March 18, 2009

Before we discuss nationalized health care, can we set some ground rules first? Let’s dispense with the following lines of argument…

The U.S. Health Care system is the laughing stock of the world! Uh-oh. If we are the laughing stock that must mean they think we’re stupid! Enough with the amateur psychology. Anybody with an ounce of sense could care less what some effete European thinks about us. You might as well just double-dog-dare us into nationalized health care.

I have many friends who are Canadian and they love their health care system. This reminds me of the teenager who brags to his buddies of how he lost his virginity to a Canadian girl. Or the rock band that sucks here in America but swears they’re huge in Belgium. Yes, the Canadians love their health care so much they come in droves across the border to America when they need urgent medical care. You would have to live in a cave to have not heard the horror stories of nationalized health care. But you know, even if all these countries had nothing but pleasant stories to tell about their health care experience, it has little relevance to us. Do you know the population of your average European country compared to the population of the US? You could not even begin to compare apples to apples.

So, now that that’s out of the way, we can begin talking about America and her needs. tick…tock…tick…tock. Let’s begin the debate. tick…tock…tick…tock. Okay I am ready to debate. tick…tock…tick…tock. While we were waiting for the debate the libs yelled “Suckers!” and continued the back-dooring of nationalized health care with the recently passed stimulus package. Almost $100 billion goes to various states to bail-out their Medicare and Medicaid programs.

The stimulus package also has funding for health information technology. That is just a fancy way of saying they plan to computerize everyone’s medical records into one big database. Seems like a good idea right? I mean, all we would have to do is spend the billions to install all of this technology in every hospital and medical practice in the country, staff an entire IT department in each hospital, make sure all systems can link with one another, agree on common medical definitions (I read on the web there are several hundred definitions for “unstable angina”), develop a way to add new medical advancements into the computers, and train all of the staff on the new systems. Easy as pie!

Now we are up and running. And then comes the fly in the ointment of every liberal idea – the law of unintended consequences. You can think of all kinds of problems that may arise. Here’s one: at the touch of a button Big Brother will know about your drug rehab, your penile implant, that flaming case of gonorrhea…you get the idea. But rest assured, your privacy is safe in the hands of the government. The end game is to have all of that information in one central place so that when some GS5 public servant is determining whether you should get your kidney transplant or not, she can see your medical history.

Understand that every move the government makes now on health care (such as the recent expansion of the Schip program) is just their way of progressing nationalized health care without having to fight over it. The eye-popping budget that was just announced puts $634 billion into a healthcare reserve fund to save for the start-up costs of universal health care. Another lock-box like the Social Security fund? Yeah right. It won’t be long before this healthcare reserve fund is raided in the name of one national emergency or another.

What really angers me about this whole thing is we will be FORCED to be a part of this train wreck. You will not be able to opt-out of universal health care. No matter what they say, they cannot allow that. Otherwise, the productive and healthy members of society would opt out and who would subsidize the others? Moreover, it is just the nature of people that they would opt-out until they got sick and then they would opt-in. Therefore, individual health care WILL be mandated. They could just tax us to pay for it all, but my guess is they will tax us and require each of us to have insurance.

They will enforce this by fining us if we don’t insure. “It’s no big deal”, they will say, “you are required to pay car insurance already, so this is no different.” Wrong again. First off, not everyone is required to have auto insurance, just the people who choose to drive. Second, the reason we are forced to have liability insurance is to protect the others on the road. It is one of the few legitimate functions of government to protect your private property rights against the actions of another citizen. Unless, of course, you are hit by one of the millions of illegal aliens, in which case you are screwed.

In today’s America, health care is a right, whether it violates the Constitution or not. So, the train has left the station and it is barreling down the track. Like it or not, we are all along for the ride.



March 18, 2009

Last Friday there were “Tea Party” protests in a lot of major cities. The kids and I attended the protest in Houston. Not surprisingly, the media would later understate the attendance, but even so, in the entire city of Houston only about 350-400 people came out to protest the radical changes taking place in our country. I must admit, at first I was a little disappointed by this. During the Tea Party, while talking with a nice fellow, I mentioned I had never been to a protest in my life. He hadn’t either. This got me to thinking…with the exception of the abortion clinic protesters they always splash all over the news, how often do you see a group of conservatives protesting? Hardly ever.

Four hundred people may be considered a small number for a liberal protest, considering they will stage a sit-in if their coffee is not hot enough. Half of them are college kids without jobs anyway – what else do they have to do? But the people at the Tea Party protest were an entirely different demographic. Most of the protesters were over 35 (they actually pay taxes) and there were quite a few little kids running around. I have no doubt that many of the people there on Friday had to skip work to attend, and some of the children were probably kept home from school.

The more I thought about the numbers that came out to protest all over the nation, the more significant it became. You see, conservatives by their very nature are not likely to protest; they do not seek to affect change through government. While liberals look to the government to implement their agendas, conservatives look on government as a necessary evil at best. We are self-reliant; it would not even occur to us to mass together and whine to the government, looking for help to solve our problems. Conservatives simply put their heads down and get to work, perhaps becoming active in their communities with friends, neighbors, churches, charities, etc. Moreover, most conservatives are older and have serious careers and kids to raise. Who has time to protest for heaven’s sake?

But I also believe there is something more fundamental at work. Most protests have a threatening tone and the people are often crude, disrespectful and hate-filled. They are all about forcing their voices to be heard. Well, that type of intimidation is not what conservatives are about. We do not wish to force our views on others – – we are live and let live. You have the right to think what you want, no matter how stupid. Just leave me alone. It is as simple as that. We just want to be left alone.

But you see, this is where conservatives are going to have to wake up. Liberals will not leave us alone. Let me say that again. THEY WILL NEVER LEAVE US ALONE. They view issues in terms of groups and collectives, not in terms of the individual and his liberty. To institute their social agenda they require control over you and the fruits of your labors; and they will do this with no guilt because they have good intentions.

Liberals are, in effect, the schoolyard bully that we keep trying to walk away from. We are the Chamberlain to their Hitler. It is time to turn around and fight. Make no mistake about it, we are in a war – most of us just don’t know it yet. Those of us that do, feel powerless. We have no representation in Washington from either party and despair at the rampant corruption crowding our headlines every day.

The fact is, the ballot box is no longer useful for conservatives as we now have too large a percentage of our population dependent upon government for their livelihood. Democrats know this and are working tirelessly to expand government and buy more votes. America’s younger populace is poorly educated, yet constantly reassured of their greatness, which has produced a feeling of entitlement with absolutely no sense of duty to country. I shudder when I think back to all of the “man on the street” interviews I have heard (dozens of simple random samplings) where someone is asked a string of simple questions – “Who is our Vice President?” “How many states are in the United States?” “Name two members of the Allied Powers during WWII? Can you name one Supreme Court Judge?” – – they will be completely ignorant of even these most basic facts. And the last question will always be “Who did you vote for?” “Obama!”, comes the proud response. This is what we are up against folks. How do we combat such ignorance?

Well, the liberal leadership is far from ignorant and Obama’s ambitions are never-ending. We are losing our liberties by the hour now as the administration attempts to use the perfect storm of his honeymoon period, the current economic crisis, and the recent departure of Bush (while he can continue to be blamed for everything), to push through the most radical changes in the history of this country. Again, what do we do? How do we fight?

I believe protesting is valuable to us only in that it can allow us to network with other like-minded individuals. But protests are simply not our style. Even though the squeaky wheel gets the grease, we are never going to out-squeek the libs. They invented it. The answer, I believe, lies somewhere else.

What is that answer? I wish I knew, but you can believe I am working on it and I hope you are too.


March 18, 2009

I have spent countless hours trying to understand liberalism, which I feel is synonymous with socialism and collectivist thought. How can such a fundamentally flawed way of thinking be so pervasive? I have come to believe that the modern-day liberal falls into one of the following categories:

The Ignorant Do-Gooder: One of the more common forms of liberal. This person lacks knowledge of world history and political thought. They believe that all of their ideas for improving the world are fresh and have never been tried before. They really do not understand traditional conservatism and often look on us as a bunch of crusty, religious, bigoted, white guys. In fact, our Founding Fathers were a bunch of slave-owning hypocrites – didn’t you know? I sympathize with the Ignorant Do-Gooder (IDG) as I was one for the first 30 or so years of my life. The IDG is not stupid and is typically well-educated; they are just grossly uninformed. Always strident in their points of view, they do not even consider the ideas that they espouse could be wrong. And why would they? As they are typically on the young side, they have heard only one point of view almost their entire lives, whether from the education system, the media or the entertainment industry. Their saving grace is their intelligence. A great many of them will pick up the right book, turn on the radio, or fall into the right crowd one day, and they will learn a different point of view. Their eyes will be opened.

The Pawn: This strain of liberal is typically found in the lower end of the socioeconomic strata. The Democrats have been particularly adept at appealing to this crowd by inciting class warfare. They look on wealth and prosperity as a finite pie so when one person is rich, another must be poor. In their world there are only predators and prey. Because they are not advancing in life, they are eager to pin the blame of their failures onto others. I feel sorry for the Pawn because the very people they turn to for help keep them mired in poverty, failure and despair. Instead of teaching them how to think like a winner, they teach them how to think like a victim.

The Sleeze: These are many of the politicians themselves. This person is all about power. They may or may not know the history of socialism and liberal thought. It would not matter if they did. They are for big government because that is how they progress their power or make their money – these are the politicians, lobbyists, union leaders, community organizers and other sleeze that move in and out of public and quasi-public institutions. These people are immoral and dishonorable, although I doubt they think they are. Government will always attract this type like a magnet.

The Elderly: My grandmother falls into this category. They grew up in families that always voted Democrat, they themselves have always voted Democrat and they will stubbornly tell you they will vote Democrat until the day they die. The Democratic Party they knew has been dead for decades.

The Benevolent Dictator: These libs are highly educated and have a firm grasp of history. They have seen the tragedies of socialism but probably do not attribute such horrors to a failure of collectivist thought, but instead to various other issues, depending upon the situation. These are far and away the scariest of the liberals because they are the most well-intentioned. They have no base motives and act out of compassion and a sincere wish to better the lives of others. They wish to better society as a whole, and as such are willing to use the government as a means to achieving that end. If they could see the end of the road they are leading us down they would be horrified. A typical trait of the Benevolent Dictator is a colossal ego. They are out to improve the lives of others and believe they know the best way to achieve this. Implicit in every action is a paternalistic attitude toward their fellow man.

We are all familiar with the Chinese zodiac placemats we get at Szechuan Empress down the block and probably even know our animal. I am a dog, by the way. I wonder if I could print a placemat with my categories of liberal and sell them to various coffee houses and college cafeterias. While they drink their lattes they can learn what class of liberal they are. What do you think?


March 18, 2009

The former thug head of the KGB, Vladimir Putin, spoke at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland the other day. He warned the U.S. to learn a lesson from Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and [have] blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”. He went on, “In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated”.

Putin warned us not to “turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors, and shareholders…is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state”. Sounding like Reagan, he advised us to take our licks and write off all these bad debts. Keep the government out of the equation.

Oh, the depths to which we have fallen. Perhaps when the doodoo really hits the fan we can all crowd into one of NAREQ’s planes and defect to Russia.


March 18, 2009

Well, it may be time for us to eat crow. The black helicopter conspiracy theorists, the ones we have all dismissed, are now starting to look like geniuses. They have warned us for decades of the intentions of the New World Order crowd and we have chuckled, thinking such a thing impossible. Well, stock up on the tinfoil because we will all be believers soon. But I am getting ahead of myself. Let me tell you a little story…

Back in 1966, a former Harvard & Princeton professor named Dr. Carroll Quigley (who Bill Clinton would later say was his favorite professor) wrote a tediously long book entitled “Tragedy and Hope – A History of the World In Our Time”. In the book, he “outs” the existence of a clandestine, elite group of banking titans who are the true architects of the governing world order. As an insider to the group, Quigley was privy to their actions and their plans. Quigley was not a whistleblower, however, he was a fawning admirer. Against the group’s objections, Quigley wrote the book and unveiled the true agenda of the wealthy elite, because Quigley believed it was too late to turn the tide. He assured us that we could trust these benevolent puppetmasters. He said they are the “hope” of the world, and all who resist them represent “tragedy”, hence the title of his book.

A few years later, Cleon Skousen (who would later go on to write the phenomenal bestseller The 5000 Year Leap) wrote a book entitled “The Naked Capitalist”, which was actually a review of Quigley’s book. And it is in this book that Skousen explains the significance of Quigley’s book and the existence of this secret cabal. What drove Skousen to write was the persistent question so many of us have asked, and which he places on his very first page:

Why? Why do some of the richest people in the world support communism and socialism? Why would they support what appears to be a pathway to their own destruction?

And it is in the “The Naked Capitalist” that he explains the answer. Skousen charts the beginnings of the elite group to a set of dynastic banking families, among them the Rothschilds and later, the Morgans. This international group of the uber-rich slowly bought out banks worldwide to create a financial system on an international scale to manipulate the quantity and flow of money so that they could influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other. Over time they set up banking empires in every major European city.

Skousen explains that in the beginning of the 20th Century, the American economy had become so dynamic that the major banking houses found it difficult to maintain tight control. The group knew they had to centralize control in the same way they had done in Europe. Around this time, some American citizens were calling for the creation of a federal central bank that would be “free of the corrupt influence of Wall Street and monopolistic interests”. So it was in this atmosphere that these banking titans convened a conference, during which they hatched a scheme to set up a central bank which had the appearance of being controlled by the government, when in reality the control would be solidified in the same secret group which had always held it.

They decided that the Republican party at the time had the appearance of being too connected to Wall Street, so they knew they must get Democrats into power. In concert, the bankers financed two conservative candidates to split the vote, while also secretly financing Democrat candidate Woodrow Wilson, who would carry out their plan. After his election, Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Federal Reserve, a private banking system which took the power of making money away from Congress and gave it to a private bank.

Skousen stresses that the group’s politics are irrelevant and they come from many backgrounds. Their common interest is wealth and world domination. They set up communist and socialist governments worldwide because they can control a dictatorship much more easily than they can a free society. When there is big government, the monopoly belongs to the State. Through government, they can take over competition, control debt, resources, market demand and labor. They love worldwide treaties, whether under the guise of defense or environmentalism. Skousen explains that millions of idealists committed to socialist goals such as brotherhood and equality have been duped into advancing the group’s totalitarian scheme to concentrate their wealth and power. Skousen believed they had anointed and brought to power most of the presidents during his lifetime. He explained how these international bankers often finance both sides of a war, and have been linked to just about every war since they took power (many claim this includes the more recent Balkans and Iraq wars).

They have used a variety of fronts over the years to carry out their aims, mainly the CFR (Council On Foreign Relations) and the Trilateral Commission.

Since Skousen’s book, the group has now become well known as the Bilderberg Group (named after a hotel in which they held a conference). The Bilderbergers number roughly 150 permanent members which include titans of politics, finance, military, industry, academia and media from all over the world. This shadowy cabal meets once a year to discuss world affairs. The annual Bilderberg Conference is always shrouded in secrecy and you must have a personal invitation to attend. The attendees in any one year will always be the who’s who of world power at the time. Nobody is allowed to breathe a word of what happens in the conference.

Due to their creepy secrecy, it is said by conspiracy theorists that they discuss the direction they plan on taking the world and the propaganda required to achieve it. It is believed that their end goal is a one world order.

Among the attendees at Bilderberg meetings: David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Helmut Kohl, Prince Charles and a gaggle of British lords, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George Bush Sr and Jr, Colin Powell, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Dianne Feinstein, Alexander Haig, Ralph Reed, George Stephanopoulus, Kathleen Sebelius (Obama’s HHS secretary), Tom Daschle, Timothy Geithner (Obama’s Treasury Secretary), William McDonough (President of NY Fed), George Soros, Paul Volcker (Chairman of the Fed), Alan Greenspan (former Fed Chairman), Eric Schmidt (Google), Lloyd Blankfein (CEO Goldman Sachs), Rupert Murdoch, Don Graham (Washington Post), Bill Moyers, Paul Wolfowitz (World Bank President and permanent Bilderberger), Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, numerous CIA and FBI directors, and I could go on and on. Many of the conferences have been hosted by large banking families such as the Rothschilds or the Wallenbergs. Members of the Bilderberg steering committee includes Josef Ackermann (Deutsche Bank), Jorma Ollila (Nokia), Jeurgen Schrempp (DaimlerChrysler), Peter Sutherland (former NATO general now with Goldman Sachs), James Wolfensohn (former World Bank president) and Richard Perle.

And it is not just conspiracy theorists who believe the group works together to set worldwide policy. It has been noted by the mainstream that what Bilderberg decides is later implemented by a G-8 meeting, and International Monetary Fund and World Bank decisions. Bilderbergers are responsible for the creation of the EU and have been pushing for the creation of the NAU (North American Union). The goal of the formation of the NAU is often sited as the reason for the Neo-Cons baffling stance on illegal immigration and their seeming ineptitude at guarding our southern border.

Bilderbergers typically preach interventionism, Keynesian economics, world planning and a powerful centralized government. And now Obama’s new administration of hope and change is chocked full of Bilderbergers, most importantly the finance guys Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, and Paul Volcker, and the diplomats Richard Holbrooke, and Dennis Ross. Obama’s appointments should not be too surprising as one of his top advisors is former Fannie Mae chairman Jim Johnson, who is a well-known Bilderberger and runs a group called American Friends of Bilderberger.

The conspiracy theorists have warned us for years of this shadowy group’s intention to build a one-world government. And now I must admit, I believe exactly that. While I personally do not believe in a conspiracy in the traditional sense – – an evil group conspiring in the dark to bring about death and destruction – – I do believe they seek and often succeed in setting world monetary policy, and they do this to further their own power and control. It is highly probably they believe to the core that they know what is best for us all. Instead of thinking of them as a defined group of conspirers, I look at them instead as a level of society that reinforces eachother’s self-serving views. I am not sure why we have been so reluctant to see that the rich and powerful of this world will always seek to organize things in their own interests.

And now they must strike while the iron is hot. They must take advantage of this economic crisis to consolidate their power. At the G20 meeting, which just began, one of the key topics to be discussed is going to be international regulation of the banking industry. There is nothing secret about it. International politicians are now claiming that a global market economy is the best way to deliver global prosperity, and it is on the docket for the G20 to discuss an international economic stimulus. They plan to crack down on countries that refuse to cooperate with their centralist goals. They call them unregulated shadowy banking centers and they seek a closure of these “tax havens”. They want a strengthened IMF. Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently testified to Congress that while he was strongly against international regulation, he supported the idea of common principles being agreed upon at the G20 meeting. Hmmm. Similarly Timothy Geithner testified to Congress he was against joining an international banking system and then less than 24 hours later told the press he would be open to something like that.

So while all of the little people are scurrying around like mice, arguing Democrat versus Republican (when there is little difference between the two), these plutocrats are really the ones running the show. And Obama’s cabinet of “hope and change” consists of the same old political insiders that have haunted the Washington scene for decades. Let us hope that we will not lose what little autonomy this country has left during this Obama administration.


March 18, 2009

You cannot convince an atheist to go to church by warning him of God’s displeasure. He does not believe in your basic premise – the existence of God. A similar lesson in futility is the Conservative’s attempt to show the Liberal he is wrong by pointing to the Constitution. The Conservative is working from the premise of a shared belief in the sanctity and rightness of the Constitution. But the Liberal does not share our reverence for the Constitution; he instead looks on it as a good starting point. Liberals consider the Constitution to be a living and breathing document that must evolve as the people of this country become more sophisticated and knowledgeable about ourselves and the world around us. The form of government, envisioned and enshrined by our Founding Fathers in the days of the horse and carriage, is a stale one and must be updated for modern times. This line of thought has brought us to today, where government is now acting in a constant state of unconstitutionality. Despite the fact that our representatives (including our President) swear to uphold the Constitution, they demonstrate daily the oath has little meaning to them.

What is under debate here is not this amendment or that amendment, but the validity of the whole document and thus the entire American form of government. Conservatives have sat by as generations of our children have been spoon-fed a liberal education of revisionist history and immature radicalism. The two areas of our country that Americans should be able to look to for impartiality: education and journalism, are almost wholly run by liberals. So let us stop arguing on behalf of the 2nd amendment to a liberal who believes it is just a rule for hunters. That is a waste of time. We must stop fighting the symptoms and treat the disease. The Conservative must seek to EDUCATE and INFORM.

Educate as many people as possible on history. Albert and I consider history to be the most important subject in the education of our children. It baffles me how advancements can be made in medicine, technology, physics, and any number of areas by learning from the success and failure of those before you, but when it comes to government and the simple rules of society we must stumble around blindly as if we just came out of the caves, repeating the same costly mistakes again and again. I think it was Truman that said the only thing new is the history we haven’t learned yet. Amen.

Our Founding Fathers were educated men who had studied history in great detail. They had learned (sometimes by seeing it with their own eyes) the tragedies that can befall a country when government was either too large or too small. And to the amazement of all, including themselves, they were able to come together and create a new kind of civilization based on freedom, equality and the rule of law. What they created was the best form of government ever known to mankind and THAT is what makes America the best country on the planet. How many students are taught that nowadays?

Inform the American public about what is going on in Washington. We have a media that is actually complicit in government corruption. See below story:

Journalistic objectivity is dead. Therefore, we can no longer rely on the standard media to be honest and simply “tell the news” to the American public. We must come up with ways to keep the public informed so they do not have to rely on the word of a biased media with a liberal agenda.

Obama shows U.S. his backside and bows to House of Saud

March 18, 2009

Yes, this is the President of the United States bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He was the only world leader to do so as only a monarch’s subjects are expected to bow. Do not think he just tripped and was mid-fall when the photo was taken. You can actually see this on video and when you watch it you realize that not only does he do a deep bow at the waste, he also bends his knee!

Why must he take actions that demean the office of the presidency? The President of the United States does not grant interviews to Sunday morning news shows much less late night talk shows. The President of the United States does not grant legitimacy to terrorists by entering into a dialogue with them. The President of the United States does not sign book deals as he prepares to move into the White House.

Few people know that in the eight years of his presidency, Ronald Reagan never entered the Oval Office without a coat and tie. From the beginning, he set out to show America once again “how a President should present his stature and office to the world”. He believed it was incumbent upon him to reflect the seriousness and respect he saw in the honor of his post.

A mere five years later, we would see Bill Clinton in his sweat suit behind the desk in the oval office. If only that had been the most inappropriate behavior Clinton decided to do in there…