Look In The Mirror

This article, "Liberals Frustrated Over Losses On Guantanamo, Gun Control", reminded me of a major fallacy that I have been wanting to explore. Conservatives are often labeled as fascists and control freaks. The press paints liberals as the compassionate ones, being for the people, "the working man". In the end, who is it really that wants to control "we, the people"?

Before I move on, it is now necessary to separated the ideology from the man. Many in today's world associate themselves with a label (i.e., Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, etc.), and this, in turn, throws them into defense whenever arguments are presented that contend with their title. Rather than examine thoughts and ideas, independent of self, they must protect their existence which has been personalized and defined by a word. Unfortunately, instead of saying, "Liberalism is an ideology that enumerates what I already believed, " it too often could be described as "I am a liberal. This is what liberals believe so this is what I believe".

Why people "put the cart before the horse" is beyond the scope of this post. It will likely be pursued in a future entry.

The United States has a two-party political system: Democrats and Republicans. In the last few decades, the difference between the two organizations has grown smaller and smaller. No longer can one assume that a Republican is a conservative. Ultimately, a majority of politicians, both in the GOP and the DNC, have transformed into what Mark Levin, in his book Liberty and Tyranny, calls a "Statist", someone who subscribes to a all-powerful central government. The Statist is not necessarily concerned with policies or issues; the acquisition and the retainment of power is first priority to which all others are a means to this end.

Conservatism is a way of thinking. It is an arrangement of ideas and philosophies, especially as applied to forms of government. It addresses the relationship between the governed and those who govern. Importantly, conservatism focuses on the rights of an individual, a human being created by God. From this point on, unless otherwise noted, a conservative refers to a person who holds to these principals.

The conservative would point to the timeless phrase penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, that all human beings have three "inalienable rights": the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Jefferson did not order these elements randomly. Obviously "life" is the most important on which the other two depend. Without it, one cannot have liberty or happiness, hence a conservative's staunch opposition to abortion.

This conservative (the author), contends that liberty lines up next to life, that without it, one cannot have true happiness. The ultimate warrant for this supposition is quite simple, and it is this: God's plan of salvation is built around the concept of liberty. He gave us free-will, and starting with Adam and Eve, we have frequently chosen to exercise it against His wishes.

Being all-powerful, at anytime God could have forced us to comply. He could have grown weary of our disobedience and wiped us out of existence. Instead, for thousands of thousands of years, He has chosen to give us the freedom to make our own decisions, to live how we want. Of course, there will be consequences, but at no time has God "regulated" our behavior. He wants us to seek Him of our own device.

The conservative, especially this one, asks this: If God, the Creator of the Universe, decided to allow human beings to live freely and independently, even though it would cause horrific events and terrible things to happen, how can we, the created beings, attempt to control others of His created beings with "the greater good" as the justification?

The conservative is obsessed with freedom, its protection and preservation. It is only when the first right, life, is in jeopardy (again because, without life, one cannot have freedom) that the conservative even considers infringing upon liberties.

Only a few times during America's history have "true" conservatives determined that conditions existed that warranted government intrusion on individual freedom. One of the most famous examples is Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpes during the Civil War. Even then, many have argued since that Lincoln should not have done so.

Frequently, conservatives are accused of forcing their beliefs on others, recklessly trampling on freedoms. True, this happens, most notably by what is called the "religious right"; however, it is not through conservative inspiration that such actions are taken. Just as those who participated in the Crusades used the name of Jesus to perpetuate acts contrary to Christ's message, the banner of Conservatism has often been flown when those behind it defied its tenets.

Times do exist where the conservative demands that certain rights must yield to others, that polarizing ideals exist that cannot coexist in a civil society. Again, one such example is abortion. When a conservative believes that life begins at conception, and the right to life supersedes all other rights, it is not logical to conclude that a mother's "right to choose" (to kill her child, which is what it is if it is a life) cannot possibly outweigh the child's right to live. To protect the primary right, life, it is necessary to deny the secondary liberty, the right to choose to kill one's child.

The article referenced in the first paragraph is such an archetypal example of the hypocrisy committed by mainstream culture. MTV farms generation after generation of conservative-hating, liberalized youth, telling the kids that Ronald Reagan starved all the poor people.

If as a reader, you have made it this far, take a red pill. Think about all the things that government has determined that you are not allowed to do, especially in the cases where it is for a more noble cause. Consider the limitations place on your daily life in order to "fix" some other problem.

Remember that conservatism sees you as an adult fully capable of making your own decisions, even if they are not the right ones, that in order to have freedom, human nature dictates that injustice is an unfortunate, but necessary side-effect. Who is it that wants to control you? Who is the real fascist?

Be vigilant. Failure to recognize the enemy only gives him more time to exercise his power...

Unbelievable

The other day I attended a presentation by a well-credentialed and experienced executive in the health care industry. In it, he outlined the steps his organization was going to take in order to stay in business, in order to save jobs. Considering current economic conditions, such a message could hardly be considered extraordinary except for one thing. The strategic plan was not a reaction to the downward turn of free-flowing market forces; it was a defensive measure specifically meant to safeguard the quality and availability of patient care while continuing to provide around 1500 jobs in the local community. "Defensive" action implies an aggressor. Explicitly named as the obstacle, the oppressor, the negative force was none other than the federal government and its unchecked power.

To be quite honest, I didn't really hear anything that I didn't know. Those in power, when in the minority, have never hid the fact that they want a socialist, government-controlled health care industry; the only thing that has changed is that now they have opportunity. Furthermore, with programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, the government has already had its hands in the cookie jar for some time.

The material presented was well organized and documented containing numerous citations. The speaker reported first-hand experiences with congregational members including senators and representatives. He described his role as a leader in a major hospital organization, one that has been lobbying government entities, pleading with them to leave health care to the health care professionals. By the end of the event, the outlook did not seem promising.

Please allow me to step up on the soap box and rant for a moment...

Imagine that!! Allowing health care professionals to run the health care industry. What an absurd concept!!! Who is going to know better? Who is going to have more experience? Who will have the foresight necessary to address current problems? It makes total sense. Senators and Congressmen, of course. What folly exists to even consider that a HEALTH CARE PRO-FES-SION-AL would know more than a lawyer elected to the Senate or a community organizer vaulting to the Presidency!!!

It makes total sense. It fits. Its the "new way". You don't have automobile makers run the car business. Its the lawmakers who know better. You don't have bankers run the banking sector. Its the politicians who can do it better. Why? Because they have unprecedented credentials.

They run the retirement business. A huge success!!! Viva la Social Security!!! Bernie Madoff is going to jail for the same scheme.

Look at their degrees and experiences. Most of them have never run a business, never managed something as large as a convenience store. Most have law degrees which, or course, is what people study in order to build automobiles and work on Wall Street.

Here's the best part. While the only thing that these politicians excel at is saying the things that people want to hear, they get to manipulate and massage the private sector, and when they screw things up, they get to blame it on the actual professionals (i.e., Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) from whom they wrangled control. And a la Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the very same politicians who cause the problems (i.e., Barney Frank and Chris Dodds) get to self appoint themselves to save us all from the...ahem...evil, corrupt, and greedy capitalist executives who got us into the mess.

Please give me a moment to step down...

It was surreal to hear what the new Obama administration, with a sycophantic press and congressional branch, had planned for health care in America. It was the first time that the Stalinist agenda had touched me personally, seeing it unfold immediately before my eyes.

I sat there listening as the speaker enumerated the different components of which the federal government was poised to control, what it intended to do with its "new toys", and what the likely consequences would be.

The scope of this post is not to reproduce the different elements; however, the most memorable one was the intention to regulate the amount that health care providers and companies can expect for reimbursement.

Now, to the uneducated 8-year-old child, such an approach sounds great. Free candy!!!! Free cookies!!! Whatever I want, I get!!!!

To the practical, experienced, and scholarly adult, such a notion is insanity. It defies the laws of supply and demand. It facilitates scarcity. It is irresponsible.

How does the shoe maker stay in business when his costs of production increase, but he is limited in the amount that he can charge for a shoe, even to the point where he cannot regain his expenses let alone make a profit?

How does the restaurant keep its doors open when food costs rise, but management is forced to leave prices the same? How long are the cooks going to have a job? The wait staff?

And if the federal government decided that Applebee's must provide the same experience as before, only now it must provide steak dinners at $2/piece. Imagine the line of people at its doors when this policy takes effect. I can see it now.

"Uhh, yes, can you tell me how long of a wait it will be for a table?"

"Okay, let me see here, we should be able to put you in a booth in about three months. Would you like to get a drink at the bar?"

"Sure, give me one of those little vibrator things to tell me when my table is ready. I'll go and sit at the bar and...what's that...you're all out of steaks....emmmmhehhh...okay...right. At $2/steak there's no more cows?"

And while we're on the topic of restaurants, having extensive experience in my younger years, let me be perfectly clear about this. I am terrified of eating something prepared by a disgruntled, underpaid cook. Now, I can look forward to my elderly years in going under the knife of someone who no longer gives a damn because the government has said there is no difference between the amount that someone can make fixing your car to that of someone who fixes your heart and keeps you from dying. As the presenter mentioned, there is a reason that people flock to this country for procedures from countries who already have government health care.

When he completed his material, the speaker asked if there were any questions. I had one, but I didn't ask it. Today's political climate has more religious overtones than anything, and no one is interested in truth. They follow their leaders as though they are divine, and to question their intentions is considered sacrilege. I wasn't in the mood.

What I wanted to ask him was this: Did you ever, in your wildest dreams, envision a time where, as a leader of a large health care organization, that an environment would exist that demanded defensive actions in order to save that organization from, of all things in the United States of America, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Nonsense

Besides the facts that businesses create jobs, that they produce products for the consumer, that taxing them more not only causes prices to go up, but it also causes workers to lose jobs when the company goes to balance the new costs, is anyone else sickened by the barrage of Double Speak coming from the White House?

For details, see this article: Obama Unveils Plan to Close Tax Loopholes - Fox News

The same administration that is concerned about the American worker, the working family, jobs going overseas, etc., etc. is worried about American companies having an "unfair advantage".

Rah, Rah!!! Save our jobs!!!

Rah, Rah!!! Sock it to the evil American companies!!!!

...beam me up!!!