For whom the bell tolls

Pelosi is right now pressuring the fence sitters in her party to vote for her healthcare bill. It will pass and move on to consolidation with any future senate bill. The bluedogs who vote for this travesty are sealing their own fate. Even if the senate bill goes down in flames, and healthcare legislation is tabled for next year, the bluedogs will go on record as fiscal and social liberals. There will be a bloodletting at the polls next November, and that blood will be blue.

 

The Demise of American Industry, A Liberal-Progressve Agenda

In his best selling book, “Liberty and Tyranny – A Conservative Manifesto”, Mark Levin describes an economic theory called creative destruction.

There are times when the Statist interferes with the free market to try to stave off what the late economist Joseph Schumpeter, among others, described as creative destruction.  As he explained,

Capitalism…is by nature a form or method of economic change and not only never is but never can be stationary…The fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers, goods, the new methods or production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that enterprise creates…[T]he history of the productive apparatus of a typical farm, from the beginnings of the rationalization of crop rotation. plowing and fattening to the mechanized thing of today – linking up with elevators and railroads – is a history of revolutions.  So is the history of the productive apparatus of the iron and steel industry from the charcoal furnace to our own type of furnace, of the history of the apparatus of power production from the overshot water wheel to the modern power plant, or the history of transportation from the mail coach to the airplane.  The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop and the factory to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation…that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.  This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism.  It is what capitalism consists in and what every capitalist concern has got to live in…”

Drawing to his conclusion on Creative Destruction, Levine writes,

Comprehend a future without creative destruction.  It is bleak, backwards, and destitute, like most authoritarian societies.  Yet the Statist has persuaded some erstwhile conservatives of its demerits.  Typically the argument is formulated around protecting America’s industrial base.  The question is asked: How can America allow its industries to fail and outsource its vital needs to other countries?  From where will we get our steel?  How ill we build our tanks?  This is a circular argument.  The Conservative urges an economic environment stripped of debilitating regulations and taxes that hinder the performance and competition of American industries and, in most cases, does so.  However, where industries are subjected to the Statist’s heavy hand rather than the free market’s invisible hand, they are obstructed and burdened in ways that are counter intuitive and self-defeating.  Ultimately, it is an unworkable formula, as the rest of the world is not obliged to adhere to it but rather will look for ways to exploit it.  The Statist, therefore, is destructive of the very ends and the very people he professes to represent.

The U.S. manufacturing sector has been steadily losing jobs since the 1970’s.  Much of this decline can be attributed directly to economic and environmental regulations that made it easier for jobs to be exported, or for manufacturers to simply go out of business.  Politicians, mostly those of the liberal-progressive bent, bemoan the loss of these jobs.  Instead of relaxing regulations that are the cause they call for even more legislation and regulation!  This is not limited to American steel producers.  Oil companies are not allowed to tap into expansive U.S. oil reserves because of oppressive environmental laws that only profit those politicians with a liberal-progressive ideology.  CAFE standard are partly to blame for the enormous manufacturing costs that American automobile companies are saddled with.  Who pays for all of this regulation?  You.  The consumer.

Don’t be fooled by the recent bailout given to Chrysler and General Motors.  The funds dispersed to these two companies were only enough to keep them in business for a few months and did not stop them from declaring bankruptcy.  The taxpayer would have been better served by allowing these companies to go into bankruptcy from the beginning.  The end result would have been the same, but the U.S. taxpayer would have been spared billions of dollars.  What was the auto bailout all about?  Power.  Government does not act in the interest of its citizens unless those citizens hold their government accountable.  So, while government is responsible for selling our manufacturing sector down the river, its citizens are guilty of collective apathy.  Both groups are complicit.  The good news is that the citizenry is slowly waking out of its deep slumber.  There is unrest afoot and it is seen across this great land.

 

If Israel goes it alone

With the latest revelation that Iran has been building a secret uranium enrichment facility, the dynamic between Israel and the rest of the West has changed. It has long been rumored that Israel may strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities before they are able to produce weapons. How close Iran is to reaching that final stage is still being debated. Given Iran’s overt statements about destroying the Jewish state, there is ample reason to fear what will happen once the Islamic regime acquires these weapons. Israel has a history of being attacked by it’s neighbors. The Islamic extremist view of jihad provides cover for those Muslims that would be killed in a nuclear attack against Israel. In short, there is a high degree of confidence that Iran would use nuclear weapons if they acquire them. Worse yet is the potential for allowing weapons grade plutonium, and detonation technology, to find it’s way into the hands of Al Qaeda or one many other terrorist organizations. A suitcase sized nuclear device could destroy a portion of a city and cause large scale damage and loss of life. This type of attack is as likely as an Iranian missile being launched against Jerusalem.

On the one hand it would solve the West’s problems if Israel launched a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear sites. The anger of the Muslim world would be directed at Israel. It’s not like Israel is not already hated in the Muslim world. Israel is well-armed and capable of a nuclear strike of it’s own. But while Israel has acted responsibly with it’s secret nuclear arsenal, can the world expect Iran to do the same? Given it’s support for Hamas, and it’s covert assistance to terrorist forces in Iraq, one would have to conclude, “no.”

On the other hand an Israeli military strike could make the world a more dangerous place. Recruitment among Islamic terrorist organizations would probably increase. The West, including the United States, would be held responsible as the catalyst behind the Israeli attacks. No one would believe Israel truly acted alone. Iran’s oil exports would be interrupted for an indefinite period of time delivering a critical blow to the weak world economy. How Russia would react to an Israeli attack is unknown at this time.

Should the West allow Israel to do it’s own dirty work? No. The West should be united in opposing Iranian nuclear weapons development. Before a shot is fired Iran should face an emargo on nuclear technology. Russia needs to drive this embargo seeing as it is Iran’s strongest non-Muslim ally. It may be an extreme measure, but the world community should consider boycotting Iranian oil. This would be hard for many economies to absorb, but cutting off Iran’s economic hands would make proceeding with their nuclear ambitions more difficult. Only if marginalizing Iran failed should military action be contemplated. It would be best if the West banded together to support military action. Europe should take a prominent role in any such attack. As bad as the fallout would be, it would be better than if Israel were involved.

The reality is that the world community is weak. There is no resolve to do what is necessary to hold Iran accountable. In the end Israel will be forced to act. The result will be a more dangerous world for us and our children. We can only hope that the world community wakes up and does the right thing.

 

Even ABC can get it right once in a while

Give John Stossel his props.  He’s spot on.

 

Who has Obama’s ear?

While Presidents are ultimately responsible for the decisions they make, they do not make them alone.  President’s, like heads of state from the first human government, surround themselves with advisers and counselors.  President Obama is no exception.  He has assembled experts in various fields for those issues that concern him the most.  One such issue is healthcare.  While the President is pushing for healthcare reform, he is doing so based on the advice of his advisers.  One adviser, Dr.  Ezekiel Emanuel, has some interesting things to say about the state of healthcare in the United States and what must be done to change it.

Wall Street Journal reporter, Betsy McCaughey, recently wrote an article on the unique views on healthcare held by Dr. Emanuel.  McCaughey’s article starts off by shedding light on Emanuel’s view of the Hippocratic oath.  The Hippocratic Oath binds the conscience of physicians, that they will do everything in their power to sustain life.  If you were to wind up in the hospital with a serious illness or injury, wouldn’t you want your doctor to do everything possible to save your life?  That’s not how Dr. Emanuel sees it.

In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the “overuse” of medical care: “Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness,” he writes. “This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to ‘use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.”

Instead of being bound to the oath of doing all that is possible to sustain life, Emanuel believes there needs to be a shifting of physician philosophy.  McCaughey writes:

Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained “to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care.” One sign of progress he sees: “the progression in end-of-life care mentality from ‘do everything’ to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible.”

What does this mean in real life?  Dr. Emanuel, one of President Obama’s chief healthcare advisers, believes that life sustaining medical care should be given to those who have significant life years left to live.  In other words, save the young and allow the old to die.  Emanuel theorizes that by concentrating life sustaining services on those with more years left to live society will be stronger and more productive.  Therefore, the needs of the individual are trumped by the needs of society.  Read Dr. Emanuel’s own words.

In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a “complete lives system” for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. “One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

“However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear.” In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel’s chart nearby).

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: “Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, ‘It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,’ this argument is supported by empirical surveys.”

In Dr. Emanuel’s Utopian healthcare system, individuals should recognize that they should balance their own healthcare needs, and those of their aging family members, with that of society.  Emanuel bases his theory on the belief that healthcare resources will be limited.  What he doesn’t tell you is that healthcare resources are widely available today to all who seek them.  Doctors seldom have to make the choice of administering or withholding care from elderly or disabled patients because a younger person needs those resources.  If access to life sustaining medical care is available to all, why is Dr. Emanuel theorizing that it will be limited in the future?  The answer is easy: he is expecting rationed healthcare to be the norm for the society of the future; and not the far future, the near future.  In other words, once the United States adopts a single payer healthcare system, life sustaining services will be rationed based on a matrix that will calculate cost of care vs. return on investment.  Does our healthcare dollars result in more return when applied to a 20 year old as opposed to a 80 year old?  If Dr. Emanuel gets his way our society will more closely resemble Logan’s Run, the society that killed off all those over 30.

The next time you visit Grandma and kiss her goodbye, make sure you mean it.

 

The Morality of Government run Healthcare

According to the Wall Street Journal, “The President is expected to present a more emotional appeal during a conference call Wednesday with liberal religious groups. A senior White House official said the message would be tailored to the groups’ moral emphases..” In other words, the President is going to appeal to the moral aspect of the debate by saying, “Isn’t it the moral thing to do to make sure everyone has access to health care?” The problem with this line of reasoning is that the same government who wants to appeal to your inner goodness in providing health care to all has absolutely no problems with it’s inner evil toward murdering the unborn. And since the House version of the health care reform bill is purposefully vague on the subject of abortion, it is not a stretch to envision that this same moral government will provide free access to the most immoral of all evils: infanticide.

The truth is that the President, nor our government, is any position to lecture us on morality. Nancy Pelosi compared the protesters at the town hall meetings to Nazis. Nazis? Really, Nancy? Then who should we compare you to, seeing as you are a supporter of free access to the slaughter of unborn babies, to the tune of over 50,000,000 since 1973? Which is more Nazi-like, protesters or advocates of murder?

Mr. President, no thank you. We are not in need of your version of morality.

 

Socialism is as Socialism does

How would you describe American socialism as evidenced in the democrat party?  Perhaps the following simple phrase will help.

“Transferring wealth is what socialists do. Transferring ownership is what socialists are.”

 

A 12 year old on abortion

Too often the voice of the politicians, pundits, and even us bloggers get lost in the crowd.  We’re just another noise in an endless cacophony of opinions that saturate our culture.  The debate over abortion has been center stage for nearly 40 years.  Little is left to be heard from those on either side of the argument.  It’s for that reason I call you to listen to a pre-teen young lady on the issue.  She prepared this message for her 7th grade class.  I don’t have permission from her father to share her name, but happily I’m able to share her speech.

 

The Three Porkateers

From Foxnews.com

“Senators have reached a tentative deal on a version of President Obama’s economic spending plan, including about $811 billion in spending and tax cuts, that will win enough Republican votes to move forward.

Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Susan Collins of Maine appeared to be the critical Republicans to sign onto the bill, giving Democrats the 60 votes needed to advance to a final vote. Democrats also voiced confidence that Republican Sen. Olympia Snow of Maine also would vote for the plan.”

Specter is the ring-leader of the Republican defection.  He’s long been a thorn in the side of conservatives.  Go back to his questioning of Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.  By helping end closure on the debate; Specter, Snow and Collins are effectively showing their true RINO colors.  Obama and Reid will hail them as heroes – visionaries.  They’ll be right there in the background as Obama signs this rotting corpse into law.  We can’t expect Mitch McConnell to call these on the carpet publicly, but we can.

McConnell will play nice with the three Porkateers, because he may need them on other votes.  But conservatives in the rank-in-file should be getting out their roasting spits and piling the wood high.  Michael Steele needs to send the message that Republicans, in both houses, are overwhelmingly against this bill.  Polling data clearly shows support among the American people has dropped like a rock.  Republicans need to make sure that democrats “own” this bill.  Pin the label of ownership on them that they so rightly deserve.  Republicans need to distance themselves from the democrats.  Steele is in the perfect position to come out against this bill publicly.  Bloggers also need to be heard.  Ratchet up the noise.  Expose these three RINO’s for what they truly are .  Sell outs.  Imposters.

There is one slim hope out there.  It looks as though a vote won’t be held on Porkulus I until Monday.  Republicans should flood the Senate switchboard and the offices of Specter, Snow and Collins with calls against this bill.  Here are the Senate phone numbers to call:

Senator Arlen Specter (202) 224-4254

Senator Olympia Snow (202) 224-5344

Senator Susan Collins (202) 224-2523

If you’re from Maine and Pennsylvania, tell the Senate aides that you will be working against these Senators in their next election.  Decisions have consequences.  It’s time the three Porkateers found out what those consequences are.

 

Blame Bush!

“I have no desire to rehash the many ways that the Bush administration politicized and degraded the Justice Department away from its historic mission.  While we must not fail to remember that sad chapter in our history, I am far more interested today in looking toward a more hopeful future.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, upon the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General

Go ahead, Senator Reid.  Milk that cow for all you can get.  Pull down on those teats until they are bone dry.  But know this, YOU are in charge now.  Your eager sycophants will drink up all you can give them.  For now.  But once that cow is dry you won’t be able to point the finger at George W. Bush.  The way the republicans stood as one against Nancy Pelosi, and the way they are ready to knock the wheels off Porkulus I in the senate, democrats are going to be left wondering how their super majority is beginning to look more like a super sham.

So, while the republicans have finally begun to display leadership, you keep on bashing George W. Bush.  See  how far it’s going to get you.