The question that has been posed by Mike Church on a number of occasions is whether Republicans want to dismantle the federal leviathan or simply manage it? Today (2-25) I was listening to Sean Hannity. A caller made a comment that was made at the health care summit by Sen. Coburn dealing with creating an agency of "patients" that check up on doctors. The caller then said that all this will do is make doctors look over their shoulders. Sean asked if the doctors are doing what they're supposed to be doing, why should they be worried? This is the type of mind set that we have to change. Sean and others like him, both famous and not so famous, miss the point of shrinking the government not expanding it.
Forgetting the point that the government's involvement in health insurance is unconstitutional, creating another government bureaucracy expands the role that the federal government plays in our lives.
I oppose the Patriot Act whether it is overseen by a Republican or Democrat. Sean and others like him ask why I oppose it if I have nothing to hide? That isn't the point. Do you trust the government to always follow the rules? The Germans thought that they could trust the Nazis when they started keeping tabs on them. A government will start out passing laws by saying that they are for your safety. When people oppose the new "safety measures" the question of, "What do you have to hide?" is always raised. A couple years after the Patriot Act was passed and signed into law, there was a caller to a local Portland radio show that compared the new powers given to the government under the Patriot Act and Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The host of the program asked the caller to give examples of when the Patriot Act was abused. Of course the caller couldn't provide any examples and was promptly dismissed as a naysayer. As it usually happens, the next few callers railed against the caller and anyone else who didn't agree that the Patriot Act would make us safer. How can you compare Bush to Hitler after all?
Why do I oppose increased government involvement in my life? Although Bush was no conservative and I didn't think he would abuse any of the provisions contained in the Patriot Act, you can never count on subsequent political leaders to be so restrained. If you think I'm wrong, look at the current leadership in the Senate and House as well as the current president. Think that it can't happen to us in the United States? Look at what happened in the first year of the Obama administration. Nationalize the banks-Done. Take steps in nationalizing private companies-GM and Chrysler-Done. Nationalize credit-Working on it. Nationalizing health care-Working on it. Class warfare-Already started.
Now I ask again, do you want to shrink the size of the government or just manage it? If it is the latter, choosing between you and a Democrat is like deciding whether you want your leg amputated above or below the knee. What's the difference. If you want to shrink the size of government you are a true conservative. If you just want to manage the government you are a Decepti-Con.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Glenn Beck the Decepti-Con
Debra Medina is one of three candidates running for governor of Texas on the Republican ticket. Her opponents are Rick Perry, who is the current governor, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, U.S. Senator. Last week Glenn Beck had Medina on his radio program. This would usually be a great way to reach out to a larger audience and gain support both locally and nationally. Apparently Mr. Beck didn't approve of Ms. Medina's idea of a limited federal government and States' rights. This is apparent in the questions she was asked and the way Mr. Beck and his employees laughed and mocked her after they got off the phone with her but continuing to broadcast. This was wholly unprofessional and disrespectful. For this, I am labeling Glenn Beck as a Decepti-Con.
You may ask what a Decepti-Con is. A Decepti-Con is a person who claims to be a conservative but is only interested in managing the federal leviathan,not shrinking it. They give lip service to State's rights but when it comes to the implementation of State's rights, they criticize those who try to take steps to shrink the federal government and return the power back to the States and the people.
For his actions in throwing Debra Medina under the bus I am calling out Glenn Beck as a Decepti-Con and showing him as being a fraud and a disgrace to the 9/12 project. If Beck were to see the error of his ways and make a public apology to Ms. Medina on both his radio and T.V. shows, I would be willing to consider taking him off the list of Decepti-Cons.
You may ask what a Decepti-Con is. A Decepti-Con is a person who claims to be a conservative but is only interested in managing the federal leviathan,not shrinking it. They give lip service to State's rights but when it comes to the implementation of State's rights, they criticize those who try to take steps to shrink the federal government and return the power back to the States and the people.
For his actions in throwing Debra Medina under the bus I am calling out Glenn Beck as a Decepti-Con and showing him as being a fraud and a disgrace to the 9/12 project. If Beck were to see the error of his ways and make a public apology to Ms. Medina on both his radio and T.V. shows, I would be willing to consider taking him off the list of Decepti-Cons.
Answer to Mike Church's Question
Mike Church today (2-3) asked what we were going to do about shrinking leviathan? What are we going to do to shrink the size of government? Apparently a number of people have complained via email that they have relatives that have government jobs. “What do you want to do; let them lose their jobs? Are you going to feed them when their job is eliminated?” To those people I say, “Let them get a real job. If they are worth a damn, they can get a real job in the private sector. If they can’t get a real job, then maybe the reason they have a government job is because they can’t make it in the real world. “What about (fill in the blank), they’re a teacher in the public school system. What do you want to do, fire them too? Who will teach the kids?” Have you seen the state of the public schools? Are you telling me that with all the money that is sunk into them that they are doing a good job in teaching the kids? Why is it that more parents choose to send their children to private schools or are home schooling them? The public schools are a sinkhole. Why is it that many teachers are against merit pay? Once a teacher gets tenure, it is almost impossible for them to get fired. And then you wonder why the schools are failing. “Me thinks they doth protest too much.” Why is it that government bureaucrats continually say that we aren’t funding education enough and just one more tax increase will fix the problem? I have been hearing that same old song and dance since I was in school back in the mid-80’s. If it is really only one more tax increase, why is it that when the taxes do go up, you still need more money? How many non-teachers do the schools employ? How many non-school buildings are “owned” by the school districts? If the school superintendent is in charge of a failing school system and you get rid of them; why would you hire a replacement that was fired for the same reason?
My answer to the King Dude’s question of the day, start abolishing government agencies and start firing government employees. Those who have the ability to make something of themselves will find a new, productive job. Those who can’t make it in the real world will either have to learn to be productive or they will have to rely on the charity or others.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Measures 66 and 67 passed thanks to all the dumb asses
To say that I opposed measures 66 and 67 would be an understatement. Today (Jan. 26) was the day of this vote. To let those who don't know what these ballot measures do, I'll give a very brief summary.
Measures 66 and 67 would increase taxes. One would increase the corporate minimum tax and the other would increase income taxes on those making over $125,000 for single filers and $250,000 for couples.
One of the facts that are conveniently left out is that many small businesses file their taxes as income taxes. Oh and this increase in income taxes would be on receipts not profit. These ballot measures came about in an effort to stop the dumb asses in Salem from imposing these taxes on us just for the hell of it. They claim it's to help balance the budget to fund schools, public safety, and other "essential" services. Instead of trying to turn the State of Oregon into the Michigan of the west by raising taxes, how about if the jackasses in Salem live spend the money that is taken from us instead of stealing more of our money.
As an individual household, I have to be able to survive with what my wife and I make at our jobs. If I need more money, I can't go to my neighbor and take money from him just because I can't live within my budget. Why in the blue fucking hell can't the stupid shits that claim to run the State and the Nation do the same? The reason is because they can always count on the lazy bastards that refuse to get off their asses and make something of themselves and instead expect the government to wipe their asses for them. After all, they can't be troubled to be productive in society.
Ayn Rand wrote a book called "Atlas Shrugged" in the 1950's. Lately that book has been flying off the shelves at book stores and libraries. Do you know why? Maybe you should read it. Or if you're too lazy or stupid to do that, you can listen to it as an audio book.
Who is John Galt?
It is long past time that those who have the ability stand up and yell "STOP!" If those who are constantly demonized by the government and the non-contributors where to stop producing, what would you do? Who would provide for you? Get off your ass and do something productive.
Who is John Galt?
Do you not want to be successful? Obviously you don't or you wouldn't live like you do and then expect those who have what you want to give you what they earned. You dumb asses in Salem and Washington, D.C. are nothing but looters. You do nothing for the money you steal from the productive and then demonize us for working, earning and being successful. Then when you need more money, you try to bleed us even more.
Who is John Galt?
Their is a movement in this nation that is taking hold. It isn't moving fast but it is moving nonetheless. What is this movement? Going Galt. You hear whispers of liberty and freedom. Less government intrusion and more free markets. Those all sound good, but do you really want to live without a government safety net? Do you know what that entails? Have you given it any thought? Just think about it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, food stamps, WIC, welfare, public housing, and government subsidized housing. Can you live without these as backup plans? This is why measures 66 an 67 passed.
I'm not giving a pass to Republicans either. The establishment Republicans have sold out what they claimed were their principles for 30 pieces of silver. They were willing to jettison their beliefs for increased power or to retain their power. What good is it if you are no better than the Democrats? We may not go down the road to socialism as fast as the Dems but many Republicans are still going down that road. If the people are given the choice of Democrat and Democrat-lite they're going to go for the real thing.
Why do you think Gordon Smith lost his bid for re-election in 2008? It wasn't because people wanted that socialist dip shit Merkley. Look at the results for the election. If I remember right, Merkley won by less than 10,000 votes. The third party candidate who ran on the Constitution Party ticket received almost 80,000 votes. I was one of those who voted third party. Why? Because their wasn't a lot of difference between Smith and Merkley. I may be registered as a Republican, but that is only so I can vote in the primaries. I do not owe my vote to you just because you are a Republican and I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for a RINO just as I won't vote for a lib or a socialist.
Measures 66 and 67 would increase taxes. One would increase the corporate minimum tax and the other would increase income taxes on those making over $125,000 for single filers and $250,000 for couples.
One of the facts that are conveniently left out is that many small businesses file their taxes as income taxes. Oh and this increase in income taxes would be on receipts not profit. These ballot measures came about in an effort to stop the dumb asses in Salem from imposing these taxes on us just for the hell of it. They claim it's to help balance the budget to fund schools, public safety, and other "essential" services. Instead of trying to turn the State of Oregon into the Michigan of the west by raising taxes, how about if the jackasses in Salem live spend the money that is taken from us instead of stealing more of our money.
As an individual household, I have to be able to survive with what my wife and I make at our jobs. If I need more money, I can't go to my neighbor and take money from him just because I can't live within my budget. Why in the blue fucking hell can't the stupid shits that claim to run the State and the Nation do the same? The reason is because they can always count on the lazy bastards that refuse to get off their asses and make something of themselves and instead expect the government to wipe their asses for them. After all, they can't be troubled to be productive in society.
Ayn Rand wrote a book called "Atlas Shrugged" in the 1950's. Lately that book has been flying off the shelves at book stores and libraries. Do you know why? Maybe you should read it. Or if you're too lazy or stupid to do that, you can listen to it as an audio book.
Who is John Galt?
It is long past time that those who have the ability stand up and yell "STOP!" If those who are constantly demonized by the government and the non-contributors where to stop producing, what would you do? Who would provide for you? Get off your ass and do something productive.
Who is John Galt?
Do you not want to be successful? Obviously you don't or you wouldn't live like you do and then expect those who have what you want to give you what they earned. You dumb asses in Salem and Washington, D.C. are nothing but looters. You do nothing for the money you steal from the productive and then demonize us for working, earning and being successful. Then when you need more money, you try to bleed us even more.
Who is John Galt?
Their is a movement in this nation that is taking hold. It isn't moving fast but it is moving nonetheless. What is this movement? Going Galt. You hear whispers of liberty and freedom. Less government intrusion and more free markets. Those all sound good, but do you really want to live without a government safety net? Do you know what that entails? Have you given it any thought? Just think about it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, food stamps, WIC, welfare, public housing, and government subsidized housing. Can you live without these as backup plans? This is why measures 66 an 67 passed.
I'm not giving a pass to Republicans either. The establishment Republicans have sold out what they claimed were their principles for 30 pieces of silver. They were willing to jettison their beliefs for increased power or to retain their power. What good is it if you are no better than the Democrats? We may not go down the road to socialism as fast as the Dems but many Republicans are still going down that road. If the people are given the choice of Democrat and Democrat-lite they're going to go for the real thing.
Why do you think Gordon Smith lost his bid for re-election in 2008? It wasn't because people wanted that socialist dip shit Merkley. Look at the results for the election. If I remember right, Merkley won by less than 10,000 votes. The third party candidate who ran on the Constitution Party ticket received almost 80,000 votes. I was one of those who voted third party. Why? Because their wasn't a lot of difference between Smith and Merkley. I may be registered as a Republican, but that is only so I can vote in the primaries. I do not owe my vote to you just because you are a Republican and I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for a RINO just as I won't vote for a lib or a socialist.
Monday, December 21, 2009
There may be hope
With the Senate taking a test vote to kill our medical industry last night I decided to see what the opposition to my non-representing representative had to say about it. When I visited his site on facebook, I noticed that there was a link to an article published in the WestLinn Tiddings dated November 12, 2009. In this article, both Kurt Schrader (D) and Scott Bruun (R) were interviewed. Mr. Schrader espoused his flawed ideology about how socialized medicine would keep costs down and wouldn't allow the health insurance companies deny anyone because of preexisting conditions. The two points are contradictory unless the ultimate goal is to push all private health insurance companies out of business.
Mr. Bruun's view of the House's version of socialized medicine is vastly different and would be a more hands off approach to the issue. Mr. Bruun used some language that is a little disturbing like "bi-partisan" and "tax incentives." Some language was right on such as "reducing the Medicare/Medicaid cost shift onto private insurance" and "allowing for purchase of private insurance across state lines" and "fixing our tort system to reduce costs related to defensive medicine."
I know that Medicare and Medicaid are black holes when it comes to government spending. The federal government has to cut Medicaid completely. First they do not have the authority to run or manage this monstrosity. Medicaid, if it were to remain, falls under the ninth and tenth amendments and therefore fall under the individual States to run if they decide to have this program. Medicare is a completely different situation altogether. Those that are receiving Medicare benefits were promised that this program would be there when they reached a certain age. For those who are receiving those benefits or are about to receive the benefits, they must keep them. The federal government needs to impose a cutoff. Those who were born before the cutoff have to rely on either themselves or their State to pay for their medical costs when they get to retirement age. Those who were born after the cutoff have the option to receive Medicare when they reach the age where they are able to receive them or they may choose to opt out.
As for Scott's comment about buying health insurance across state lines, this is the first politician from the left coast, that I have heard or read, who has uttered those words. For that I must applaud him. I can't say who I will support for Oregon's fifth congressional district. I can say with certainty that it will not be Mr. Schrader, he is too liberal. As for Scott Bruun, only time will tell if I put my hat in the ring for him or someone else that is running for that seat. As of now, I can say that Mr. Bruun's stock with me is rising.
Mr. Bruun's view of the House's version of socialized medicine is vastly different and would be a more hands off approach to the issue. Mr. Bruun used some language that is a little disturbing like "bi-partisan" and "tax incentives." Some language was right on such as "reducing the Medicare/Medicaid cost shift onto private insurance" and "allowing for purchase of private insurance across state lines" and "fixing our tort system to reduce costs related to defensive medicine."
I know that Medicare and Medicaid are black holes when it comes to government spending. The federal government has to cut Medicaid completely. First they do not have the authority to run or manage this monstrosity. Medicaid, if it were to remain, falls under the ninth and tenth amendments and therefore fall under the individual States to run if they decide to have this program. Medicare is a completely different situation altogether. Those that are receiving Medicare benefits were promised that this program would be there when they reached a certain age. For those who are receiving those benefits or are about to receive the benefits, they must keep them. The federal government needs to impose a cutoff. Those who were born before the cutoff have to rely on either themselves or their State to pay for their medical costs when they get to retirement age. Those who were born after the cutoff have the option to receive Medicare when they reach the age where they are able to receive them or they may choose to opt out.
As for Scott's comment about buying health insurance across state lines, this is the first politician from the left coast, that I have heard or read, who has uttered those words. For that I must applaud him. I can't say who I will support for Oregon's fifth congressional district. I can say with certainty that it will not be Mr. Schrader, he is too liberal. As for Scott Bruun, only time will tell if I put my hat in the ring for him or someone else that is running for that seat. As of now, I can say that Mr. Bruun's stock with me is rising.
Physician Assistants Gone Wild
Imagine that you're at your doctor's office and the physician assistant comes in and asks if you are a gun owner. Think this won't happen? Think again. In the past, various medical associations have weighed in on the subject of firearm ownership. The latest offender is the physicians assistants in the article titled, "Ready, Fire, Aim" written by Sarah Zarbock. I heard of this article when I was listening to Cam and Company the other night; Cam and Company can be heard M-F 9pm ET to 12am ET on www.nranews.com or on Sirius Patriot 144.
First let me ask the first question that came to my mind, "How is it any of their business whether or not I own a firearm?" This question is pointed at anyone in the medical field, my employer or prospective employer, my religious leaders, the government, or any number of people. For this post, however, I will focus on the medical community and more specifically, physician assistants.
Ms. Zarbock starts off with the usual suspects of emotional arguments why owning a firearm is bad, starting with the child that "plays with a loaded handgun" that was discovered and within its reach. The next ones are just as predictable; the homeowner that loses their handgun in a struggle with an invader and the depressed "gun-owning college student." The last example that is used, is actually a reason to own a firearm, the last example given is a female opening her door only to find her ex on the other side with a rifle even though there's a restraining order barring him from being near her. This shows that a piece of paper can't stop someone from doing harm if they really want to.
Ms. Zarbock claims that she isn't writing an editorial on gun control but is focusing on gun safety. She states, "Where I think most of us can agree is that we have an obligation as health professionals to discuss gun safety with patients."(Emphasis added). How is it that gun safety falls under the purview of a medical professional when they are operating in the role of a medical professional? What type of training do they have that qualifies them to offer unsolicited advice about gun safety? Has a qualified person trained them? Isn't this a type of conversation better left to someone you know and not a stranger?
Putting these questions aside and returning to the article, she turns to statistics. When I start seeing statistics I hear Mark Twain in the back of my mind saying, "There are three kinds of lies in the world; lies, damned lies, and statistics." She quotes a study published in the Journal of Community Health in 1997. The study stated, "that 1 in 7 patients had a gun in their house. About half of the patients with guns reported storing them unlocked, and more than half had not talked to their children about gun safety." Are all of these "patients" legal gun owners? In regards to those who haven't "talked to their children about gun safety," there may be some reasons that they haven't done so. First, if they are part of the criminal element they may not care much about teaching gun safety to their kid. Barring that reason, the children may not be old enough to learn about gun safety. Some people choose to wait to teach gun safety and some don't do it at all. Teaching gun safety to your kids is a good thing to do especially if you own one but that is your choice. The study goes on to say that half of the patients think that the doctors should "counsel about gun safety... [t]wo-thirds of the doctors said that they were not trained in or comfortable with counseling on gun safety." For those who think their medical professional should counsel the on firearm safety, I would ask them if they would ask their plumber how to operate a car safely? Notice that the study claims that the majority of doctors say they aren't trained in counseling patients on firearm safety. Leave the teaching to those who know. If a patient needs advice, point them to the local gun range, NRA or state association, or a gun store.
Ms. Zarbock closes her article with, "Asking patients about gun ownership and safety should be as automatic as asking them whether they smoke or how much alcohol they drink." Comparing tobacco use and alcohol consumption with owning a firearm are as different as night and day. She dose impart her words of wisdom in the following list.
- Remove guns from your home, or keep them unloaded and locked up, with ammunition stored separately.
- Treat guns as if they were loaded and ready to fire.
- Do not allow children access to guns.
Removing firearms from your home is the top of the list? It appears that as a side thought she concedes that there will be some who will refuse to get rid of their guns, so for them, they should keep them locked and unloaded but make sure you don't have the ammunition near the gun. The second piece of advise should be the first on the list and is probably the only part of her article that is valid.
For those who would like to know how to act around any firearm, I will impart on you some advice. First, I would suggest you visit www.nra.org, search for your state association for contact information. Another way to get good information is to visit any place that sells firearms, it could be a gun store or a sporting goods store, talk to someone behind the gun counter for help. I have never men anyone in these places who wouldn't help answer any questions you may have. If there are any customers around, they may help out too. My advice on firearm safety is as follows:
- Treat every firearm as if it were loaded. In doing this, you will not point it in an unsafe direction or handle it in an unsafe manner.
- Do not point the firearm at anything you do not intend to shoot. Be aware of where the muzzle is pointing.
- Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. There is less chance that the trigger will be pulled when nothing is touching it.
- Keep the firearm on safe until you are ready to fire. Not all firearms have safeties. Even if they do have one, they are mechanical and should not be trusted. This is the last check to keep you and everyone around you safe. If you live by the first three, this last rule is a failsafe.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Health insurance
There has been a lot of talk this last year about "health care reform." This phrase is misleading at best. What is really meant is a "reform" of the health insurance industry due to "high profits" and "outrageous premiums." In one of the bills that is being debated, there would be a provision that if you do not buy health insurance, you will be fined by the government. This power grab by our 535 elected nitwits and the President is completely unconstitutional but why should that stop them now. There may be some that will claim they have the power using the Commerce Clause or the Welfare Clause. By using either one of these "clauses," those who use them are trying to revise the Constitution to mean what they want after the fact. The "Commerce Clause" says "among" the States not within the States. The "Welfare Clause" says "promote the general welfare" not provide the general welfare.
With the Congress and President thinking they can take more and more power "to help the people" and "help the economy," when do we say enough is enough. When do we take a stand and tell them, "Stop." When do we draw a line in the sand and tell them, "This is a line you may not cross."
If we are required to have health insurance or pay a fine, I will drop my health insurance and if they try to fine me I will take it to court. I will not settle for a plea bargain. I will not back down. How many of us are willing to put up with more government intrusion allowing our liberties to be eroded in the name or progress or compassion? If you're willing to allow this government intrusion, when do you take a stand? Is there any point that you can't cross? When will you tell the government to back off? At that point, will there be anyone else to stand with you or are you going to be standing alone?
"Those who would give up a little liberty for security deserve neither."
"The government which is benevolent enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything from you."
With the Congress and President thinking they can take more and more power "to help the people" and "help the economy," when do we say enough is enough. When do we take a stand and tell them, "Stop." When do we draw a line in the sand and tell them, "This is a line you may not cross."
If we are required to have health insurance or pay a fine, I will drop my health insurance and if they try to fine me I will take it to court. I will not settle for a plea bargain. I will not back down. How many of us are willing to put up with more government intrusion allowing our liberties to be eroded in the name or progress or compassion? If you're willing to allow this government intrusion, when do you take a stand? Is there any point that you can't cross? When will you tell the government to back off? At that point, will there be anyone else to stand with you or are you going to be standing alone?
"Those who would give up a little liberty for security deserve neither."
"The government which is benevolent enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything from you."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)