certainly didn’t expect us to own 80% of AIG. I didn’t expect us to own a part of the automobile industry. Its one thing to put forth a $787 billion stimulus package, but to drop on top of that $410 billion omnibus package, a $3.6 trillion budget, a cap and trade bill, and then to come with universal health care that ultimately leans towards a government takeover of the health care system. Um these…I did not have to listen to Mark Levin or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh to recognize that this is something that should make all of us extremely uncomfortable. Because as a young black man growing up in the streets of New York City; no matter what you say about so many of the critics that were perceived as leaders within the community, people may have advocated Mark,  government intervention in terms of supervising things and making sure that we all were operating under a fair and equitable system. But I don’t recall anybody, and I do mean anybody that has ever walked into the black community and advocated a government takeover of anything. It’s about handling your own business, grabbing yourself by your own bootstraps and lifting yourself up. We may all need assistance, but a takeover is an entirely different situation altogether, and I’m extremely uncomfortable with it, and I’m even more uncomfortable with the fact that race has become a part of the discussion.

We all know racism exists to some degree, but to act as if it is as prevalent as it was years and decades ago is completely untrue and it serves to divide this nation, which I think is a catastrophic thing.

ML: Are you running for president? Cause I’ll vote for you.

SS: (Laughter)

ML: I – I’m not kidding. What you just said was so damn good and I’m not kidding, because, uh, in fact I have, I have shivers going down, uh up my leg, or whatever the guy said, Chris Matthews.

SS: I tell you something; one of the things, listening to your show, listening to Sean, listening to Rush, I’ve agreed with Rush in a lot of the things in the past, but I remember…I’ll tell you a little story Mark. Just a few days ago I was in Washington D.C. for an event and an African American happened to be driving me. He was a cab driver and I’m talking to him because he’s a big time supporter of Obama. And I said to him, “Listen you’re not going to be able to put that tag on me, ‘Oh, you know what? You’re being critical of Obama, so therefore you must be against him.’” No, no, no, no, no. The fact is, he is the President of the United States of America, he received 69 million plus votes, he received 52% of the popular vote; he has sworn to be a president to ALL Americans, not just African Americans. I appreciate his sensitivity or what would appear to be his sensitivity to some degree, but that doesn’t mean we don’t get to be critical of his policies. And you can’t tell me that what you’re seeing from his policies right now should make you comfortable. If it makes you comfortable, it’s because you must be ignorant to the issues. Because if you are paying attention, then you cannot be comfortable with the American way of life that you knew before, watching what’s taking place right now. And I was, I ended up surrounded by about 15 or 20 people, and I was basically saying to them, Mark, “Listen, at the end of the day, its about, if you walked up to any African American in this country and you said to them, ‘You know what? I’m gonna give you universal health care, or I’m gonna give you a cap and trade tax, or I’m gonna give you X,Y and Z.’ If you gave them that option, or the option to have money in their pocket and for them to make their OWN decisions. They would choose the latter.” I said, “I got news for you. That would make you somebody with a conservative point of view. You better wake up and recognize.”

ML: I think I just found a superstar. I-I’m not kidding you. Now, by the way, do you know I get –

SS: Yes sir.

ML: I get notes from cab drivers all the time asking me for a copy of Liberty and Tyranny? I mean people make assumptions, bigoted assumptions about people based on their race, or what they’re doing in their lives or something like that. You know I just think if we explain liberty more, if we explain competition more, and you’re right, if we, if we, and we spend a lot of money, if we’d spend it the right way to help people that truly cannot help themselves, I’m all for that. I’m not an Anarchist, I’m a Conservative. But that said, there’s no reason to destroy the entire health care system in order to help people. There’s just no need for it.

SS: I-I’ll tell you what, if you don’t mind me saying so. I’ll tell you what the conservatives and the Republican Party is up against more so than anything else. You don’t have a great messenger, outside of talk radio.

ML: You’re – It’s true.

SS:  That ultimately, that ultimately is your problem. I like Michael Steele, I certainly don’t want to do anything that would impugn his integrity, or, or stain him in any way. But, you know he has to do a better job of making sure that the message of the Conservative party is coming across because I don’t think it’s reaching the masses. I think you’ve got to have people that can go in any community because the reality is that when you look at Conservatives, when you look at Republicans you know that you’re going – you know that there’s a vast majority of white Americans that are going to vote in that direction. But when you talk about the Hispanic and in particularly the Black community then it becomes a problem. You’ve got to have somebody that can walk into these disenfranchised and minority communities and really explain what it is all about.

I didn’t know who Mark Levin was from a can of paint. But when I listened on a radio show, and I listened to him, I said, “You know what? When it’s six o’clock on the East Coast, if I’m in my car, to hell with music, and the hell with talk radio, everything else –

ML: (Laughter)

SS: I’m turning on Mark Levin, because I wanna LEARN something.” And even if I disagree, I’m still going to learn something even in the process of disagreeing, and therefore it’s going to make me more intelligent about the arguments that I make for or against whatever somebody like you is saying. Too many people do not do that and that needs to change, especially when we’re witnessing what we’re witnessing what’s taking place in our country today.

Wow. That is really all I can say. We need more people to orate the conservative position this well.

The terms “socialism” and “Marxism” have been bandied about quite a bit as of late; in fact it would seem that with Barack Hussein Obama in the White House those terms are being heard more and more. But to what end? I mean it is one thing to speak of socialism and its negative impact on our society, and quite another to label a U.S. President as a socialist. But have we had socialistic presidents in the past? Now don’t worry, this isn’t going to be a review of all 44 presidents. I am going to focus on only one and more specifically on one speech given by that president.

But before that, I want to talk quickly about one of the greatest gifts our Founding Fathers gave us; the Bill of Rights. They were introduced to Congress in 1789 and finally ratified in 1791. The Bill of Rights laid out, for our society, a framework upon the already rock solid Constitution. They were also brought forth to quell dispute between the federalist and anti-federalist camps. These first 10 amendments allowed our country to move forward and carry on with what Americans do best, pursuing life, liberty and happiness.

What is the Bill of Rights? Well quickly, I shall summarize them for the purpose of this narrative.

• First Amendment, freedom of speech and religion – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
• Second Amendment, the right to bear arms – 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.
• Third Amendment, protection from housing troops – No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
• Fourth Amendment, protection from unreasonable search and Seizure – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
• Fifth Amendment, right of due process and protection from double jeopardy, self incrimination and eminent domain – No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
• Sixth Amendment, right to trial by jury, speedy trial, to confront your accuser and right to counsel – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
• Seventh Amendment, right to civil trial by jury – In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
• Eight Amendment, protection from excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment – Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

• Ninth Amendment, Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
• Tenth Amendment, powers of States and peoples – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now that we have refreshed our memories of our Bill of Rights, let us take a look at what has been called our Second Bill of Rights. Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his State of the Union address to Congress in 1944 said that America needed another bill of rights.

In it he declared, “This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.”

Quite a list there, Mr. FDR, sir. But his list begs the question, “What is a right?” Well it can be said, and was said by our Founding Fathers, that we possess certain unalienable rights, among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe the key word in that well known American phrase is “unalienable;” meaning those rights which are placed upon us by our Creator. These rights cannot be transferred, sold or sundered by man or any implementation of man. But further, the term “right” refers to that which one can pursue and enjoy only when it is not at the expense of the rights of others. When one says something is a right, there are two parties involved, the party receiving the right and the party granting the right. Unalienable rights are those that arise between our Creator and us. Our Creator grants those rights and we receive them. To call anything a right, there has to be the understanding that it is universal, for to not do so would negate the rights of all of us.

This being said let us look at FDR’s Second Bill of Rights. He speaks of a person’s right to a job, substantial earnings, of a business man to be able to do business and sell his products without fear of oppression by monopolies. FDR continues with calling the ability to own or have a home a right, food, health care and economic security a right, and that only when these are secured can America be America.

The left’s philosophy is contingent on the premise that not only are we all created equal, but that we are all maintained and secured in that equality. For only when every citizen is equal in stature financially with all other citizens can America be fair. This is a failed and markedly flawed philosophy because no one government is powerful enough to make all its citizens equal. Where does this end? If owning or having a home is a right, then why does one person live in an apartment while another has a 50 room mansion? Why does one citizen reside in a crowded, congested city while another enjoys the expanse and openness of the rural lifestyle?

Or what about this “right” to a job and financial security? When one citizen toils long hours of the day, week in and week out, only to survive from paycheck to paycheck, why is it that another citizen lives in the lap of luxury after building his business up from meager beginnings to corporate success? What then, should we do to correct this problem? If you subscribe to the left’s philosophy, then you tear down or penalize the more successful citizen to reward the less successful. You take from the rich and give to the poor. On paper that is a very romantic proposal, stirring images of Robin Hood and a benign hero to the poor. But in reality, taking from one person and giving that to another person is anything but romantic. If you subscribe to the idea that we are endowed by our Creator with certain rights, then you must reject the notion of redistribution of wealth because only our Creator can give or take away rights, not man or man made institutions.

So how would FDR explain the idea that we are born with the right to a job, a home, health care and economic security? This is just another example of the left making promises of a utopia that is utterly unattainable; for to say that we are born with the right to economic security is to say that someone must give that right to us. Who? Our Creator? I hardly believe that our Creator is worried about how much money we have, the size of our home, or how well our business does. No, to say these things are rights is to confer the status of right giver to our Government and I, for one do not want our Government to have that kind of power. And let us not forget that our Founding Fathers saw the Government as the potential enemy and therefore built limits in the Constitution to prohibit it from expanding into the role of “right giver.”

We find our current President subscribing to this theory of FDR’s on the issue of health care. During a debate last October, Obama was asked if he thought health care was a right. He said he thought it was a right. But I tend to follow the ideal that Edmund Burke espoused, which was that thinking of health care as a right was preposterous. On this subject he said, “What is the use of discussing a man’s abstract right to food or to medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them. In this deliberation I shall always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician, rather than the professor of metaphysics.”

This directly correlates to what our Founding Fathers said about being created equal. In other words, we are created in equality, not maintained in that equity. By creating a level playing field, it is ultimately fairer to every individual by allowing them the chance to strive, rather than by making sure everyone strives equally. But maybe this idea is just too unfair, and maybe this is what Michelle Obama meant when she said America was a “down right mean country.” Other countries utilize socialism to equalize the citizenry, to give everyone the same level of success. America does not do that and if having a nation full of people striving to do their best, to succeed in a compassionate manner means that we live in a mean country, then so be it. For only in a country that focuses on individual liberties and freedoms can equality mean anything. No Mr. FDR and Mr. Obama, I do not think health care is a right. To call health care, food, shelter and economic security rights is to demean what our Creator bestows upon us, and that is not something that I wish to do.

All across America as our Congress takes a break during their August recess; the Democrats are getting a rude awakening from their constituents. It seems that the polls showing that most Americans don’t want Obama’s health care reform are being proven to be very accurate. Americans don’t want government run health care. They don’t want a bureaucrat to come between them and their doctor. They don’t like the fact that the Democratically controlled Congress is spending our country into oblivion. But most of all, they don’t like the fact that their elected representatives vote in lock step with the far left element of the Democratic Party.

But they aren’t the only ones who don’t like things. The Democrats don’t like being disagreed with. They don’t like their constituents telling them how to vote. I think they have forgotten that “We the People” is more than just a bumper sticker slogan. It is the bedrock this country was founded on; the ability for the citizenry to speak out and voice their displeasure with their Government.

Last September Barack Obama said the following to that very same citizenry: “”I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.” He said this when he wanted their help. He wanted “We the People” to get in people’s faces and make a change. Now his very own party, the Democratic party is saying this about those very same citizens: “The Republicans and their allied groups – desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill – are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country.” And they go on with, “…these mobs of extremists are not interested in having a thoughtful discussion about the issues – but like some Republican leaders have said – they are interested in ‘breaking’ the President and destroying his Presidency.”

So we have on one hand Obama saying he wants people to get involved, get into people’s faces to make a change. And on the other hand, when those same tactics are working against his agenda, Obama says, “This is the moment our movement was built for…That’s why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you’re counting on them to act. But these canvasses, town halls, and gatherings only make a difference if you turn up to knock on doors, share your views, and show your support. So here’s what I need from you: Can you commit to join at least one event in your community this month?”

So which is it Mr. President? Do you want your citizens to get involved and get in people’s faces to make changes? Or do you not want them to? Are they everyday Americans voicing their opinions, exercising their most fundamental American right? Or are they K-Street Lobbyists and angry mobs? I would say this to our Pretender-in-Chief, if you think that you can bully the American people into submission, you have another think coming because “We the People” are tired of your agenda. “We the People” are tired of your incessant spending. “We the People” are getting fed up with our elected officials thinking they are the ruling class in this country. But mostly Mr. Obama, “We the People” are mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore. It is time you and the rest of those who “We the People” voted for and sent to Washington D.C. remembered who your boss is. It is “We the People”

In a recent announcement today from the White House, and in an effort to help replace all the cars that the Cash for Clunkers program will remove from America’s roadways, President Obama unveiled some new 2010 models, saying, “Let me be clear. These automobiles will be affordable and available to those who cannot afford to take advantage of the Cash for Clunkers rebate program. They have new, greener accessories and inventive ways of getting more out of your vehicle.”

This move comes as the White House is coming under fire for bungling the Cash for Clunkers program. Many say that the Government cannot “manage a free lunch!” and wonder why Americans should turn over their health care to them. In an effort to address concerns that the Obama administration is out of touch, they scrambled to reveal to the public the new 2010 G(overnment)M(otors) models.

White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs was quoted as saying, “I think the new 2010 models are fantastic!” But when pressed as to whether he was going to purchase one himself, Gibbs tried to change the subject by offering to buy one for veteran White House Press Corps member, Helen Thomas.

Thomas, who had fallen asleep was unavailable for comment.

The new “green” way to light your car…

.

.

.

Side impact airbags? A needless expense with this new armor plating…

.

.

.

This “green” method eliminates the need for a heater by directing the engine exhaust up to the window for a defroster. (Gas mask sold separately)

.

.

.

No spare tire? No need with the new environmentally friendly ultra temporary spare…

.

.

.

Eliminating the need for expensive body shops, the Government will now offer used parts, like this snazzy new door for you truck…

.

.

.

By getting rid of excess weight, like fenders, bumpers, hoods and headlights, the new Government models get awesome mileage!!

Many people have heard of Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s White House Chief of Staff. He is called Rahmbo “Dead Fish” Emanuel by Sean Hannity because once when a pollster angered him, he sent that pollster a dead fish in the mail. Mark Levin, the very successful conservative radio talk show host refers to Emanuel as Al Capone because of his political strong arm tactics and also because he hails from the Chicago political machine. But there is another Emanuel brother that is working behind the scenes at the White House. This Emanuel brother is no stranger to the White House; he served on President Clinton’s Health Care Task Force and is now enjoying a very powerful role in the latest push to get socialized medicine finalized. His name is Ezekiel Emanuel and he received his M.D. from Harvard Medical School and his Ph.D. in political philosophy from Harvard University. He was a fellow in the Program in Ethics and the Professions at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. And after finishing his internship in internal medicine at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston and his oncology fellowship at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, he was asked to join the faculty there. Before he joined the National Institutes of Health, he was an Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School. Further, Dr. Emanuel is responsible for The Medical Directive, which is a comprehensive living will. It was endorsed by Consumer Reports on Health, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Harvard Health Letter, to name a few. He has been published on the ethics of clinical research, international research ethics, end of life issues, physician-patient relationships and of course health care reform in the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA and others. On paper, he seems to be a highly credentialed, successful person and an obvious choice to help Obama tackle the health care issue.

Let’s dig a bit deeper, shall we? On January 31^st of this year, Dr. Emanuel co-authored a paper that was published in The Lancet. It was titled, “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions.” The summary of the article talks about ethical dilemmas surrounding the allocation of medical resources, the main way that costs are contained in socialized medicine. “Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favoring the worst-off, maximizing total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness.” The summary to the article goes on to say, “How can scarce medical interventions be allocated justly? This paper identifies and evaluates eight simple principles that have been suggested. Although some are better than others, no single principle allocates interventions justly. Rather, morally relevant simple principles must be combined into multi-principle allocation systems. We evaluate three existing systems and then recommend a new one: the complete lives system.”

http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/fulltext

The complete lives system? What exactly does that mean? Well, by reading the article, it is basically saying that young people in their 20s or 30s should receive more health care than someone in their 60s, 70s or 80s and more than an infant. Why? Because the infant has not had the “expense” of schooling, teaching, feeding – all considered “investments” (where have we heard that word before? Oh yeah, Obama uses it all the time) by the parents. The elderly person has benefited from all these “investments,” but has fewer productive years left to contribute to society. That is the mantra of the Marxist. What can an individual contribute? When the philosophy is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” you begin to see why each potential patient is evaluated by what he can contribute. The Marxist needs as many productive people as possible to contribute so that they can provide their “free” services.

But wait, if you don’t take my word for this, let’s look at what Dr. Emanuel says. I will take it right from his article: “Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life.”

This is the same Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel that said most Physicians take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously. The New York Post quotes Dr. Emanuel in a July 24^th, 2009 story, “Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others” (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).”

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm

From The Lancet article which I cite above, here is how Dr. Emanuel defends giving more medical care to young people as opposed to the elderly. “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.” So since you have been 25 once, it is okay to deny health care to you when you are 65. No, that isn’t discrimination at all. This is the man that has a direct line to Obama. Has his ear, if you will on the health care issue (insert big ear joke here.) But this is no laughing matter. If we fail to fight this, then we will all be subject to this type of totalitarian medical rationing.

Right now Obama is scrambling. He more than likely isn’t getting his health care-destroying legislation through before the summer break in Congress. He now has to really ratchet up the pressure on the House and Senate to get what he wants. But there is light at the end of the tunnel. Right now, your Congressman and Senator are going home for their summer break. Many will be having town hall meetings, and other public functions. We must all be aware of these and show up, telling them that we DO NOT WANT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!! This is the time to act and we need to make sure we spread the word. Health care reform is needed. But socialized medicine is not health care reform.

On January 28^th, 2009 President Obama said this about the unemployment crisis: “Most of the money we’re investing as part of this plan will get out the door immediately and go directly to job-creation, generating or saving three to four million new jobs.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/RemarksofPresidentBarackObamaontheEconomy/

Then on February 4^th, 2009, President Obama said this about the economy: “The economic crisis we face is unlike any we’ve seen in our lifetime. It’s a crisis of falling confidence and rising debt, of widely distributed risk and narrowly concentrated reward; a crisis written in the fine print of sub-prime mortgages, on the ledger lines of once mighty financial institutions, and on the pink slips that have upended the lives of so many people across this country and cost the economy 2.6 million jobs last year alone.

“We know that even if we do everything that we should, this crisis was years in the making, and it will take more than weeks or months to turn things around.

But make no mistake: A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future. Millions more jobs will be lost. More businesses will be shuttered. More dreams will be deferred.

And that’s why I feel such a sense of urgency about the economic recovery and reinvestment plan that is before Congress today. With it, we can save or create more than three million jobs, doing things that will strengthen our country for years to come. It’s not merely a prescription for short-term spending — it’s a strategy for long-term economic growth in areas like renewable energy and health care and education.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog_post/new_rules/

But evidently something changed because on April 13^th, 2009 President Obama said this about the economy:

“And because we know that people are hurting right now, and we need to create jobs and get money into people’s pockets right now, we passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the most sweeping economic recovery plan in history: A plan to save or create 3.5 million jobs, putting Americans back to work doing the work America needs done…” And in the same speech, he said this: “This government effort is coming in ahead of schedule and under budget.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/13/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4940515.shtml

And now in July he flip flopped about the economy yet again and said this about the recovery act: “as I made clear at the time it was passed, the Recovery Act was not designed to work in four months – it was designed to work over two years.”

http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8812:weekly-address-president-obama-praises-recovery-act-progress-july-11-2009&catid=88888983:latest-national-news&Itemid=88890099

I got some of these quotes from a very good ad by the GOP. The rest I found on my own from speeches that our President has given. But the GOP ad really puts a spotlight on Obama’s penchant for saying whatever he perceives the public wants to hear at any given moment. This President relies on polls that tell him what to say in order to get his next pet project passed. To see the commercial in its entirety:

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2009/07/18/video-gop-ad-obama-vs-obama-on-the-stimulus/

Obama fancies himself a modern day FDR. So let’s take a look at what FDR’s own Treasury Secretary said about the New Deal and FDR’s spending habits:

“We have tried spending money,” Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau said to the House Ways and Means Committee in the late 1930s. “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I say, after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . and an enormous debt to boot.”

If you or I were deep in debt, had no job and were about to lose everything we worked so hard for, how many economists would advise us to spend more money, even money we don’t have and everything will be fine? How many financial consultants would tell a business that is about to go under that if they only took out a loan and spent more money, and then they would stay afloat? None would. It is crazy to think that we can spend our way out of a personal financial crisis and it is just as crazy to think that America can do the same.

So tell us, Mr. President; which is it? Did you spend us into oblivion in order to create jobs immediately? Or did you load down our children and grand children with enormous debt to put off creating jobs for a while? Is it that you want the temporary results of any massive spending to happen right before the midterm elections? No, I am sure that our President wouldn’t play politics with the livelihood of American citizens. I named this article Obama vs. Obama. Given the two choices, I would rather sit this one out.

What is fear, and why does it affect us so? The process of creating fear starts with a scary stimulus and ends with the fight-or-flight response. It can cause us to run, to fight, to freeze or create other mystifying responses. So exactly what is this powerful emotion that can consume us for brief periods of time?

To quote Brian Maxwell, from his ezine article, “What is Fear? ” he says: “The medical definition of fear is a chain reaction in the brain that starts with stressful stimulus and ends with the release of chemicals that cause a racing heart, fast breathing and energized muscles, among other things, also known as the fight or flight response.” That stimulus could be anything; an evil looking bug, a spider, a gun pointed at you, or Sarah Palin resigning from her position as Governor of Alaska.

Of course Mr. Maxwell didn’t put that part about Sarah Palin in his article. I added it to illustrate how the left views Ms. Palin and what she represents to them. Why is it that she strikes fear into the left? What is it about the former Vice Presidential candidate that bothers the left so much? She represents something they do not like. That is evidenced in the 20 different ethics charges that were brought against her; each one beaten in the court of law at considerable tax payer expense. Let’s examine what she has accomplished and maybe that will give us the answer we are looking for.

In her role as Mayor of Wasilla, she made her political name first known. Now Wasilla, with around 10,000 residents as of 2007, is the fifth largest city in Alaska and is located in the south central part of the state. Upon winning the mayoral race in 1998, Sarah set to work. She reduced her own salary by 10%, consolidated some city departments and created the position of city administrator. An interesting note that shines a light on the type of leadership Sarah Palin provides is that she kept a jar on her desk with all the names of the residents of Wasilla in it and once a week, she would randomly choose a name, call that person and elicit their thoughts on how the town was doing. I think that we need more mayors like this in America with this kind of dedication, no matter their political party. That is real government accountability and transparency.

She cut property taxes by a whopping 75% by using a 2% sales tax increase that was enacted before she took office. She also eliminated business inventory and personal property taxes. She made improvements to city streets and sewers using municipal bonds and increased Police Department funding. When Sarah ran for re-election against the man she beat to win her first term, she got 75% of the vote. The Boston Globe ran a story that quoted a local business owner who credited Sarah with making the town “more of a community … It’s no longer a little strip town that you can blow through in a heartbeat.”

And all this was only as mayor of a small town and only her first term. One can begin to see why the left fears Sarah Palin. Her second term as Mayor of Wasilla was also successful, seeing her bring to fruition the Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex. An eminent domain issue had to be dealt with; however, it was built on time and under budget and for only a half percent sales tax increase. Due to term limits, she was limited to running for only two consecutive terms as Mayor of Wasilla. So she set her sights on the state capitol.

After an unsuccessful run for Lieutenant Governor in 2002, she chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission as Ethics Supervisor. She resigned in 2004 citing unethical practices by her Republican colleagues. She filed charges against them and essentially cleaned house.

In 2006 Sarah ran and won the state Gubernatorial Seat. During her tenure she doubled state revenues. Yes, you read that right; she DOUBLED state revenues to $10 billion. And that is without a state sales tax or a state income tax. She ran on a platform of clean government and delivered, even selling a state owned business jet for $2.1 million dollars.

Yes, it is easy to see why the left fears Sarah Palin. She is the quintessential conservative candidate. And now that she has left office, there are many questions as to why she did so.

·        Money? The speaking circuit can be quite profitable, as everyone knows.

·        Power? Well, giving up the top position in a state is not quite doing that.

·        The ever-popular “run for President?” Who knows, and more importantly, who cares? It is ultimately up to Sarah to reveal that to the American public in her own good time.

But, regardless of what one thinks of her - neither she, nor anyone else could effectively build a campaign for President from the great state of Alaska. It is just too geographically removed from the mainland. Add to the fact that now that she is a civilian, the muckrakers who want to press made up ethics charges against her now have to pony up money, and one can see why she did what she did. It was a smart move for more than one reason.

She is intelligent, holds traditional conservative views, is pleasing to the eye and has a presence on the stage or behind the podium as the case may be that we have not seen in this nation since Ronald Reagan. That being said, I think the reason she came off less than stellar during the campaign is twofold.

1.      The mainstream media gave her a very rough time. Waiting like vultures to pick on each and every word she misspoke. For example, she told a grade schooler, I think the child was 8 years old, a very simplified version of what the Vice President does. The media took that and ran with it, saying she didn’t even know what her job would be if McCain won. On the other hand, Obama said he had been to “all 57 states.” The media was strangely silent on that. Imagine if you will that Palin had made that faux-pas. It has been said that she was picked from relative obscurity and thrust into the limelight. A difficult proposition no matter which side of the aisle you sit on. Due to McCain waiting so long, she basically had to hit the ground running.

2.      First hand accounts at the McCain rallies testified to the political star power that Palin wields. McCain’s rallies swelled in number and he was quoted as saying, “The response to her has been overwhelming, it’s been incredible. She’s ignited America.” I believe that McCain’s handlers actually became wary of that, and therefore they joined in the left’s efforts to malign her. To his detriment, McCain did not put a stop to it as he should have. It would have made him look like a leader and actually, I think, scored points with the GOP base.

The left is still maligning Sarah Palin and this only proves that she is a person that they fear. Saleem Rana said in his ezine article, “How Fear Inhibits Self-Expression and Personal Growth ” that “Fear left unchecked can lead to all kinds of neurosis and inhibitions.” And that “the reaction to fear is so extreme that something is actually created to fear.”

The left is in danger of pushing their hatred of Sarah Palin too far. Because to go back to the fear article I cited at the beginning of this essay, the left needs to remember the Law of Attraction, which states that “Excessive focus on a feared event will attract to us exactly the event which we fear.” In other words: what we focus on we create. So keep it up, far left. You are helping to forge if not a great conservative Presidential candidate, then surely a great conservative voice.