One Trick Pony

Harry Reid revealed what many of us already know; that when it comes to health care reform the Democrats are a one trick pony. Their only idea for fixing the issue, or any issue, is a government take-over, also known as a public option. That's it. If that doesn't happen then they are out of ideas.

Harry Reid has said that there is no purpose to health care reform if there is not a public option, and yet the public support for that public option is dwindling -- pretty rapidly. According to previous statements by the President this means you want the status quo, but that's not true either.

The "my way or the highway" statements of the president have indicated that if you don't support the public option then you don't support reform. This must be because they have no other ideas, no inkling of how to institute reform without the government taking over the industry. The problem is that even though they are out of ideas, other people aren't and yet the Dems are unwilling to listen to anything that does not include their one and only public option solution.

They are definitely a one trick pony and their only trick is to take a big ole crap on the American people. Maybe it's time they learn a new one.

Those Greedy Doctors

In speeches promoting the need for government oversight and cost control of our health care, Obama has accused our doctors of willful negligence in their care of patients in order to make more money. Does he honestly believe this or are these just exaggerated scenarios? Either way, they're insulting to our medical professionals.

At a press conference in July he said that a doctor will remove a kid's tonsils because he can make more money subjected a child to an unnecessary surgery than be treating the sore throat. That's a nice view of the medical professionals isn't it? But perhaps that was just a bad example. Maybe he didn't really mean it; he just misspoke. Isn't that the excuse we get from Press Sec Robert Gibbs. The president misspoke. OK, I can live with that. So what did Obama do to make up for that characterization of doctors?

At the recent town hall he said that a doctor will allow a patient's diabetes to advance untreated until his foot needs to be amputated because he can make more money depriving a patient of a limb than by treating the disease itself. So we've gone from taking out tonsils unnecessarily to shopping off limbs, all out of greed. You've got to be kidding me!

Does Obama know the difference between a GP and a surgeon? First, if you go to your GP for a sore throat unless he is an ENT he's not going to be the one to take your tonsils out. Second, your GP treating you for Diabetes is definitely not going to be the one to remove your foot. Does Obama think that doctors are giving kick-backs to each other? I can hear it now, "Hey, if you let your patient slide and send the amputation my way I'll hook you up with an extra case of tongue depressors."

I don't know what kind of doctors Obama has been surrounding himself with, but these aren't the kind of doctors I've ever been exposed to. My doctors harass me to do what I need to do in order to stay healthy; they do not, nor have they ever, encouraged me to be in bad health so they can make more money off of me. If anything they've put me through more tests than I would have liked in order to find something early.

If I'm interpreting the message from Obama correctly there are three things that Obama believes.
1) The insurance companies are evil and cackle with glee each time they deny a claim.
2) Doctors go to the Sweeney Todd Medical Academy where they learn they can make more money by hacking than healing.
3) Government is the answer to all questions and concerns.

And this is what is referred to as reasonable discussion and rational debate.

Pre-Existing Conditions

If you can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition you should probably shop around. There are many plans that will not apply a pre-existing condition clause, and for those that do, most will waive that if you had insurance before your current effective date.

The real purpose of a pre-existing condition clause is to prevent people from only spending the money on insurance after they know they need it. Insurance is supposed to be a "just in case" situation and the premiums are based on the risk of the health care costs you will accrue. The idea is that you'll pay while using it little and that money will be there if you need to use it a lot.

Is it fair to the company which will cover you to go without insurance until you know you need it, and then expect them to pay for everything you've let go for years? I can already hear many people saying, yes it is, those evil insurance company bastards just want to steal my money and not cover me. This might be a slight exaggeration.

The healthy people paying their insurance premiums are paying for the sick people paying their premiums. It all goes into one big pool and the insurance company prays that they don't have to pay out more than they take in. The pre-existing clause is designed to help with that goal.

Would you wait until after a tornado struck your home to obtain homeowners insurance and then expect the new company to pay for the damage done before your coverage began? Waiting until you're sick to try to obtain insurance is basically the same thing. The tornado has struck and now you're saying "oh shit I better get covered."

HIPPA regulations currently limit the wait time for a pre-existing condition to be covered to 12 months, but most companies will waive this, again, if you've had insurance previously. This is due to the probability that you've been receiving treatment for it and have not just allowed it to get worse (and exponentially more expensive to address).

Insurance companies are companies; they do not print their own money and they do not have limitless resources. If there are no pre-existing clauses the alternative is to set the premium based on the anticipated expenses, which means that your coverage will cost you. A lot. The funny thing is that people who decide not to get coverage until they're sick expect to pay the same premium as a healthy person, and if you shop around enough you may be able to find a company with a wide enough margin to give that to you, but don't count on it.

Elimination of a pre-existing clause while simultaneously keeping the premium low is like telling somebody you'll pay them $500 a month for the use of their credit card and then charging $20,000 a month to it. You're leaving that person holding the bag for the extra $15,000; is that really fair? Maybe if they have lots of other people paying $500 per month and charging less than that. It's a big maybe.

So what's the answer to this issue? Simple, get coverage while you're healthy.

Another Stimulus?

So the white house admits that they had their collective heads up their asses when it came to the economy. Didn't know it was that bad, and didn't write the stimulus package right. So now they're saying, since we screwed this first stimulus package up so royally, we'd like a do over.

So they want us to let them try again and see if they do better this time. Problem is that the first stimulus has only had 10% of it's stimulus money spent. So if they pass another one, will THAT one get money into the economy now? Doubt it. After making an $800 billion dollar mistake we should just give them another try?

Maybe, just maybe, they should have taken the time to actually READ the first one. That might have helped. But they had to do it right now and get that money into the system. Uh huh. So here we are 4 months later, and 10% of that money that had to be spent so quickly that we couldn't read how, has actually been spent.

Of course they also claim the stimulus is working, even though unemployment is at 9.5% now and their green shoots have withered and died. But still they claim it would be worse without that stimulus. Of course there is no proof, no evidence, and no way to prove this.

Another stimulus package is the height of stupidity. But then again, isn't stupidity what Washington does best?

The Caribou Call to Arms

Let me just start by saying that I don't want Sarah Palin to run for President. I think she would do a much better job of inspiring the people and holding the politicians accountable when she doesn't have other duties to distract her or compromise her. I think instead that she should play to her strengths, and say what you will about her, she does have some.

In a blog on The KOOK's Manifesto, I commented that I wanted her out there throwing a bucket of ice water in the faces of the complacent American populace to wake them up and make them see what's going on, while simultaneously delivering a series of bitch slaps to the Republican party and the old politics as usual rut we're stuck in.

Call her Caribou Barbie if you want, call her an idiot, call her a quitter, the woman still has the charisma to really reach out and speak to the American people. This is where her folksy charm, you betcha and a wink come in to play. She can speak TO the American people, not AT them. And what we need now is a wake-up call so WE can take back our country from the endless pursuit of ever growing government power. We don't need somebody in a single office anywhere near as much as we need the people to pay attention to those in EVERY office. We need somebody to remind us all of the great principles on which this country was founded and inspire the populace to stand up and fight for them all. Let's set all the distracting social issues aside and send them to the states where they belong, and instead focus on a federal government that is growing at a rate that makes cancer look sluggish. Focus on the irresponsible spending of OUR money with out even an attempt at efficiency. Focus on reminding our politicians that they actually work for us and we're not afraid to send them packing. This is what we really need.

So if it's going to be Caribou Barbie that can put the focus of the American people where it needs to be, well then, I'll have to learn how to do a caribou call. If I had the least idea what a caribou actually sounds like, I'd start practicing now.

Promote the General Welfare

A comment was made on my blog yesterday which brought up the fact that, though the preamble to the Constitution has no basis in law, it is used while interpreting the role of the federal government. One phrase in particular is used as an excuse for everything the federal government does to expand it's own power.

The preamble reads, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."

That general welfare clause has been used as a justification for many new programs and wasteful spending over the years. Isn't our current push for government run health care touted as "promoting the general welfare"? But what about another clause? What about that little thing about "ensure the blessings of liberty"? Have we decided that some of these clauses are more important than others? If so, how did the general welfare become the top dog in the prioritization process? So important that we can push liberty and justice aside for it? Considering that our pledge of allegiance says with liberty and justice for all, not for the general welfare of all, shouldn't liberty and justice be a little higher up on the totem pole?

Their legal interpretation of the preamble was this; "Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?''

The annotation uses the common defense as an example, but what about using the general welfare as an example. Doesn't the above interpretation mean that the federal government CANNOT use that phrase in order to expand it's own power, or to create power for itself. Yet isn't that exactly what it has been doing for years? The quote above says "no one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress.." But that doesn't appear to be true since many people, many, many people, believe that it DOES enlarge the powers of Congress. And Congress is way more interested in their power than our liberty. So now we are pushing liberty aside, and in some cases justice, in order to promote an incorrect interpretation of the general welfare. And we're using that incorrect interpretation to create power where it was not given, nor intended, in the Constitution.

The annotation also says that it should be used to see if some legislation is working against that statement more than if it's working towards it. Couldn't the argument be made that cap and trade is against the general welfare? Explain to me, if you can, how increasing everybody's energy costs, putting thousands out of work, and giving the government control over free enterprise is a promotion of the general welfare. Because, frankly, I don't get it.

The fact is that the pre-amble to the Constitution should not be used as a justification for any law or any new program. Those items listed there are already covered in the body of the Constitution in the powers delegated for each branch. And if the power is not designated, then it is not a power that exists. No matter what the preamble says.

The Textbook of Freedom

Needing to be reminded, after all of the apologies for our arrogance, of what a great nation we truly are, I decided to read Reagan's speech where he referred to us as a shining city on a hill. I was just 14 years old when Reagan was elected to his first term in office, but I remember clearly going, as a nation, from demoralized and depressed as we dealt with the fall out from Vietnam, the economic problems and the energy crisis of the Carter years, into the hope and pride that Reagan instilled.

Whether you agree with his economic policies or anything else about him, Reagan, in his speeches, reminded us of why we should be proud and why our nation was great. I found a story that he tells regarding the signing of the Declaration of Independence that I would like to share.

You can call it mysticism if you want to, but I have always believed that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage.

This was true of those who pioneered the great wilderness in the beginning of this country, as it is also true of those later immigrants who were willing to leave the land of their birth and come to a land where even the language was unknown to them. Call it chauvinistic, but our heritage does not set us apart. Some years ago a writer, who happened to be an avid student of history, told me a story about that day in the little hall in Philadelphia where honorable men, hard-pressed by a King who was flouting the very law they were willing to obey, debated whether they should take the fateful step of declaring their Independence from that king. I was told by this man that the story could be found in the writings of Jefferson. I confess, I never researched or made an effort to verify it. Perhaps it is only legend. But story, or legend, he described the atmosphere, the strain, the debate, and that as men for the first time faced the consequences of such an irretrievable act, the walls resounded with the dread word of treason and its price -- the gallows and the headman's axe. As the day wore on the issue hung in the balance, and then, according to the story, a man rose in the small gallery. He was not a young man and was obviously calling on all the energy he could muster. Citing the grievances that had brought them to this moment he said, “Sign that parchment. They may turn every tree into a gallows, every home into a grave and yet the words of that parchment can never die. For the mechanic in his workshop, they will be words of hope, to the slave in the mines -- freedom.” And he added, “If my hands were freezing in death, I would sign that parchment with my last ounce of strength. Sign, sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, sign even if the hall is ringing with the sound of headman’s axe, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever.” And then it is said he fell back exhausted. But 56 delegates, swept by his eloquence, signed the Declaration of Independence, a document destined to be as immortal as any work of man can be. And according to the story, when they turned to thank him for his timely oratory, he could not be found nor were there any who knew who he was or how he had come in or gone out through the locked and guarded doors.

Well, as I say, whether story or legend, the signing of the document that day in Independence Hall was miracle enough. Fifty-six men, a little band so unique -- we have never seen their like since -- pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Sixteen gave their lives, most gave their fortunes and all of them preserved their sacred honor. What manner of men were they? Certainly they were not an unwashed, revolutionary rebel, nor were then adventurers in a heroic mood. Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, 11 were merchants and tradesmen, nine were farmers. They were men who would achieve security but valued freedom more. "

For that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever. Is it? Or are we relegating it to a piece of interesting, but irrelevant, piece of American memorabilia?

We should all know the text of the declaration, and more importantly, what it really means and represents. Everything that is done by our government should be examined and compared against those truths laid out in the textbook for freedom. Do you, as an individual, hold these truths to be self-evident? Or do you believe they are up for negotiation based on what the government promises you in return?

America's Addiction - And Not To Oil

We hear a lot about America's addiction to oil, but she has another addiction. One much more destructive to her. America has an addiction to government breast milk.

The breast milk is the drug that has been sweeping the nation since the 1960's when the war on poverty created welfare. Like many other drugs, this one is for a specific purpose and helps the individual when used as directed. However, when abused it has the same bad results as the other drugs on the market.

So what are the bad effects of this drug? For one, it is very, very addictive. The longer you suck on the government tit, the more palatable the milk becomes and the more difficult it is to give it up. That milk saps your ambition, your desire to work and keeps you in a continuing state of poverty. It propels people to violence as they seek more than what the milk can give them, and are driven to find something, anything, to fill their time and their days. It also causes children to be born into this addiction, thereby perpetuating generations of families addicted to the government tit and unable to break free. Many know nothing but this addiction and can't see what it is doing to them or how much better life without it would be.

There are those that manage to kick the habit and go on to live very productive lives. But as with any rehab, the percentage of addicts who recover is very small.

And yet, unlike an addiction to any other drug with such negative effects when misused, we do not arrest the dealers for this drug. Why? Because the dealers are the different levels of government. Instead of being encouraged to free themselves from this addiction, the government, the pusher, does their best to convince the addict that they will take care of them. That more will come and this time it will be better. And this drug is cheap, you get the fix every month and all you have to do for it is cast a vote. A very fair trade. This is how the pusher keeps the user addicted and keeps their power over the user.

This drug must only be used as directed. The failure to do so has such debilitating effects on individuals and all of society. And yet, instead of encouraging people to enter rehab to break the drug's hold, the government is always working to find more versions of the drug in order to get more people addicted. Just like any other drug dealer would do.

Just Call Me Faust

This should be the new flag created to replace "Don't Tread On Me". The American citizenry appears to have cast aside their Republic and embraced Tyranny. In effect, we are selling our soul to the devil.

Where Faust cast aside the eternal blessing of God to get the immediate satisfaction promised by the Devil, we are casting aside our liberty, our very freedom, for the instant gratification of a government handout.

Or wait, is our leadership Faust? Selling out to the biggest donors in order to grab power.

Either way, it appears that our country is becoming one giant Faustian Bargain. And the question I have is whether or not any government program is worth our liberty. I have to say no, but evidently many say yes. Or else they are unaware of the bargain they are making. You don't ever get something for nothing. By taking what is offered you are agreeing to their terms, and once caught, there is no escape.

California is Bankrupt - Again

Years and years of spending and spending on government programs has resulted in the State of California being bankrupt. Again. The Governator's inability to stand up to the liberal congress and fight for cuts has kept the California economy in turmoil.

So what is their answer to this crisis? Are they going to cut spending? Nope. Not a bit.

The old adage when it comes to debt reduction, which is an old adage because it is true, is that you have to spend less or make more. This works for most of us in that we have to spend less because making more isn't all that easy. But, when it comes to the government, their options are spend less or TAKE more.

The government does not make money. Neither the federal government nor that of the states. The government simply takes money that the citizens make. They're not working harder for that money, they simply pass a bill that increases taxes. The spend less or make more works for individuals because neither is really an easy option. I know, I had to face that decision once and my choice was to get a roommate (spend less) or a second job (make more). I opted for the second job because I really prefer to live alone. My past experiences with roommates haven't been great. That meant that I was working 65 - 70 hours a week, and sometimes 7 days a week. Making more was not as easy as a stroke of a pen for me. I'm actually thinking of doing the same thing again so I can have money for travel.

But does our government have to work harder in order to "make more"? Nope, it's the citizens the money is taken from who are impacted. It's an easy option for the government itself. Instead of making the hard decisions and cutting spending, much of which is probably wasteful, California is instead planning to increase sales taxes to take more money. If they do this, I fully expect California to, later in the year, be bankrupt yet again.

And if you're thinking, well this is California it doesn't impact me, remember another adage. Where goes California so goes the country. Think about all of the government spending that has happened in 2009 so far and what is yet to come. If they're spending more, they only have 2 options. Continue to borrow money, and our main lender is getting leery of buying any more of our debt, or take more. And they will take more.

Remember this, there is no such thing as government money. They are nothing more than a 3rd party vendor spending the money they've taken from you!

Meanwhile, Obama is using CA as the example of why cap and trade works. Talking about how they passed similar legislation earlier and did it without impacting their economy. Uh huh. Good idea, hold a broke state up as an example of how this won't financially impact us. Smart move.

Irrational Debate

I'm fairly Conservative, if you hadn't already guessed, and in an attempt to find out what the other sides's views are on issues, I logged in to a Facebook forum for Democrats. I was hoping I could engage in some reasoned debates, have some discussions and learn a few things about how the liberals view issues. That is not at all what happened. To be completely honest, after 2 hours in that board I felt the need to shower with steel wool in order to get myself clean.

There was no reasoned debate. Not even the opportunity for it. I was immediately attacked in some of the most vial ways. Profanity was interspersed on every thread, and anything I did say was twisted until it had no resemblance at all to what I actually said. There were 2 men (I won't give them courtesy of calling them gentlemen) on the board who were the most guilty, and unfortunately covered the board with their hatred.

If you think I am exaggerating, when I realized that I had to leave the board for the good of my soul, this is what I said, I admit I wasn't very nice at this point either. "Honestly, I probably won't come back any more so you can admire yourselves for that. But the reason is because I feel dirty after being in this board. I feel like I am seeing the lowest level of society in the form of a few posters and I'm disgusted and sickened by the behavior here. You have served no purpose except to prove me right in my belief that Liberals are irrational, angry, hate filled bullies who's only plan to win an argument is to be the one shouting the loudest. Way to represent your party."

The response I received from Alex Mitchell on that board is the perfect illustration of why I feel dirty. Alex replied with "yea go back to your party, the party of love.....go back to where the pictures of Obama in a nuise, as Mao, or stalin.....go back to your racist party, you fit in well." No matter what I said, Alex Mitchell called me a racist. Or a moron. Or a MFing idiot.

Jacob Shiflett was nearly as bad. Although his accusations that I'm a racist were relatively rare, his nearly every response was that I was a troll. He would respond with a single word post that would simply say Troll. No matter the discussion, that was his response. He dominated the message boards with his flat out refusal to listen to a differing opinion. I'm sure he now prides himself on driving me off of what he consistently referred to as "his board".

Again, if you don't believe me or think I'm exaggerating, then I encourage read the board for yourself, but prepare to douse yourself with bleach afterwards. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=9874&post=41857&uid=2204332151#/board.php?uid=2204332151

In order for the country to be the best that it can be we need the good ideas of each side. Ideas made great by the addition of another perspective. And yet the nation has become so divided that a Democrat and a Republican, or more likely a Liberal and a Conservative, cannot have a discussion on politics without it degenerating into a name calling shouting match. I have friends that are Democrats and we do manage to see each others side of an issue. We may not agree, but we can still acknowledge the other person's side. So why can't we do that as strangers? The flat refusal to acknowledge anything the other side comes up with as worthy of consideration is doing the entire country a disservice. We NEED both sides.

I'm beginning to believe that we will see peace in the middle east before we see reasoned political debate in the US.

Congress Could Benefit From Some Risk Management Classes

I was watching the news (I don't know why I do that) and the Universal Health Care issue was raised. People from both sides presented and it was stressed that employees happy with their current coverage could keep it. The reporter asked what would keep a company from deciding not to offer benefits to their employees anymore, as there would be another option for them, and thereby eliminating the coverage that the person liked. A reasonable question as far as I was concerned and one that would need to be addressed. What was the response? That's a Republican talking point and not our intent.

Not our intent. How many times do we hear that from Congress. That is just a talking point from the other side and not the intent of our legislation. They even sometimes get hostile over the suggestion that their legislation could have unintended consequences. But risk management is a necessity for the design of any product. And that's what Congress is doing. Designing a product. And yet they do no risk management at all. They make no effort to determine how their legislation could go wrong, how often it would happen, and the impact if it did happen. These are necessary pieces of information to have so that you know what loopholes need to be closed and can figure out how to close them. This is a basic FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) a great tool for risk identification and mitigation. So why won't Congress use it?

Instead of using a simple tool to identify risks, they write legislation that is so long and convoluted that they can't even take the time to read it before voting on it. The stimulus bill for example. An important piece of legislation according to them. Had to be passed quickly. But they paid more attention to doing it fast than doing it right. So what has happened? The money is being misused because they didn't try to figure out how that might happen and how to stop it. And a lot of the money isn't being spent. It had to be passed so quickly so the money could get into the economy but that hasn't happened. That bill was 1,200 pages long. One giant opportunity for unmitigated risk.

To give you some perspective on the absurdity of the length of that bill, and it's just an example of many like it, I have a copy of the Constitution that is pamphlet sized. Pretty small cover and pretty small pages. And yet, that little book is still only 48 pages long. That is our Constitution and all of it's amendments. That's 48 pages to set the rules of our government, but it took 1,200 pages to spend money. And spend it badly.

Is it really so much to ask that our legislatures make an attempt to identify gaps in their legislation before they pass it? Oh, but I guess they'd have to actually read it in order to be able to do that.

If We're Already Paying For The Uninsured Then Where's The Crisis?

The new plan for covering the cost of health care for the uninsured is to tax our employer paid benefits. Unless, that is, you work for a union. So even though our insurance premium rates are rising at a higher level than our salaries, we should pay more to cover those uninsured people. But the Congressional justification for this is that we're already paying for the uninsured in the high prices of care and, therefore, the high cost of our premiums.

So here's my question; if we're already paying for the uninsured why is this a crisis? Why do we have to pass something immediately if the American people are already paying the health care costs of those uninsured? If those 47 million uninsured, which includes illegal aliens, people who are offered insurance but decline it, and those uninsured for a matter of days through the year, are already getting their costs covered then what's the big deal?

Congress is now trying to tell us it will be a wash. OK. So as soon as they start taxing my employer paid benefits then my premiums will go down, right? Don't think so. It will take years for the premium amounts to change to reflect a lowering in health care costs, if it ever happens at all. Which I doubt. What will actually happen is that the health insurance premiums will continue to rise for years, but we'll just be paying taxes on those higher rates as well. Many of us have already forgone raises or taken pay cuts in order to keep our jobs and the jobs of others within our companies, but now our take home pay will decrease again due to yet another tax.

And what happened to the promise that 95% of the population would not have a tax increase under this administration? This will definitely be a tax increase on people of all levels of pay as long as they are responsible enough to take the coverage offered by their employer. And what will the new tax rate on our coverage be? Too dang high is my guess.

So maybe we just all just opt out of our employer offered coverage so we not only don't get a tax increase, but we get more take home pay and somebody else to pay for our health care. Sounds like a plan to me.

What Do Liberal Economics and Diet Pills Have In Common?

What do Liberal economic policies and miracle diet pills have in common? They both promise the world and deliver nothing.

The similarities between the 2 products is amazing. Each promise you success with little to no effort on your part. Just take advantage of their offer, then sit back and wait for the results. And keep waiting. The poor have been waiting for the results of the product they repeatedly purchase for over 50 years, and still nothing. And yet the American people keep buying that product.

Millions of dollars are spent each year on the dream of achieving weight loss without effort. It is a major industry within the US, and it is a scam. Yet many hopeful people keep trying the new pills, praying that the rip off they experienced last time won't happen again. Just the idea that I could lose weight without exercise or dieting as made me fall for a scam or 2. But the bottom line is that they don't work. We have these pills and these promises even though the formula for losing weight is really quite simple. Eat less and move more. There are some who are disabled for whom the "moving more" is problematic, but even then it could be done. If they choose to do it. My big problem is that knowing what I need to do and actually WANTING to do it are two entirely different things. But I really have only 2 choices. I can stay fat, or I can exercise. Period. My choice changes periodically, but I know those are the only 2 choices I really have.

The same can be said for those in poverty. It's not that they CAN'T succeed, but that they're waiting for that miracle pill. Buying in to the recurring and empty promises of the government that the poor can be made wealthy with no effort on their part. Just take advantage of our offer and we'll make sure you're set for life. The difference here is that the American people keep buying the same product that has been proven to not work instead of, as with the diet pills, trying new products promising the same thing. The message of the liberal economic policy has not changed. It still promises results without effort. A promise that cannot possibly be kept. There are only 2 choices when it comes to your personal economics. You either stay poor, or you work hard and advance. That's it. There are no results without effort. There are those who can make millions with a small effort, but an effort is still being made. If you sit back and wait for the results of that particular product, the only thing that will happen is that the poor will stay poor.

Advertising for the 2 products is becoming laughably similar as well. Infomercials have been a tried and true method of selling bogus diet pills for years. A method that the current administration has decided to emulate. During the campaign, Obama held an infomercial to sell his product, and it worked. He has continued that into his administration. Although now he is using news organizations as free advertising instead of paying for his product advertisement like everybody else. And the people fall for the scam.

So what is different about the two products? With all of the similarities they have, there is only one glaring difference. If you fall for the miracle diet pill and purchase that product you are wasting only your own money. If you fall for the miracle wealth pill you are wasting other people's money, and more importantly, your entire life.

There is no miracle cure for poverty just as there is no miracle cure for obesity. Both require effort on the part of the individual to be overcome. Both require hard work and anybody promising you anything else is attempting to scam you for their own financial benefit. Have no illusions about that. The makers of the diet pill just want your money, but the makers of the liberal financial policy want your vote so they can take everybody's money and ensure their own power.

Don't fall for the liberal economic scam.

Whatever Happened to the Little Engine That Could

We all know the story of the Little Engine That Could. I think I can, I think I can, I think I can. I knew I could, I knew I could, I knew I could. There's also the story of the 2 frogs in the hole trying to jump out with other frogs shouting down at them. One frog heard them all shouting that he couldn't do it, but the other frog was deaf and thought they were encouraging him. And which frog made it out of the hole? The one being encouraged of course.

Do we encourage people and tell them they can succeed? Do we tell them to believe they can, and to be that little engine? Nope. Our government and our society have become those frogs around the hole telling others they can't do it. Very unproductive. By telling our citizens they need the government we are telling them that they can't, not that they can. All I really want is a movement from somebody in power, anybody in power, to start encouraging our citizenry.

Why do abused women stay with their abusers? Because they have been convinced that they deserve it and they can't do anything or be anything on their own. Our leadership has begun to take on the role of an abusive husband. But we need to break free. But even though our leadership seems determined to keep us in the hole and keep us from trying, we are still free to encourage each other. And we should do so.

I saw both sides of this issue as I was growing up. I had one grandfather who thought I was worthless because I was a girl and because I was my mother's daughter. According to him I could never do anything, and he even went so far as to ask me in my adulthood when one of my cousins and I were going to make something of ourselves. We were both in management positions making a good living, self-sufficient, happy, and the only 2 in our generation that were still unmarried. The implication being of course that the only way to make something of ourselves was to marry. On the other side of the coin was my other Grandfather who never told me I couldn't do something. He never even hesitated. His belief in me encouraged my belief in myself. If he thought I could do it then I could. I'm sure there were some things my mother would have preferred I not do, like sitting at the peak of the roof on the house my grandparents were building and snapping a chalk line. Especially since the other side of the roof was still bare beams. But Grandpa thought I could do it, and by God I did. It's amazing the levels we can achieve when we know we must, so why can't we achieve those levels just when we know we can? This, I believe, is that too many people are taught that they can't.

I have a nephew who is just 5 years old. His mother is disabled and unable to work so they don't have much money. He is in the environment where so many turn to crime as they grow up because they believe they have no other option. But that little boy has decided he wants to be a chef. He watches all of the cooking shows and follows their instructions. And what does his mother do? She cooks with him. She encourages him to believe that he can be a chef when he grows up. At the same time she's trying to get out of the area she's in and to a better environment for her child. She's planning to move where she has more family, more support for both herself and her child. People who will also encourage him to believe that whatever he wants to do, he can.

Our government is so obsessed with controlling our behavior, through taxation and legislation, but the one behavior they don't concern themselves with is our beliefs in our own abilities. It is in their best interest to have us believe we can't succeed without them. Just listen to what they say. All of these government programs that are handouts. Every time they talk about economic unfairness, John Edwards infamous 2 Americas, all that said was that you can't do it on your own. the message is simple "You can't".

When will a leader emerge who truly believes in the American spirit which I fear will be lost? When will a leader emerge who will encourage the people to be the very best that they can be? When will a leader emerge who changes the message from - you know you can't - to - I know you can? I only pray he comes soon.

Redistribution of Wealth - A New Government Subsidy?

We hear a lot about redistribution of wealth, but what does it really mean? Is it anything more than a new government subsidy? I don't think so. I believe a subsidy is exactly what it is, but for all of the wrong reasons. The government seems to believe that there is a finite amount of money to be made (even though they keep printing more willy nilly) and that if Tom is making tons then Dick and Harry can't make any. They couldn't be more wrong. Big surprise there. There is infinite opportunity for wealth. Even though Tom is making tons of money, Dick and Harry can make even more. Even Jane, Sally and Mary can make money while Tom is.

Wherever we are in life, whether rich, poor or firmly middle class, it is where we have chosen to be. It may not be a conscious choice. We may not have desired that choice. We may not have known we were making that choice, but make it we did. The circumstances we were born into plays a part, but mostly we are where we are because of the decisions we've made. Our choices. Our choices led us to our current situation and, therefore, we've chosen where we are. Some people have made great decisions, others have made bad ones. Some choose to work hard with a goal in mind, some choose to do enough to get by. Some choose to not work at all. Some choose a job they love that doesn't make much money, others choose the money, while some choose Nintendo and a couch. Some choose to save and invest, some choose to live off their credit cards. And some make a combination of all of the above decisions plus more.

So what does the redistribution of wealth really mean? It means that we're subsidizing the bad decisions of some with the proceeds of the good decisions of others. And this is referred to as "fairness". And yet, if people are prone to making bad decisions, if they are given the money earned by another, won't they make the same bad decisions?

I believe that people should have the same opportunities. Education is a big thing for me. I find it appalling that we have to have police officers in our schools, but it's the decisions of the students that lead to that need. Unfortunately, in this situation those decisions impact so many others as well. But if a child chooses to get a good education, even in the worst circumstances, they can. It's a choice they have to make. Having said that, it is what we do with our opportunities that determine where we will go. Shouldn't we be equally distributing opportunity and not the proceeds of opportunities utilized to their best advantage by others?

By redistributing the results of the work of another, where is the encouragement of others to exceed that? Why aren't we telling people, "You don't need HIS money, you can make more on your own." If we really want to "spread the wealth" why aren't we teaching our poor youth how to become entrepreneurs? We seem to be telling them they'll never succeed so they must be supported instead of encouraging them to be the rich of the next generation. We have gone from teaching that with hard work and perseverance anything is possible, to teaching that you'll never make it so there's no point in trying.

The core of the redistribution of wealth is that you can't succeed on your own so the government must subsidize you. How sad is that. This is truly what keeps the poor in poverty. Where is the message of hope. The worst possible thing that we can do to the poor is to tell them they need the government to save them. A crime that the Democrats have been committing on our poor for decades. Instead of being given a handout, they should be encouraged and informed that they can do a far better job of improving their lives than the government could ever do for them. Yet where is this message? Who is saying it? Nobody as far as I can tell. And somebody definitely should. There will always be the rich and the poor because some will still make bad decisions. Some will make horrible mistakes. But why should those decisions and mistakes be subsidized? Oh, I know, the poor are too big to fail.

Congress To Legislate TP Usage

In the new green environment of Congress and the Obama Administration, legislation is being passed to control how we use products that impact the planet. When the Cap and Trade was proposed, Republican Roy Blunt said, "Taxes on air my ass!" This gave the Democratic leadership in congress what they believe is a brilliant idea.

"Americans use too much toilet paper," said Harry Reid. "They don't consider how these big wads of paper clog up our sewer systems and put strain on our water treatment systems. They also don't consider how many trees have to be cut down in order to wipe their asses. This selfish lack of consideration for our environment is partially responsible for the global warming / climate change crisis."

New regulations are being put on the toilet paper industry so that 2 ply toilet paper will be banned, and biodegradability will be more important than softness. It has also been proposed to put a per sheet tax on the toilet paper to ensure that Americans are not using more than they need. Questions arose on how to manage this in public restrooms and the suggestion was made to install automatic, coin operated dispensers. These will not be installed in the Capital building or in any other restroom utilized by Government officials and their staff. However, Lindsey Graham (R) offered an alternative stating that we use the numerous copies of the stimulus package as a toilet paper alternative. He said, "all that bill was good for was wiping our asses anyway."

The toilet paper industry is just the first in many publicly owned companies that the Congress will now attempt to design products for. They have decided that they can't get us to buy what they want us to so they will ensure that any undesirable products are no longer created. Enjoy that 2 ply soft toilet paper while you can. If Congress didn't chap your ass before, the certainly will soon.

Obama Says - It's All Bush's Fault

During the Obama press conference, which I'm still watching while I type, Obama states that he has no plan to close Guantanamo, but it's all Bush's fault. He says he doesn't want to constantly relive the last 8 years, but it's all Bush's fault.

The denial of the funds for closing Guantanamo was not because people don't want to see it closed, but because they're silly enough to actually want a plan of how that's going to happen. So what does Obama do, he holds a press conference. How many has he held now? Isn't he averaging one press conference every 1.36 days in office?

The president holds up the constitution as the shining light for doing what he's doing, but on the other hand he's singlemindedly deconstructing the principles on which it was written. He's pushing an agenda that quadruples our deficit and expands the role of government in our day to day lives, and does it all with the justification that it's all Bush's fault. When will he start taking responsibility for his own situation? Ever? I doubt it. He'll continue to say that it's all Bush's fault. If it rains on your wedding day, it's all Bush's fault. If we are attacked again, it will be all Bush's fault. If you lose your job, it's all Bush's fault. Oil prices are rising again, and I'm guessing that's all Bush's fault.

And he says we must uphold the rule of law. Except of course for those pesky bakruptcy laws that interfere with his plans. He says we can't say the ends justify the means in national security, yet he himself was accused by strong armed debt holders for Chrysler as being the most frighteningly ends justify the means person they had ever encountered. The inconsistency between what he says, and what he does is glaring and frightening to anybody who pays attention. Unfortunately most of the press does not pay attention.

Even if it is Bush's fault, it is in very bad taste to constantly say so. That would be like Bush constantly saying that 9/11 and what followed was all Clinton's fault. There was logic and justification for saying that. The argument could have been made. The argument was made by many political pundits, but not by George W Bush.

For somebody who constantly says that he doesn't want to look back, he spends an awful lot of time looking back and blaming somebody else. It may be Bush's fault that we have Gitmo, but it is not Bush's fault that Obama doesn't have a plan for what to do with it now. So when his funding is denied what does he do? He goes on the campaign trail again.

Watching this and the blame game that goes on, I'm reminded of a quote by George Orwell. "He who controls the present controls the past. And he who controls the past controls the future." Obama is saying he doesn't want to look back, doesn't want to be stuck in the past, but he's using the present to control the past in order to control our futures.

Wanda Sykes Sums Up The Administration

In the midst of her racially based jokes and tasteless jabs at Rush Limbaugh, at the White House Correspondence Dinner Wanda Sykes actually made a perfect analogy for the administration.

While attempting to poke fun at Dick Cheney for wanting to show the information we received through the enhanced interrogation techniques, Ms Sykes said that was like robbing a bank and saying "But look at the bills I paid." But isn't that exactly what the current administration is doing? Whenever they are questioned or criticized for the amount of money they are spending and the debt they are creating they respond with "but look at the great stuff we're doing." Very similar to justifying paying your bills with stolen money. The only difference is that instead of robbing a bank (they're taking those over instead) they're robbing the American people. And all to say "but look what I did with the money I stole from you."

The problem is that Ms Sykes, and too many others at the dinner, didn't see the reality in her joke. And what is happening is not funny. If the spending spree and the robbing of the American people continue, we may end up following Iceland's lead and be forced to declare the country bankrupt.

Is Being Wanted What Makes Us Human?

The right to abortion reared it's ugly head the other day and the age old argument that what a woman does with her own body was used. Also the argument that the decision should be between a woman and her doctor, not the government. People talk about it like it's an elective surgery to get rid of a tumor. Is that how they see a fetus? As a tumor growing inside the woman that she needs to get rid of?

I've heard it said that a fetus is not person, that it's just a mass of flesh until it is born. But then why, when a woman who wants the child is carrying , does she refers to it as a baby? And if she miscarries we say she lost the "baby". In that case it's not just a mass of flesh but it is a baby. Would you ever dare tell a woman who just miscarried that it was nothing but a mass of flesh anyway? Not if you value your life.

So why is a fetus referred to as a baby in some situations and as not yet a human in others? The only difference is whether or not the fetus, the baby, is wanted. This lends the question of whether or not what really makes us human is being wanted. And isn't that a dangerous place to go.

Can we use that same justification elsewhere? If a woman or a man no longer wants their child and they kill it we call it murder. Why is it different before the child is born? Because it's not yet human? I don't think so. Conception to birth is a stage of human development just like childhood, adolescents and adulthood. It would be very easy to prove me wrong on this. All it would take would be to present me with one person who was never a fetus. Never an embryo. I don't think you can. So people tell themselves that the fetus isn't human in order to justify it's murder. But it's a poor justification.

People say that what a woman does with her own body is her business, and I agree. She can pierce it, tattoo it, nip it, tuck it, wax and pluck it, paint it blue and march it down the street. But there is more than one body involved in an abortion and it's not what the woman is doing to her own that I have a problem with.

In the end, what makes one fetus disposable while another has it's sonogram picture posted on refrigerators? It's whether or not that fetus is wanted. So to a point, we define our humanity by whether or not we're wanted and not our genetic make-up. How terribly sad is that.