SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

I am a man of faith. I happen to believe in an Almighty Creator “with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It should then, come as no surprise that as a subject of the King of the Universe, I have compassion on the poor and oppressed peoples. I have spent countless hours with indigents, serving prisoners, and taking a personal role is trying to lift up my fellow man. I have not waited on a social agency nor sought the aid of a government institution to do so. Moved with compassion and biblical conviction, I take personal responsibility.

What does come as a surprise to me, is that the environment in which we live today, the one that demands the alleged rule of separation of “church and State,” which has worked so very hard to divorce sacred from secular, to remove any vestige of faith from the public welfare, and to push an evolutionary theory on generations of students, cares about the poor and the sick.

If in fact we evolved, devoid of deification or a higher Law, then the law of our land should be “survival of the fittest.” I believe they might even say that we have moved beyond theory into “settled science.”

Why then, “promote the general welfare?”

See if my logic holds true. If we have all evolved from lower life forms; if indeed the idea of “survival of the fittest” is the rule of the world, then how can our politicians—forbidden from exercising anything close to religious principles in the practice of their offices—give two wits about the poor and infirmed?

Why are our taxes spent trying to level the playing field? Why do we care if a bank succeeds or fails, whether an auto manufacturer is not strong enough to survive, if the planet is over or under-heating, or if the uninsured get health care? If, in every one of those examples, we prop up that which is not strong enough to survive, then by the standards upon which they insist, the weak should be allowed to die leaving the strong to survive and carry on.

Unless of course, politicians are hypocrites.

We are about to entertain legislation intended to insure the uninsured: which by its own estimations, depending on who is handing out the estimations, will still leave 17 million of the 12 million without insurance, without insurance. And you are right, that math does not work, but those are the figures being bandied about by those “in the know” responsible for this legislation. Idiotic math not withstanding, this health care plan comes with a heavy price tag, well in excess of the estimated $1.2 trillion. As every penny of this is debt spending, that $1.2 trillion is considerably higher once you account for interest.

And so I ask the secular evolutionists . . . why? If the uninsured are not strong enough, not fit enough, not able enough to succeed at acquiring their own insurance, perhaps they should not be allowed to have insurance? If by your law, they cannot survive, by what justification do you insist that they must? Does not this circumvent an immutable principle of evolution?

Which then comes to the real rub, and another immutable principle. In every socialized heath care system on our planet, decisions must be made as to who should or should not be afforded treatment. When care becomes too costly, those who are not strong enough to survive will be allowed to die, quite possibly even encouraged to let death take its course. Our so-called compassionate system to cover all Americans with health care will in fact, succumb to its own inviolate principle of survival of the fittest. Only this time, it will cost our nation untold trillions, endless bureaucracy, and thousands of pages of legislation to ensure that those who should not survive, don’t.

What will have been gained in the end? Evolution gets the final say at the hands of those who managed to survive to the top. Control will rest with federal decision-makers. Our lives will be subject to governmental intrusion abhorrent to our founding fathers, and our debt will be beyond imaginable.

Sounds like a pretty fair deal, filled with sound political reason. What, what?

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.