THERE'S NO NEED TO FEAR - GOVERNMENT IS HERE!

As a boy I fondly remember the original Underdog cartoon and the canine's heroic catch phrase, "There's no need to fear, Underdog is here."

I wish we had a hero now, you know, the kind that swoops in to thwart injustice, to combat the oppression of every common citizen and bag the bad buy?

Sadly, no hero is on the horizon and there is every reason to fear. And the unbelievable source of that trepidation is the government. Consider this news on today's Politico:

". . the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance. Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty . . ." Read the full story here.

The reliable watchdog media has not had much to say about it but according to the HR 3200 Health Care Act of 2009 section 401(b) (at pp. 175-176), enforcement of our brave new healthcare system will be the compassionate, empathetic, and always kind Internal Revenue Service. Now that's change I can believe in.

If I were a sarcastic person, I would be questioning how this is "by the people, for the people and of the people." If feels more like "to the people." (Okay, maybe I am a little sacrastic.)

Every day I fear Washington more and more and with good political reason. Our republic seems intent on punishing me for having been born, for being a law-abiding tax-payer, for the errors of a century ago, and to hold me responsible for all the ills of the earth. This is not social justice. This is not the hope we were promised. This is not change I can believe in.

This is retribution. It is lawlessness. It is evil.

WORDS MUST MEAN SOMETHING . . . RIGHT?

It was spring in Prague, April 5 to be precise, when our president made the following promise:



"So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven."

On September 17, five months later, the president reversed himself leaving our friends with their jaws in their laps.

April 5 was the same speech where Obama proclaimed, "Words must mean something." Perhaps it depends on what your definition of "is" is. Or perhaps it is merely a reiteration of John Kerry's famous, "I was for the war before I was against it." Maybe you have to own a copy of a Progressive Dictionary of American Speech to accurately interpret Obama's use of English, "Words must mean something." Mr. President, the promise you made our allies meant something. At least they thought so.

Granted, situations arise and circumstances change which cause well-minded and responsible leaders to change their decisions. But this was a promise rendered only months ago, and for our allies in Poland and the Czeck Republic, it meant security from direct threats from Iran or others who would threaten Eastern Europe's borders. It was a deterrent.

Perhaps it turned out to not be "cost-effective," but so far, cost effectiveness has not been high on the agenda for this administration. In fact, the president says the missile defense program was not cost-effective, and as we know, "words must mean something," so he must be telling the truth.

I guess the questions we and our allies should be asking are:

• What do your words mean, Mr. President? 
• Can you be trusted?
• Where is your political reason?

Addendum - INFLATION IS NOT THE THREAT

The media announced today that yes, for political reasons, state taxes will be going up to raise revenues for our cash starved state. Sorry, for the state of Michigan, punishing the faithful who still have jobs makes no political reason.

INFLATION IS NOT THE THREAT

I had been concerned with impending inflation. As the government powers up the printing presses I am reminded that streaming fresh greenbacks into any economy has always lead to inflation.

But I am not worried about inflation eating away my standard of living, nor my ability to buy the necessities for my family. It will not matter whether prices go up, my personal income is positioned take a serious hit.

I started doing a little math.

The Bush tax cuts end this year, with no hope of renewal. That's going to cost me. Cap and Trade is estimated to cost my household about $3,100 per year. The administration plans to make my health insurance benefits taxable at an approximate cost of another grand. There are whispers in the dark of raising gasoline taxes and my governor says we are going to have to raise state income tax.

Let us see how that works out:

- $1,200 less from Bush tax cuts
- $3,100 less for cap and trade
- $1,000 more in taxes on my health insurance
======
- $5,300 less money . . .

$5,300 fewer dollars for my family, which does not take into account what may or may not happen with gas for my car or state income taxes.

How should I feel about that? How should my family feel? Where is the political reason?

This is not scaremongering on my part. These are facts, mathematical realities which sadly, scare me.

Now, what happens if inflation does rear its ugly head?

WHAT'S THE VISION?

I have a question. It should be simple, really. Where are we headed?

Every month, our president tells us that something needs to be fundamentally reformed. This week it was Wall Street and immigration law. Through the summer we were hammered time and again that our healthcare system needs to be transformed. In the spring we needed to fundamentally revamp the auto and banking industries. In the fall of '08 we were in an economic crisis that needed to be overhauled.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is on record back in May as saying, "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory . . . "* in regard to how each and every one of us is addressing what was then called Global Warming, since reformed into the less specific, useful-in-any-crisis term, Climate Change.

Global warming becomes climate change. Health care reform becomes Insurance reform. Even the Liberals are reforming their label into "Progressives."

There seems to be no end to the litany of reforms, and the Democratic Party's defensive posture to any negative response to the political, economic, social, and behavioral upheaval foisted upon us in nine short months has deteriorated into juvenile character assassination.

We have been told that everything needs to be changed but I have yet to hear where we will end up? There has been no grand vision laid out for us. And that, my fellow citizens, should scare everyone.

Let us assume that the House, Senate, and White House do get their way, and after racking up tens of TRILLIONS of dollars in unsustainable debt, what will we have? Will we have a grand utopia? Will hunger, disease, and poverty be relegated to the history books? What will our GDP be? What will our individual tax burden look like?

These are important questions. I have worked for companies where someone at the top of the ladder was not happy with how fast things were going and started implementing change for the sake of change. It was never progressive and it always ended badly.

Today I work for an organization who carefully examines ROI (return on investment). If I want to spend money on a program, I have to present a solid case for why, how much, what the outcome will be, and what will be the expected return on investment. That's wise business. It is slower. It takes more careful planning and execution, but the risks are minimized and damage control is managed before damage can take place.

I don't think it is too much to ask — where are we headed? Every American is being compelled to sacrifice. We are all sharing a phenomenal debt the size of which the world has never before conceived. We are going to have to surrender a tremendous number of personal liberties in this quest for a Progressive Utopia.

When the dust settles, what will we have? Give me the vision. All I want is political reason. Help the American people see what you are planning Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, President Obama. Do you even know?

If not, then we are very busy making changes for the sake of change — without a vision — and that always ends badly.


* Just who is going to be conducting these "inventories," Ms. Speaker? Or have you yet to share that piece of legislation?

CONSTITUTION DAY

September 17 is Constitution Day! 

222 years ago we set this great nation on a course that has changed the world. Every member of our House and Senate, and the Chief Executive Officer, Barak Heusein Obama, have sworn to uphold and protect its principles.

It has stood the test of time — over two centuries. Let's see to it that it is not unraveled in a single term.

Discover what this document has to say for yourself at the Constitution of the United States.

CHARACTER ASSASSINATION

It seems that despite then Senator Hillary Clinton's strident declaration in 2003, when liberals are debated and disagreed with, a double standard rises out of the fires of discontent.

For those of you who don't remember, Mrs. Clinton was quite passionate as she proclaimed, "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, 'We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!'"

Yet today, character assassination is not just privy to political parlance, but applied across the board to all conservatives. Today I learned from former president Jimmy Carter that because I debate and  disagree with this administration I am not just unpatriotic, I am prejudice.

Imagine my surprise to peer through the blind spot of my Johari Window to discover such an arrogant, weak, and condescending blot on my soul.

I would hang my head in shame, except that unlike them, I know the truth.

I remember being evacuated from my home as a child when the Black Panthers came marching down our streets in the 1960s. I watched from my front porch as militant blacks streamed over a chain link fence to clash with police. I remember the night my dad wasn't allowed to leave the tear-gas clouded factory because the violence outside was too great a risk. I remember my mother sleeping with a gun beside her at night and driving with one in the glove compartment. Frankly, I have every right and experience to distrust and resent the black community. But I do not.

My family on both sides of my parentage served in the Union Army to end black slavery, and both had to endure inhuman conditions at Andersonville Prison. That alone should be enough.

But even more personally, I have put myself in harms way to save the lives of African-Americans. Not blowing my own whistle, just making the point that prejudice would pre-supposed any attempt on my part to give a black life any value worth saving.

Yet instead I fight for them, work along side them, and live with them as neighbors.

So Jimmy Carter, or any of the other media pundits out there who have decided that they know my predispositions, my motivations, or have any inkling what is going on in my head and heart, go wash the clouded panes of your own Johari Window and take a look around. You DO have blind spots, and if you do not cease this childish behavior, your irresponsible verbal abuses are going to throw our society back five decades.

For years during the Reagan Administration is was called a war-monger, a woman-hater, a homophobe, and any other number of banal appellations meant to assassinate my character. Immature attempts from impotent critics intent on shaming me into silence. Well, there is an equally immature response: sticks and stone may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Have we — the United States of America — really declined to such 3rd grade antics?

If you want to be take seriously as "progressives," then progress beyond this petty and ludicrous double-standard. Open your eyes to the incivility you are inciting, and think of the long-term and harmful consequences.

But no matter what, my guess is, like the photo says here, "It doesn't matter what this sign says, you'll call it racism anyway!"

But here's the heart of the matter. I know I'm not a racist. You know I'm not a racists. So why engage is such pathetic — and obvious — tomfoolery? It lacks political reason.

WORKING UNDER THE RADAR OF THE PRESS

A follow up to He's Naked.

Appropriately, following the Honorable Joe Wilson's proclamation Wednesday night that President Obama was lying, the White House seems to be trying to do the right thing. According to an MSNBC report, the Administration is quietly acknowledging (late on a Friday night when the press has largely closed down for the weekend) that under the current legislation, illegal aliens do qualify for public healthcare.

Under new provisions introduced, except for emergency room treatment, getting healthcare will require proof of citizenship.

Bravo Mr. Obama. Albeit under the radar, you're trying to do the right thing. Perhaps you owe Representative Wilson — and the American people — an apology now? Someone on camera was lying, Mr. President, and it was not the congressman from South Carolina. Decorum was certainly transgressed, sir, but it started with the Chief Executive Officer.

Regardless, even these concessions to the facts will prove controversial and problematic for the Administration. Forcing citizens to carry papers proving their citizenship may overstep the constitutional authority of the Tenth Amendment. Will ensuring that no illegals get doctor appointments on the public doll require that all Americans carry federal identification?

That too, is rife with strife.

HE'S NAKED!

It's a well known story, The Emperor's New Clothes by Hans Christian Andersen. A pompous potentate parades his pampered posterior along the promenade for all to see his exquisite garments that are of such fine quality, they are invisible to anyone too stupid to see them.

Eventually, a child rightly shouts, "the emperor is naked," and the crowd realizes someone finally had the guts to speak the truth. The emperor however, continues his passage down the city streets, too arrogant to admit the truth.

Last night, South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson shouted the equivalent of "the emperor is naked" when he called out "You lie!" during president Barak Obama's address on health care.

Congressman Wilson, you saw the truth and you spoke the truth. It may not have been proclaimed with all the delicacy and diplomacy called for in the lauded marble halls of Capitol Hill, but I have found that the truth is often a stumbling stone.

In Andersen's story, the reaction to the boy's shout is revealing: "'Fool!' his father reprimanded, running after him. 'Don't talk nonsense!' He grabbed his child and took him away." Today's headlines and politicians seem more bent on reprimanding Joe Wilson than admitting what was exposed for all to see — the president's plan is naked. More costly than the emperor's new clothes, sold to the public by savvy hawkers, but naked nonetheless.

It does not take a lot of political reason to understand what is really transparent. The House has a 1,000-plus-page plan and the Senate has their version, making it a shell game to try and follow which plan the president was either taking credit for or referring to. Regardless, non-documented "Americans" will very likely be insured.

On the campaign trail, Barak Obama promised us transparency. I simply did not expect this kind of transparency.

WHY CAN'T LIFE BE FAIR? – The Inevitable Failing of National Healthcare

When I was growing up, sometimes, despite my best effort and most diligent approach to a challenge, I would fail. Often I would succeed but in the high-stake odds of life, there were times when I failed.

My mother, who was routinely my biggest fan was also my reality check. When I failed, her forthright response was, "Life isn't fair. Get used to it."

As I view the political landscape and hear the ballyhoo about "social justice" what I really hear is, the government thinks that it is their constitutional responsibility to make life fair.

Health care, in my opinion, is Washington's latest crusade to make life "fair." What this plan overlooks is the immutable, inevitable truth that life is not fair. For this administration — or any administration regardless of political affiliation — to believe it has such an obligation is idealistic folly.

But more than that, it puts government in the position of deciding what is morally fair and making the unbiased judgment as to what in life is unfair. Since when has it become Washington's right to legislate morality? My father-in-law, a died-in-the-wool liberal Democrat was adamant that government should never be the arbiters of morality. And yet, when we pass laws that will take funds away from one or any segment of the population to pay for another for no other reason than it is the fair and moral thing to do is suspect. Government cannot — and should not — legislate morality.

If government feels it can make life fair, then the entire nation is in for a very rude awakening. No amount of money, no matter how much with which we shall inevitably be yoked, will make it so. No example in history, no observable model exists that can prove otherwise.

Addendum

Before the "ink had dried" on my last post, I went to read today's headlines and found this article posted on Bloomberg.com: Obama May Need Sense of Crisis to Revive Health-Care Overhaul.

When Institutions Take on Lives of Their Own

When Institutions Take on Lives of Their Own

Throughout mankind's history, one organic outcome takes place: without strident watchfulness, individuals who constitute the body of an institution inevitably become subservient to that institution.

Any corporation, religious organization — or in this case government — may have its genesis with highly idealistic and compassionate intentions, but unless the people who sustain those establishments remain vigilant every step of the way, without fail, those institutions take over.

Policies ensue for the "greater good." People to enforce the policies are empowered. The rights of individuals become secondary or tertiary to the needs of the institution all "for the greater good."

Religion is a fine example, and likely one of the reasons so many people avoid their traditional denominations and faiths. The people who were intended to be served end up becoming foot notes to the urgency of paying the mortgage, political in-fighting among the leadership, and enforcing the "rules" — whatever those rules may be.

The authors of the US Constitution understood this. They grasped the danger of a government that could transcend their basic principle of "of the people, by the people, and for the people." It is evidenced by their carefully selected vocabulary in the Bill of Rights that "Congress shall make no law . . ." Time and again, the founding fathers worked to protect the rights of the individuals, so that no branch of the U.S. government would gain an advantage and thus take on a life of its own.

As Capitol Hill pushes legislation for such issues as Cap and Trade, Envirnmental Justice, Nationalized Heath Care, or any bills which seek to "take advantage of a crisis" with little or no debate — caveat emptor — buyer beware!

Under such guise it is inevitable: individuals shall become less and less important, dissenting voices will not be tolerated as the "greater good" becomes the unified mantra of the controlling power.

---

"He who beats his sword into a plowshare ends up plowing for those who kept their swords." — Benjamin Franklin

---

© 2009, Political Reason