The Easiest Concept to understand on Earth

Not all of our current problems are simple to understand or deal with, but some things really are. Now I know that nuance is a sacrament to the liberal elite, but sometimes things are simple human nature, and are time tested truths. You know things like when people constantly put others down, its to try to overcome for their low self esteem? Well, here is one such truth that we all need to understand: the thugs-in-chief, despotic, sociopathic, tyrants (that unfortunately for mankind are recycled and reincarnated into new bodies through the centuries) only understand strength vs weakness. They seek to dominate others, and their ambition for this domination is only bound by the fear that someone else is stronger than them and will call their bluff. In the past we understood this because we lived in a world of greater moral clarity. We taught children to "never start a fight but always end it". We taught kids that if bullies punched you, you punch them back harder, lest they become a perpetual victim to them. Now we'd rather try to understand the bully and teach the kids that violence is never the answer. Except that sometimes it just is...or at least the threat of it. It is simple human nature that for some people, the only way to deter their bad behavior is with fear of a severe consequence. (If this were not true, why would we need laws and prisons?) You would think that secularists who embrace Darwin's "survival of the fittest" would understand this. Instead, for some reason, many of them think the world has changed drastically over the last 50 years into a place were a global peace utopia is actually possible.

I see signs that the world is going to be a more dangerous place, because the bullies of the world think, honestly, that President Obama is weak on Foreign policy. Normally, this would not impact us directly or immediately. At most, we would end up getting involved in defending an ally that someone decided to invade or attack ..but in today's world of terrorism on our soil, we may see exactly how much respect our enemies give to the diplomacy of supplication. I hope I am wrong, but I fear I'm right.

For all the disagreements I had with Bush on Domestic Policy, I stand behind his war on terror. (or case in point, should I say "overseas contingency operation?") And I do know that Obama has not greatly changed Bush's policy, but perception is reality. Much to the delight of many on the left, Obama has spoken to the world in platitudes of humility and peace, and a new type of American Diplomacy...and what decent person wouldn't prefer that? But what about his more nefarious audience? Remember, those afore mentioned thugs of the world that hear only "strength" or "weakness"? What do they hear between the lines of these speeches? In my opinion, It would actually be better if Obama spoke in the tough language of Bush, and quietly changed some of his policies, than it is to speak in appeasing and weak language, and quietly keep alot of Bush's policies. Forget comparisons to Bush. There are several great strong leaders that were well liked that could serve as his model for foreign policy...FDR, Kennedy, Reagan, Churchill, etc. Its not as though he's boxed in with either being "like Bush" or "the opposite of Bush"...talk about a simplistic false paradigm! The leader of the free world should be feared, not by his own people, or peace loving people of the world...but by the Ahmadinejads, and the Castros, and the Gadaffis of the world. That fear should be great enough to deter their ambitions without action, and that is how the world remains a safer place. The international community who so hated Bush's "cowboy diplomacy", may soon pine for the stability of a stronger hand of leadership. For example, The Australianran this article a couple days ago: Lots of People Love Obama, but Does Anyone in the World Really Fear Him?

Without doubt, Bush was not loved by the world...maybe we cant have both love and fear, but if we cant, I would prefer to have a Leader that the right people fear over someone the Europeans adore. This reminds me of this quote

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill

The great irony is, while the despots of Today have more in common with the universally shunned/hated dictators of the past than they do with modern western society, we give them the podium of legitimacy at UN; a body which that was established for the sole purpose of preventing the atrocities committed by their "brothers in evil" of the past. In today's moral relativism, I really think Adolph Hitler would have a place at the UN General Assembly. Even worse, some group somewhere would no doubt justify and defend him, and of course, point to America as the real root of all evil. In the modern upside down world we live in, it would be said: if only America were different and better, Hitler would not be so evil..i mean bad...i mean, not good...i mean different from us.

What a leader looks like

It is not courageous to pander to the thugs of the world, to buddy up to those who live to takes away the rights and liberties of others, to serenade them with sugary poems full of everything they want to hear. It IS courageous to stand up, and stand apparently alone as a TINY nation, and speak the cold, hard, unsexy truth about evil.

Here is the Text of the best speech at the UN General Assembly this year, given by a REAL leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. I wish it would have been given by our President, instead of the cold, un-American, uninspiring, shameful drivel of a speech he gave.

It seems as though we (Americans) have the ideological love child of Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter's leading us (using the world "leading" loosely), and Israel has ideological love-child of Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan leading them. Since liberals are sooooo much "smarter" than us dumb hicks that call ourselves conservatives (I know this because Bill Maher and all the other lefties keep telling me so)..perhaps they can read some history books and tell me, which set of the afore mentioned leaders yielded more long term peace? Which set was victorious in the face of evil? Which set was in line with George Washington at the first annual address to congress on January 8th 1790 when he said: "To be prepared for war is the most effectual means of preserving peace?" And which set of "leaders" weakened their respective countries, encouraging their adversaries who like every good bully, smelled their cowardice and weakness a mile away, and exercised every opportunity to advance their self-appointed power, leaving the life and liberties of countless innocent people under the sole of their despotic shoes? Better to ask it this way...which of the afore mentioned leaders had to clean up the mess that the the other set left behind? Tyrants speak one language, the language of strength and weakness...they do not honor their promises, their treaties might as well be written on toilet paper, and they make fools out of those who put their trust in them. They look at America (& her allies), assess the strength of her leaders (or lack their of), and act accordingly. If they see weakness, they seize upon it; if they see strength and they stay in their play pins. Must we really go through the pain and suffering of learning this lesson again?

Short Term Memory Loss or Long Term Denial?

If you watch shows like Real Time with Bill Maher, or you read sites like the Huffington Post, you'll hear a resounding theme with regards to the populist uprising that has swept the country, and that is that those who oppose Obama are "stupid", "crazy", "wingnuts", and/or "racist". Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer said the town hall objectors were "un-american." Bill Maher said we are too "stupid" to know whats best for us, so our President should "drag us to" healthcare reform, as would say, a dictator. And there is Maureed Dodd who claims that "Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it." The two lines of defense are equally false and ignorant of very recent history.

Let me first say that I cannot pretend to know the hearts of all men, but to dismiss an entire movement based on presumptions of nefarious/racist motives, is itself ignorant as well as detrimental to your own cause.

Let me first address the charge of “stupid.” To me this smells of arrogant elitism. It comes across as if liberals are saying, “If you are not an Ivy League Educated coastal hipster, then you are stupid.” This should be offensive to really anyone who doesn’t have a degree that costs 6 figures. Perhaps it is easier to attack conservatives as "dumb" than it is to defend your own arguments, but I'm growing bored and weary of being called stupid because I dare question The President and his obviously superior ideas for our country. Intelligence is not the sole property of the Democrat Party, nor is it only manifested in liberal enclaves were people theorize if Castro is less evil than Republicans. Nor is intelligence rubber stamped by a degree from an overpriced liberal university (Bush went two of them, remember?). The brilliant men who founded this country were mostly self-educated. Ben Franklin whose vast wealth of knowledge, writings, wisdom, service, and innovation has left an indelible mark on all of human history, dropped out of school and became an autodidact by reading as many books as he could. I'm quite confident than none of the elitist smarty-pants who write op-eds in dying newspapers can come close to the genius found in one pinky finger of a Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson.

Here are but a few of the many quotes of Ben Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote”

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic”

“Where Liberty dwells, there is my country.”

“God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country.”

These are the types of quotes you see written on the handmade signs at Tea Parties and Town Halls…the words of great founders, and intellectual powerhouses of men who framed the single greatest basis for government the world has ever seen: the constitution. They were not saints, but they were the perfect storm of genius whose destiny was to build a country around the idea of self government and liberty that would eventually spread throughout a world where only despotic, imperial tyranny had previously ruled. Conservatives today are reclaiming the ideas of the founding principles of this country. These ideas and the freedom they created changed the trajectory of the world. We don't pretend to be the inventors of natural law, nor did the founders; but as they did, we acknowledge the wisdom that the founders saw in people like Cicero, Adam Smith, John Locke, etc.. and to re-enlighten ourselves on the brilliance of the system that was originally created. Elites have done everything they can to disparage and discredit our founders and their ideas, but the truth is, its these very ideas that we need to fight for the most. They are uniquely American and should be embedded into the fabric of our society starting in elementary school. Unfortunately, principles such as limited government, the rights of the people, the separation of powers, Government as the protector not giver of human rights, emphasis on strong states rights, free market ideals, free speech, individualism, objectivism are no where to be found in the education of our youth. So while people who think they are smarter continue look down their noses with disgust at the "stupid" conservatives whose outnumber liberals 2 to 1, I would argue that the average center right American is probably more well read in terms of founding documents than even the most enlightened liberal.

As far as the charge that we are “crazy wingnuts”, it seems that the elites have been taken aback by the passion of the right. First of all, since when did passion in political activism become so criticized by the left? For the last 40 years we have all seen the passion of the left, and it has been idealized by the media and hollywood over and over again. Now all the sudden, when conservatives are passionate, somehow there is something for everyone to fear. Well there's nothing for citizens to fear, but there certainly is something for the government to fear, and there always should be! Perhaps you've heard this quote "When the people fear the government, that is tyranny, when the government fears the people, that is liberty." -Thomas Jefferson.

It also seems as though, the media tries to pick out the most extreme fringe and act as though they are examples of the entire right, yet they do not do that with the fringe on the left. One popular example of real Wingnutatry (is that a word?) is the “birther” movement. First of all, everyone from Glenn beck and Ann Coulter to John McCain have denounced the birthers from the outset, as have I. This conspiracy seems to have died down now, but its still used as a way to discredit the entire conservative uprising. Well what about the 9/11 truthers that I still have to hear 8 years later after the fact, who spit on the graves of the 3000 dead by making a mockery of that tragedy? Certainly they are making significantly CRAZIER and more enduring claims about 9/11 being an inside job. What is more outlandish? The idea that Obama was born in the country his dad was from and it was covered up, or the idea that a President who was supposedly the dumbest man on earth, orchestrated the greatest cover-up of all time to start a war? No, sorry, the 9/11 truthers movement is by far the craziest conspiracy theory since the Reptilians. (look it up).

Birthers and their craziness aside, There really is nothing looney or nutty about this populist uprising; people are simply tired of the government over-reach in both parties and are for the first time ever, doing what liberals do….protest, let their voices be heard, call themselves “radicals” in the way that 60s activists did and were embraced for it.

There is a double standard…when a liberal is a radical, like say William Ayers (who used bombs to make his point), its endearing and courageous…they are made professors of institutions that we respect. They are not called crazy or dangerous; on the contrary, movies are made about them, directed by eternally nostolgic baby boomer hippies. Hollywood loves to show only the good, righteous, and peaceful intentions behind the counter culture revolution that raged against the machine in the 60s. Radical leaders like Che Guevara are all but idolized by the establishment of the left, while activism on the right is dismissed categorically as “wingnut”, "lunacy", "crazy", "fill in the blank synonym for crazy".

The irony in all of this is, for the first time conservatives are actually deliberately using the tactics the left always uses. This explains why it probably seems so ridiculous to them. What it does not explain, is why they don't recongize their own playbook being used (very effectively) against them. By the way, radical political activism is ridiculous (as laid out in "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinksy), and conservatives are the first to admit it. This is a case of demonstrating absurdity by holding up the proverbial mirror, and the bonus is, its actually quite effective. Maybe conservatives should have done this years ago to turn the tables and give liberals a little dose of their own medicine. Amazingly, even with all that superior intelligence, the elite, costal, Harvard grad crowd seems completely ignorant to the fact that conservatives have hijacked the very methods that liberals have successfully used for decades.

Finally, the charge of Racism needs to be addressed. I’ve heard people say that Racism is the ONLY explanation for the kind of opposition Obama has received. That calls of “Nazi” and “Hitler” as well as efforts to paint him as illegitimate, are actually fueled by white America's veiled racism towards a black President. This is where I don’t know if Democrats have short term Memory Loss are simply in Denial of the very recent history of George W. Bush’s presidency. I went to several counter protests during his early years and I saw all of those accusations and far worse, even though the media did not point out the abundance of offensive and radical signs at those rallies.

Here are a few of the ones I found doing a 5 minute Google search. I've organized them into 4 themes by color: (*warning, vulgar images and language*):

Green: use of vulgarity and/or encouragement of violence towards the President.

Yellow: Bush=Hitler/Nazi (it really is funny when liberals get bent out of shape over nazi imagery, since they are the authors of calling the President a nazi)

Blue: a collection to ask yourself what the NY Times would say about these signs if they were at Tea Parties. (these are, in my opinion, the most disrespectful, juvenile and ridiculous)

Red: personal attacks on the President

How short term the memory must be to forget the visceral attacks that were waged at Bush so recently! If Bush would have been a minority, would these attacks have been based on Race? If Condeleza Rice were to have been President with the same policies as Bush, would it be racist and sexist for liberals to protest her? Do conservatives protest Pelosi because she's a woman, and Harry Reid because he's Mormon? Or, even more telling, if there were a black President who was fiscally and socially conservative, do you think that right leaning americans would be protesting? Could it not just be that conservatives have policy differences with the President? Could it not be that they believe the things he himself has said about his very leftist views, and are worried that he is trying to steer the country farther left than ever and have decided to take a stand to try to stop liberalism for once in their lives?

Oh and as far as an elected official calling the President a Liar on the house floor? How about claiming the President likes to watch soldiers die for his own amusement...on the house floor?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xa5A5yW21I

How about the senate Majority Leader calling Bush a “liar and a looser”? http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Reid_called_Bush_liar_stood_by_comment.html

What about when people rallied behind a reporter who threw a shoe at our President?

Ok, so what about the attempt to decalre that Obama is not a legitamate president because of his birth certificate controversy? That has to be racists right? Hmm, looks as though, once again there is a short term memory lapse. Perhaps you will recall the attempt to illigitamize President Bush with the “selected not elected” charge that was echoed for 8 years..even after Bush won his relection by a definitive number in the popular and electoral count. http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hillaNWKry.htm

How about the uproar that parents didn’t want Obama to speak to their kids…that had to be race driven right? I’m so tired of explaining this to people who are suppose to be smarter than all of us. So here’s my take on that if you care to read it. http://griffisgazette.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-misstep-by-obama-misunderstood.html

The reality is, its not a racial issue. Even Obama has said so. It also wouldn’t have been a sexism issue for Hillary if she were President. This is simply the time we live in, politically…conservatives are taking a page from the rule book of liberals and doing a one up.

I have been consistent with my previous belief that The President deserves respect. I said so when people treated Bush disrespectfully, and while I always voice my dissent, I do not condone being disrespectful to the President. Those people, however, who did treat Bush so disrespectfully for 8 years should be ashamed of themselves for being so inconsistent now to demand that conservatives play by a different set of rules than they play by. They should have lead by example when they didn't agree with the President in office.

This opposition to Obama is purely political policy dissent. Political differences are the driving force motivating people out of their homes and into the streets. But if you feel better finding a lazy, overplayed ad hominem to blame, then by all means, go ahead and dismiss it as ignorant and racist, it only helps the conservative cause and hurts yours.

Who we are: Reflections on 9/11

A 9/11 has never passed without my attempt to learn from it with another year of wisdom and distance to assist me in processing and analyzing it. 9/11 is the day I wish we could all press the pause button and call a temporary truce on all the ways in which we divide ourselves. So as Ghandi says, I will be the change I wish to see in the world, and press that pause button today.

8 years have gone by since we stood helpless, shocked, and heartbroken..frozen in time in front our televisions watching the towers crash down, and the heroes rise up; 8 years since we collectively mourned the loss yet unknown numbers of our brethren.

On that day, like no other, we saw the world for what really is: a place of great evil, and a place of great compassion; a place of unforgiving hate, but also of unyielding love; a place where small men cling to grudges that divide us, while great men cling to hope and unify us. The mask slipped and for a moment, we all saw that there ARE absolutes, and there are two opposite forces at work; and we all understood that good men must stand against evil, or else relinquish himself to it.

On that day we also saw who we are. We became the national equivalent of the family who bickers constantly, but pulls together like no other when tragedy strikes. We let go of the divisions between us, and cried for people we had never met. We gave blood for people who voted different than us. We prayed for people who live lifestyles we don't understand. We held hands with people who didn't worship the same way we did. We stood behind a President we may not have voted for. We hung flags out for weeks on our cars, at our homes, in our cubicles... we watched the firefighters raise a dusty tattered flag to a rod from the collapsed Tower, and our hearts filled with pride that flowed out of our eyes and rolled down our cheeks. We stood all together as one people, one nation, one heartbroken family.

This is who we are, though it doesn't seem like it as we stand here today, in 2009, more bitterly divided than seemingly ever before. But I know that the true character of a family is not defined by the times where luxury allows for petty divisions, but rather when the storms roll in, and the waters rise, and the family pulls together without question, without asking, and without hesitation. This is who we have always been, and it is who we still are underneath the layers of sibling rivalry, false paradigms, and turf wars.

It doesn't take another attack to bring us back to that truth. We have this day every year, September 11th, to refresh our minds, to retrace those steps, to replace ourselves in the shoes we wore that day. We should never allow anyone to diminish the true meaning of this dark day in our history, even though its painful to relive. Rather we should embrace the feelings and the memories of that day, not to play on our fears, but to remind us of what this world is, and who we are in it.

I never want to be callused to emotions of 9/11, and I hope the tears still fall at the 50 anniversary as they do on this 8th anniversary. And above all, I hope we still remember who we were that day is who we always will be, a family whose unity is its greatest strength.


9.11.01 Nunquam Alieno


"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." ~Martin Luther King

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."
~Bill Clinton

"Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept the free; we kept the faith" ~Ronald Reagan.

My Rebuttle to the joint session of Congress on Healthcare

As usually happens when his back is against the wall, and mounting opposition is shifting the tides against him, The President set out to quell the storms, calm the mutiny, unite the troops & defeat the enemy with the best and most used tool in his arsenal...his persuasive words. And as usual, when it most matters, he not only performed a technical victory, but was given another stroke of his seemingly unending good luck by way of an unprecedented heckling by an overzealous republican. Yes I will certainly address that in a later blog, one thing at a time!

I listened to the whole speech, at times rewinding to listen again, and also taking notes. I'm not sure who would care to hear my take on a rebuttal of this argument, but since the Republican Response is so very inadequate to address such a powerful orator, I'm hoping that some may find a new perspective through the lens I look through.

Let me first address the issue of Obama's words verses his actions. During last years campaign, there were a couple of times where I found myself what i called at the time "intoxicated" by some of Obama's speeches and bipartisan rhetoric. Namely, the forum he and McCain held with Rick Warren, and during the DNC, when he accepted his party's nomination. The DNC speech was given on the eve of the Sarah Palin announcement, and it was so good that I found myself sad to be excluded from the movement, a side-linner to History, an irrelevant square in a hip new age. I told a coworker at the time (who supported Obama) that his if speech had intoxicated an avowed conservative such as myself, so I could only imagine what impact it would have on a liberal or moderate. I 'sobered up' long before the November election of course, but when he won, I wondered if my concerns about his radical ideology, his lack of experience, his chicago style political history were irrational, and I would be shown to have been wrong in opposing him. Months later when the work of his Presidency began in full, I saw that everything I most hoped that he was genuine about, turned out to be fancy campaign rhetoric and nothing more. I saw that He will say things that sound good to the masses to get something done, then later when he goes back on those words and is confronted with what he previously said, like a good lawyer, he finds a technicality to wiggle out of those words, or turn their meanings into other things. Since seeing that on multiple occasions, I have lost faith that what he says is straight talk, or that he intends to keep his word in controversial issues.

That being said, I'd I will now address the speech itself.

The President started out his address saying we are the only wealthy nation that does not have healthcare for all. Well for starters, not having health insurance, is not the same is not having health care. The President uses misleading words well, like a lawyer..because he is a lawyer. Secondly, we are different from the world in many many ways. We are the only wealthy nation that has the death penalty, we are the only nation that was founded on the idea of Representative democracy. We are the only nation whose founding documents declare our rights to be from God, and limit Government's role to protecting those rights. We are the only nation that achieved this amount of wide spread wealth and success in a mere 200 years. We are the only nation to have put a man on the moon. We are the only nation that has has invented cars, radios, planes, the atomic bomb, spaceships, rolled toilet paper, photographic film, skyscrapers, cell phones,baseball, the computer, the internet...and in terms of medical breakthroughs anthesthesia, penicillin, chemotherapy, heart-lung machine, CPR, ketamine, glucose meter, balloon cathe, heart transplantation, fetal surgery, DNA discovery, i can go on and on and on. The very freedom to create things, and yes profit from them here, has unleashed an avalanche of discovery that has advanced all the other nations, which now benefit from the work done here. Imagine what we, as in all of mankind, might have if all the Western societies had our system..imagine what medical revolutions we would see. Conversely, if we had gone down the same path they did 50-100 years ago, our medical system would be a mere shadow of what we have today in terms of breakthrough. consider this quote "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." – Albert Einstein

The next part of Obama's speech went into some personal sad stories about people's struggles with our system. What I dont understand is why he didn't also talk about the sad stories in other systems as a reason for never going down the single payer route...such as this Story in the UK about how doctors refused to render care to a premature baby because he was born 2 days too early, so he died after 2 hours fighting alone for his life. Or how about the unbelievable stories about people who are put on the "death path" because doctors have decided they have a short time to live, so they can remove water and food to "humanely" send them along the path that is inevitable for them. What many fail to realize is that there are major differences in how Americans value life, fight for it at all costs, and the emphasis we put on the limitations of medicine verses faith in the miraculous. Many a doctor has said that there is little hope, no hope, etc..only to be proven wrong when a person miraculously recovers. We've all heard stories like this. So we are not ready for any system that would leave these decisions to doctors who would give up all hope and restrict nutrition to our loved ones. (I am not saying that Obama's plan does this either, I'm just emphasizing that it is important to point out the flaws in other systems also.) In the UK and systems like it, there is no such opportunity given..once it is pronounced that you are without hope, then the wheels are in motion to make sure that is a self fulfilling prophesy. There really is NO medical system in the world that puts as much into prolonging life as the US system. As far as all the bemoaning and trashing of our morals in pointing out the flaws of our Medical system, I am proud to say that we do not need a medical "ethics" board to tell us that a premature baby should be given treatment to help him survive, or when to stop giving food to someone who is fighting for their life.

Another thing I took issue with is the President's repeated claim that we spend more on healthcare than any other country. I would like to know, exactly who the "we" is. Is he saying the government spends more? Or that we the people plus the government spend more combined on healthcare than other nations? If it is the latter, it would make sense that we spend more as a whole because, 1. we have the money to do so, and 2. we are one of the largest/most populous wealthy countries. How can you compare a country like England with their 60 million citizens, with our robust 350 million? We also spend more on cars, on TVs, on Education, on illegal drugs, on really everything, because we have the largest GDP. But what concern is it of the government, what we privately spend our money on? So here are some clear facts about our health care spending: it's about 15.3% of our GDP, which is second in the UN countries. Of that spending, here's the breakdown 31% goes to hospital care, 21% goes to physician services, 10% to pharmaceuticals, 8% nursing homes, 7% to administrative costs, and 23% to diagnostics, pharmacies, malpractice, etc. (expect that administrative cost to skyrocket under a government plan). according to this report the top 1% of the population accounts for 27% of all spending and the top 5% accounts for 50% of all spending..in other words, people that would be spending that amount anyway, because they wouldn't be on the new public plan. So who is this 5%? Who are the single largest group in terms of spending? Mostly its seniors. So tell me, how do we bring down "our" spending if we aren't going to spend less on seniors?

The next point I'd like to address is the President's clear and repeated claim that you will not be 'required' to take the public option if you are happy with your private insurance. Once again, this is classic political double speak. Technically it is true...the government is not going to force you to switch over. However, if your employer decides to drop insurance as a benefit, you will be involuntarily dropped into the public plan. There is a fine if the employer does that, but it is still FAR less expensive than the cost of your health insurance, so when the going gets tough, they may decide to pay the fine and put you into the public plan. Here is what fatcheck.org has said. So while you won't be forced onto the plan by the government, it is possible that your employer could force you onto it.

One thing the President discussed was the new requirements on insurance that they can't drop you or deny you coverage, and that they will have to limit out of pocket costs and cover screenings. This is my reaction to this. I DO NOT think the government should tell businesses how to run their business. But I also do not think we should have insurance for routine medical care, anymore than we should have car insurance covering every oil change and fill up. Having insurance cover every little thing is one of the reasons costs are artificially high. Look at two sections of the industry where insurance does not cover the costs: Abortion and Lasic surgery. In the case of abortion, the costs have stayed very affordable over decades, and Lasic surgery keeps getting better and cheaper at the same time. (Full disclosure, I am Pro-life) (and I am pro lasic eye surgery.) If we were all paying out of pocket, as we do when we take our dogs to the vet, then those routine costs would be much cheaper..and we could have coverage for catastrophic instances, and/or chronic ailments.

When the President declares with resolute conviction that he will not sign a bill that adds "ONE DIME to the deficit now or ever"...this reminds me of when he said on the campaign trail that he would go through the budget "Line by Line" to eliminate wasteful spending. We all know that was empty rhetoric, this is also. There simply is NO way to fund this without adding to the deficit. If we really had a trillion dollars in waste and abuse in Medicare then #1, why would we want to give the government another section of healthcare to run? and #2, why haven't we already eliminated that, or do so with or without this plan? The CBO has been on record that this will add over a Trillion dollars to the deficit. Click here to read the letter the CBO sent to Charlie Rangel the chairman of the ways and means committee.

a few more things:

~The President mentioned an insurance exchange and how options keep costs down...so why not pass a law that says you can buy insurance across state lines and open up a true free market instead of this false market with more and more government chokehold?

~The President said he wants to hold insurance companies accountable. Why should we trust government/politicians to keep anyone honest? They dont even hold themselves accountable.

• As you read this, the man who writes our tax code has been guilty of cheating on his taxes, and yet he still holds his chairmanship of that powerful committee.
• elected officials are known to have received sweetheart mortgages from the very companies who gave out bogus loans and received government bailout money only to turn around and pay out bonus money to top executives. not one thing has been done about that
• congressmen fund waste and skim money from the public coffers for pet projects and then
• raise their own salaries even when their approval is in the single digits.
• congressmen have gotten away with scandal after scandal, thievery after thievery, and then they want to be the sanctimonious hypocrites who keep a private company honest?

~The President said that this plan will be self-sufficient and rely on its own premiums.

• social security and medicare were also promised to do this, yet we know that both will be insolvent in the next two decades. How in the world does a government who has promised but not delivered on this so many times before, expect us to believe it this time? Does anyone remember the parable of the talents?

~During the campaign McCain warned that Obama's plan would mandate coverage and fine those who do not have it. Now we know that was true. The fines will vary depending on your income, but anywhere from $1000-$3800 dollars a year will be fined, oh and by the way, it only applies to legal citizens. Illegals will be exempt from this mandate.

1. how is this constitutional?
2. by what authority does the government who is by the people and for the people suppose they can mandate that we purchase medical insurance?

~the President said our healthcare problem is a deficit problem. I say our deficit problem is in large part due to the government entitlements in the past. Our obligations for medicare and social security will bring our country to its knees within my lifetime. How can any intellectually honest person reason that we give out another large entitlement we cannot afford?

~The President argued that having to pay for Insurance is one of the reasons our automakers can't be competitive in the world. So in 2001 when Ford was the #1 grossing company in the world, was it not providing insurance? No, I contend that our auto makers can't be competitive because the unions will not make the necessary concessions in time, when things get tough. non-union companies can trim the fat without recourse (such as Toyota), but our automakers have their hands tied. And if Insurance is the reason they aren't competitive, is he advocating that the companies drop insurance as a benefit?

~The President spoke of a veiled reference to tort reform. Make no mistake, he is not advocating wide spread tort reform, but rather a study to be commissioned in a small area, that will likely lead little or no changes to our ridiculous american lottery called the Tort System. This is nothing more than a half measure.

This is my basic overview of the President's address. Its long, but believe it or not, it is abridged. I do not have all the answers, nor do I claim to, but I think its worth an honest look at each issue. Feel free to voice your opinions. We will not be able to go back and change the apparatus once it is in place, so having an open and honest discussion is the right and proper thing to do.

Another Misstep by Obama, misunderstood by his supporters

As I write, I am in a hotel room in Nashville on vacation. Being away from a home base for a couple of days in a row, I feel the days news builds, and snowballs, and gets away from me. The Iphone for all of its virtues, cannot keep me in the loop in the same way as a laptop, at best I can read a mere fraction of my normal daily reading. As I've been on this trip, once such snowball has formed into a massive avalanche of a controversy, and as usual, things have become beyond twisted.

On Tuesday before we left for Memphis, I read an article about the President's attempt to "rebound" after his brutal August. Part of that plan included a seemingly innocuous plan to speak to schoolchildren. My initial thought from the article was, "thats a safe and positive route to go". I was wrong on both points. The next article I read had the link to the text of the educational aides that would be distributed to the teachers. Part of the literature included an exercise in which America's school children would be asked things like "what does the president do?", "what does the president want me to do?" and "what can i do to help the president?"...hmm... ok, so instead of askin how to "help my country", or "help my school", or "help my community" or "help my family", or "help myself". ...they are asked how to "help my President"??? This seemed very very unsettling to me. I know I'm not his biggest fan, but I actually thought this was something that any intellectually honest person would understand as alarming. I was wrong again. From gazing facebook and liberal blogs, I'm disappointed to once again be reduced to a "racist" and an "idiot" for having a problem with the President addressing the nation's school children. As if that is the only reason people are upset, just the fact that he is speaking to the kids. Nevermind that I, and no doubt countless others, were totally fine with the concept of a presidential address to schoolchildren about non-partisan uniting themes such as "staying in school", and "doing your best". But like me, they probably felt that enlisting their children in a partisan way to "help the president" crossed the line of propriety.

If you really cannot see anything wrong with this, then imagine for a moment the President was someone who you not only do not support, but whose policies you think are very bad for the country. Now imagine that this President was asking your children/all children to think of ways to "help him" with those very policies you think are bad/wrong for the country. Do you really think that would have been ok with you?

Therein lies the problem. Had Obama and/or his administration left his ego and his political agenda out of it from the beginning, this would have been a Win/Win for Obama, and a much needed moment of unity in our country. Please be clear about the real reason for the outrage...its not simply that he wants to talk to school children...its not because he's black. It is because politics was injected into the equation, and now, along with feeling for years that the education system was a vehicle to indoctrinate children with liberal policies, parents now do not trust that their children will not be indoctrinated to policies they disagree with.

I have heard the President has retracted the exercise that was most alarming, good move..but a better move would have been to not include it in the first place.

one more thing...It did not help Obama's cause at all that during the same week as this controversy, some schools decided to show kids this video that talks about pledging to do things like "stem cell research" and to "not give people the finger while driving" and to "pledge to be a servant to President Barack Obama"