Hubris...

As quoted on CNN, our President said:

Obama, who took no questions, said the opposition was no surprise. "Throughout history, whenever we have sought to change this country for the better, there have always been those who wanted to preserve the status quo," he said. "These always boil down to a contest between hope and fear."

My guess is, that throughout history, whenever we have sought to change this country for the worse, there have also been those who wanted to preserve the status quo. Only history gets to say if something is better or worse... and if it is worse, then we are already stuck with it by the time history gets around to making it's call.

Of course, we can take a lesson from history to guide us in decisions we make now. In that regard, the overwhelming evidence points to this being a plan to make things worse, not better. No amount of hope will change that, I fear.

Right now, the contest is between those who hope that what has been tried and failed everywhere will succeed, and that the government who has an iron clad history of being inefficient and unreliable will be both efficient and reliable with the most important thing in our lives: our lives. On the other hand, there are those who fear that our government has stopped listening to the will of the people, and wants to control more of our lives than it already does; and they fear that our health care decisions will be made by the same government who has demonstrated ineptitude with the US Postal System, Amtrak, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, VA care, $4000 toilet seats, IRS tax code and most other government programs.

This should be a no-brainer. Yet, there remain those that are adament for reform. Adament for "Single Payer (single provider)" health insurance. Why? What is in it for them? I doubt it is altruistic concern for people's health.

A Few Quick Thoughts...

... on the ongoing debate about the Health Care proposals by President Obama.

1. Presumably, any "Government Option" for insurance, would be available nationwide. Now, if that is good for a "government option", then why are the insurance companies not allowed to do the same? Each has to tailor its products for specific states, and somebody in, say, Ohio can't purchase insurance that is available in, say Idaho.

President Obama claims that a "Government Option" would compete with, not override, the private insurance options. But this question alone tells me it would be a very, very unfair competition at best, heavily weighted toward the "government option".

2. Currently, the arbitor when insured and insurer disagree is the government. A "government option" would mean the government becomes both the insurer and the arbitor. That is not a recipe for consumer protection, methinks.

3. So, President Obama has reached out to clergy, asking them to promote his Health Care initiatives from the pulpit. Can anyone imagine the uproar if President Bush had done this? Heck, I well remember the uproar from the liberal media and others that he was a man of religion, and used his faith to help make decisions!! Where are these bastions of defense of the "firewall" between church and state now? Buehler? Buehler?

4. I don't wish cancer or brain tumors or any serious illness on anyone. However, I find it ironic that if we all had to live under the mandate of Obamacare, then Senator Kennedy would not have been able to seek out the best medical options for his ailment... rather he would have had to submit to the decisions of a bureacrat. That is, if all of us are equal and the ruling class isn't given special dispensation.

I'm a Concerned Patriot. Very, very concerned.

Black Man Pleads Guilty to Posing as Obama-Hating White Supremacist on Facebook

Why is this not a hate crime?

Black Man Pleads Guilty to Posing as Obama-Hating White Supremacist on Facebook

Ann Coulter recently challenged Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al, to come up with one "Hate Crime" that wasn't a hoax. This sort of thing just proves her point.

Posted using ShareThis

Republican Discrace: SC Governor Sanford

Those we elect to represent us in Government... be that government at the local, state or national level... serve US.

Their jobs are not a right, they are a priveledge that WE provide to them for limited periods of employment.

What Gov. Sanford (Republican, SC) has done may or may not be illegal, and the penalties may be non-specific. But he has tarnished his position, and the public perception is that he has serious ethical, and moral, problems.

If he is still in office at the next election, the electorate will get a chance to say if they want to continue to employe him. But that is too late. The right thing for him to do is resign. Now.

We the people, the employers, need to demand that all elected officials follow a Code of Conduct that we promulgate. That Code of Conduct must include immediate resignation for the good of the republic, state or municipality at any time the incumbent's conduct brings the perception of scandal to the office. Zero tolerance.

If we had employees who showed such poor judgement, repeatedly, in our family business, that employee would be fired. Short of impeachment, there is no way to "fire" elected officials before the next election. But, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be pressed to do the right thing and resign. It'ds what a true leader does when he screws up

AP: Sanford Used State Planes for Personal Trips - Political News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

On Socialism

"SOCIALISM is a philosophy of FAILURE, the creed of IGNORANCE, and the gospel of ENVY, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of Misery."
--- Winston Churchill