Glen Beck and Fox News on Trial

Do you hate Glen Beck? Have you been brainwashed to hate him? From where does your opinion come?

I admit it. I watch Beck on a fairly regular basis. Because of this, I’m always caught off guard when somebody talks about what an idiot he is. Because what that means is, I’m an idiot.

If I got my opinion via quips from the administration, I guess I’d think Beck is totally unreliable. Or, if I reached my decision from Saturday Night Live, Letterman, the View, NPR, or “mainstream media,” I’d readily reach the conclusion that Beck is a right-wing nut job.

Here’s my challenge for those of you who don’t watch Beck. Watch his show, or listen to his radio broadcast for 5 days in a row. I know, I know. How would you be able to stand that? Take it just one day at a time. If at the end of the 5 days you still think he’s not to be taken seriously, let alone credible, I would take your criticism seriously. However, most people I’ve met who hate Glen Beck do so because somebody told them Beck is a wack job. That’s right; they’ve NEVER listened to the man. Still, their verdict is that he is dangerous.

America is at a crossroads. We’re about to take a divergent course which leads down a completely different direction from our legacy. Frighteningly, if taken, the course we take may prove hard, if not impossible, to abandon. Because of this, it is imperative that we take the time to examine where we are headed. Forget Republican vs. Democrat - Beck decries both parties. What he favors is the Constitution, our foundation, and our legacy as a great nation.

Beck is raising concerns which need to be considered. Whether or not you agree with his position, it is worth your time to listen to the warnings. Following a path that leads to destruction is a choice that should be made by the will of the People. We cannot afford to let others tell us what to think. Living in a Republic requires an informed and involved populace. Anything less, and we resort to relying on elected officials without accountability. We’ll get what we deserve.

Aviv, Obama, and Martial Law

There has been an email circulating that scares the pants off thinking Americans. It’s based on the credibility of a man named Juval Aviv. In the email, Aviv is credited with being on the Bill O’Reilly show (FOX news) and making predictions of terrorist attacks on England, and later, purportedly warning President Bush of the nature of the attacks of 9/11. Snopes.com, a website that has become a mainstay of substantiating or refuting urban legends finds the claims to be “false.” I visit Snopes periodically to check on alarming emails.

According to the email, Aviv was a former bodyguard of Prime Minister Golda Meir. He also, according to the email, was the real person upon which the character “Avner” is based upon in the Steven Speilberg movie Munich. The controversy stems from whether Aviv truly was a ranking member of Mossad (Israeli secret service) who had access to this type of information, and then warned of the impending acts of terrorism. Let me ask this: Would any high level member of the CIA who went public with his position, giving inside information, be authenticated as credible by his government? I don’t mean to sound like a screenwriter, but what’s the business of highly sensitive agents being told, “If you are caught, we will disavow any information you may give”?

What we need to consider is not whether Aviv did or did not accomplish all he claims. Instead, we should be examining the logic of his current assertions. Those assertions warn of the form the next wave of terrorist acts on American soil may take. Which include: bombs in suitcases or packages left in densely populated public places, such as Disneyworld, football stadiums, concert halls; terrorists who will have been raised in the United States as opposed to known terrorists sneaking in; explosives being much more discreet due to their plastic composition instead of more easily detected metal structure; attacks on more remote areas that may feel safe due to proximity - such as Wyoming or Montana. In view of these, whether or not Aviv was the role model for Avner, do these warnings make sense?

My concern? Martial law. For those of us who look forward to the 2010 elections, we probably do so in hopes of many members of Congress being ousted from their positions. Why? We trust in the balance of powers provided in the Constitution. Whether the president is Republican or Democrat, we realize that Congress is the vessel which can either support or undermine the power of the president. If the president proceeds with activities which we abhor, it is not necessary to simply wait out his term of four years. Yes, the president has a lot of power. But Congress has the ability to limit the power of the president. In fact, Congress, in reality, is the most powerful branch of government; they may override his veto, they can deny his appointments, they will support or deny his declarations of war, and ultimately, they can bring about an impeachment process which examines his activities. However, if the sitting Congress allows a president to act in a manner inconsistent with the will of the people, about the only thing the people can do is replace the sitting members of Congress. And so, those of us who mourn the current trend of our government look forward to November 2010 as an opportunity to stop the destruction of the United States. Back to Aviv.

What if Aviv’s warnings of another terrorist attack on America have credence? A few suitcase bombings here, a suicide bomber there, a bit of infrastructure chaos - how would our government respond? Okay, here’s where I may sound like an alarmist. President Obama has leveraged himself into being in charge of an internet shutdown for security. He also has the power to order the shutdown of cell phone satellite communication under the basis that cell phones are how terrorists would communicate. In place, Rex 84, (do a Google search), a plan which has been in place for many years, putting FEMA in charge of an instance of civil insurrection. Then do another search on USNorthcom - contigency forces trained for dealing with controlling the US populace in the event of civil chaos. I’m honestly not a conspiracy theorist - I’m just considering the pieces of the puzzle.

I have to ask myself this: In view of Obama’s conciliatory manner toward the Islamic countries, as well as his overtures of apologizing to the world, to the point of bowing to Islamic world leaders, why would the Islamic terrorists choose to terrorize America? Especially when our leniency and apologetics would allow infiltrators to deeply root themselves into the American mainstream. Wouldn’t this be a key time to avoid alarming mainstream America of an Islamic threat? When the getting is good, why wouldn’t Islamic terrorists use the opportunity to charm America, continuing with the insistent mantra that Islam is a religion of peace? When America is conciliatory and open, why not quietly and aggressively insert your influence and operatives within its borders. Wouldn’t another 9/11 wake a sleeping giant?

Here’s where I hope I am dead wrong: If a terrorist attack were to happen sometime before the November, 2010 elections, would President Obama seem justified in implementing martial law? A crisis of that proportion would seem to warrant side-stepping a congressional election. Would it seem justified. Conspiracy?

As I said - I don’t want to be right, and this is not a prediction; it’s a fear. Hopefully unwarranted. But when I think about elemental pieces such as the president being in charge of pulling the plug on cell phone communication and the internet, the push from liberals to pass a “Fairness Doctrine” which has a sole purpose of silencing conservative media, the urgency to pass socialistic laws without opening them to scrutiny, a president who says we’ll be able to know him by who he surrounds himself with (his advisors) and then doing so with people formerly associated with Marxist and Socialistic agendas, the apologizing to the world for American arrogance, the attempt of alignment with leaders we formerly recognized as dictators and thugs, the administrations admiration of the Cuban social structure - one has to wonder: Are all these elements coincidental, or are they pieces of a puzzle that will come together?

Quite frankly, this direction does not come as a surprise. People, who were willing to listen prior to the election, realized there was cause for concern - but these concerns were derailed by a liberal media shouting “Racism.” When Obama’s associations with people like Bill Ayers were brought up, the concerns were made to look ridiculous (They just happen to live in the same community - don’t we all know people with different backgrounds and beliefs than our own?) We really didn’t know much about Obama’s past, and when his actual citizenship was questionned, we were first told he had a right to privacy, then that Hawaii’s laws precluded public examination, then shown a document on the internet - but there was no forthcoming explanation by Obama - the man who said transparency would be the cornerstone of his administration. During the campaigning, when Joe the Plumber confronted Obama with his frustration over not being able to survive in business, Obama revealed his belief about redistributive wealth; mainstream media let this slide. And a few days before the election, Obama announced that “We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America...” Boy, he wasn’t kidding. While the crowd attending this rally was wildly cheering and celebrating, I was sick inside, thinking, “I don’t want to change America’s fundamentals”; those are what make America great, at least to me. Semantic interpretation? I don’t think so; not when you look at the big picture.

Rex 84 - an undisclosed number of concentration camps are throughout America under the jurisdiction of FEMA. As far as I can tell, these were originally put into service for an event where an uncontrollable number of illegal aliens flooded our borders and needed to be detained. Liberals feared that the Bush/Cheney administration would resort to a police state. So perhaps my fears are like those of the liberals - just from a different perspective. I hope so.

One of the key successes of the American system of government, acknowledged from the very beginning, was the peaceful transfer of power from one elected official to the next. Americans, now sick of an unresponsive and reckless Congress, look forward to 2010 in hopes of putting the brakes on runaway government. If Juval Aviv’s warnings prove prophetic, the timing of an attack before those elections won’t shock me. What better way to subvert the will of the American people than to be able to exercise martial law, with an ostensible patriotic action to “protect” America during a time of crisis.

National Health Care Shell Game

Good golly, Molly, what's the latest on the national health care bill? Which health care bill? Why, I'm not even sure what the health care bill says. How would we? Not only are there a variety of bills being cast about, the contents are not being divulged for examination. Remember that shell game where you try to watch the illusionist's hands as they quickly change 3 shells from one position to another, all in the blink of an eye, and your supposed to know which half shell contains the pea? Well, there's a lot more than three shells, contents unknown, being moved about by 100 senators and 435 representatives. These folks, you know, our representatives, count on us not knowing the rules of the game - confusing constituents with committee rules, cloture, and other terminology that cause us to shrug our shoulders.

The Senate is scared to pass a national health care bill right now. Why? They got the message. The majority of Americans don't trust a government to take over their health care when they can't manage Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. If those programs are poorly administered and upside down, why would the government be able to handle a much bigger program that determines which coverage I'm allocated? Granted, there is work to be done, but turning over our health coverage - the best in the world - to a group of politicians who haven't read the bill(s)? I don't think so.

Well, what better way to get things accomplished than to play the proverbial shell game. So, here's the latest deal. Since bills can be amended, why not try this: Take a bill that already has majority support, or one that is already passed but not signed - say, a bill that taxes executives who receive TARP bailout money. Yeah, we all hate those slimy executives who are getting TARP bailout money. So, that's a slam dunk bill, in fact, it's already been voted on, just not signed into law. Okay, so here's the deal; split up the health care bill into sections, and attach sections of the bill to bills that are sure to pass, or have passed - such as the taxing of executives who receive bailouts.

"That's ludicrous!" you cry. "Health care doesn't have anything to do with bailouts of executives using TARP money!" By golly, you're right. They can't do that, can they?

Well, yes, they can. Ethical? Depends on who you ask. I mean, what does "is" mean? Think of it this way. If you really want a health care bill to pass, irrespective of what your constituents say, irrespective of the feedback from the majority of Americans, what better way to accomplish your objective than to vote on a bill that has nothing to do with health care, and vindicate your voting record by saying "I voted for those slimeball executives receiving TARP bailout money to have to pay big taxation. I wasn't voting on health care - it just happened to be an attachment." Dirty politics? You betcha!

As mentioned in earlier blogs, when Ben Franklin, upon exiting the Constitutional Convention, was asked what form of government the Framers had decided upon, he quipped, "A republic, if you can keep it." Our government was founded on the assumption of an informed and educated public holding the politicians responsible and accountable. Are we up to the task?

Oh, and by the way, this is being orchestrated by Reid, Pelosi, and the team of audacity, Obama.

American History (Part 7) Silencing Those Who Dissent

My previous historical blog concerning causes of the Revolution dealt with name calling - a tactic often used to derail the opponents’ arguments and put the focus on an emotional label, with the name caller hoping to sidestep addressing the premises of an argument directly, and instead clouding the debate with an accusation putting the opponent on the defensive. England relied heavily on labeling those opposing tyranny as “disloyal,” and thereby avoiding the responsibility of upholding the American colonists‘ (mostly British citizens) rights as guaranteed by the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights.

In addition to casting aspersions attempting to discredit the discontented colonists, another tactic employed by England was to simply silence the voices of dissent. As covered earlier, royal governors of colonies had it within their power to dismiss colonial assemblies - the lawmaking body of the colony. If the governor felt that what was being discussed presented a form of treason to the Crown, he could simply shut down the congregation of the body and forbid them to meet. This, indeed, was a tactic employed.

What of the Press? Locally printed newspapers were a lifeblood of communicating actions taken both on a local level, as well as news from “across the pond” (the Atlantic). Proclamations by King George and the discussions of Parliament were followed closely during this time. Newspapers being what they are, written by mere mortals, reflect the temperament of the authors. That being the case, if a newspaper tended to editorialize the Crown and Parliament in a disloyal manner, they were labeled as seditious (tending toward disorder and insurrection against the prevailing government). Such acts of sedition led to newspapers being banned and shut down, as dangerous, incendiary instruments of malcontents bent on rebellion.

Interestingly, our dependency on the belief that “truth is an absolute defense” stems from a court case in 1735, some 40 years prior to the first shots of the Revolution. A publisher, Peter Zenger, openly criticized a new royal governor of New York, William Cosby, for running a puppet court seeking to expedite Cosby’s own form of justice. Zenger was brought up on charges of sedition, but eventually acquitted as his lawyer, Alexander Hamilton, argued that telling the truth did not cause governments to fail; rather, abuse of power accomplished that end. Zenger was acquitted, and since that time, Americans hold fast to the argument that truth is an absolute defense - irrespective of it offending the government.

As can be seen, declaring the principles of the Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, and precedent in court was not getting the discontented Americans much traction. Pressure was applied to various colonies, and England systematically shut down colonial press based on claims of sedition. In response, citizen groups formed to avoid the classic strategy of divide and conquer. Without radio, telephone, or even telegraph, word was slow to spread. The British hoped to sequester the troublesome areas of the Colonies - most notably Boston, bring them under submission, while the other colonies remained ignorant of the disciplinary actions taken against the disloyal protestors.

Following the Boston Tea Party of 1773, Parliament passed a series of Acts (laws) known in England as the Coercive Acts, but re-labeled as the Intolerable Acts in Massachusetts. For their insolence, the Bostonians would be faced with the following punishments: the destroyed tea (worth a fortune) would be paid for, the assembly was disbanded and military rule would replace colonial government, the dreaded Quartering Act (private homes being used for the housing of British officers and troops) would be continued and increased, officers accused of a crime against a colonist could return to England to stand trial (a de facto method of acquittal as colonists were not allowed to leave Boston), and the harbor of Boston (the lifeblood of Boston being trade and ship building) would be shut down until Boston met the terms of submission. Without television or radio coverage, how would the plight of Boston be realized on an ongoing basis?

Colonists in opposition to the government formed organizations known as Committees of Correspondence. The existence of this type of correspondence pre-dated the 1770s, but during the British occupation of Boston, the committees earned most historical attention. The purpose of the Committee was to carry message of political happenings in one colonial area to another, so that remaining colonies were aware of British behavior - realizing that what was happening in Boston could just as well happen in Charleston, Williamsburg, or any other city that happened to cross England. Messages were conveyed afoot, on horseback, and by means of water routes. Not surprisingly, in attempt to squash this form of communication which threatened England’s strategy of divide and conquer, the Committees were officially banned.

How does this relate to today? Earlier this week, I interrupted my historical blogging to post my discouragement with the the “mainstream” media’s failure to report on important topics surrounding our government. The administration rewards reporters who ask appropriate questions with further attention during press conferences. Those in favor are invited on Air Force One, to wine and dine with the President - enjoying lobster flown in from Maine while touring Yellowstone National Park. Those in the media who toe the party line will be invited to social occasions, and may expect those in the administration to grace their talk shows with their presence, wherein all can enjoy lighthearted banter about socks and such.

The bigger concern? Hopefully, you’ve heard of the Fairness Doctrine, which had its origins in 1949. The goal behind the doctrine was to ensure fair and balanced presentation of opposing viewpoints throughout the media. Like most doctrines or laws, the intentions sound good, but over time the application of the doctrine may take an unanticipated direction. To keep this fairly short, the debate over the application of the Fairness Doctrine has become heated. Some propose that conservative talk show is much too influential - to the point of being dangerous. Further, that broadcasters of these shows have a public duty to provide equal time to opposing viewpoints - on their dime. Cable news networks, such as FOX, advocates argue, must provide air time, minute for minute, which provides countering views to Bill O’Reilly, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, etc. The eventual impact? Broadcasters would not be able to afford this, sponsors would leave the market, and the voices of the conservatives raising questions would be killed. The altruistic argument is “balance” but the strategy behind the argument is to silence the voices of dissenting opinion. Please note: Conservatives are not insisting on government interference for balance with MSNBC, Larry King, NPR, Dave Lettermen, The View, et al to provide equal time; the pressure for this comes from the Left.

Equally disturbing is President Obama’s desire to have unilateral control over the internet for “national security” (Senate Bill 773). Cybersecurity, supposedly, would give the President power “...to improve and maintain effective cyber security defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.” What other purposes? Exert control over the free flow of information, such as this blog? Alarmist? Consider this in context with Obama’s admonishment directed at “patriotic” Americans to send names and addresses to the White House of those spreading misinformation about the health care bill. For what purpose? Where are all the people who were screaming about selective wire tapping allowed under the Patriot Act? I don’t hear them speaking out.

England tried, unsuccessfully, to silence the voices of dissent. Voices that raised defining questions concerning the rights of the People. Keep in mind, those who identified with the Patriot movement represented barely 30% of the colonial population. Although substantial, it is erroneous to imagine all colonists standing up against the government. Fully 30% remained loyal to England, which leaves 40% who either didn’t care or would leave the concerns up to others to solve. While the tactics are not exact matches, the strategy is the same today - silence the voices of dissent. My question is, what is the measure of our resolve? How far down this path will we be taken? And once there, is it even possible to go back?

The Failing of the News Agencies

The past week and a half were so discouraging for me, when it should have been encouraging, that I just didn't have the heart to blog. Can you hear the violins?

Acorn, the community action group, was de-funded by Congress. This group is one that President Obama, when campaigning, said he worked side by side with in community organizing, and they would be part of the decision making process during his administration. In the Stimulus Bill, at one point in the negotiations, Acorn would be getting some $5 billion dollars.

This was a group that used heavy handed measures to intimidate mortgage lenders to give housing loans to unqualified borrowers. This was a group that entered the meetings of private businesses, surrounded the board members with thugs - sending an eerie threat of what would happen unless. This was a group that had an agenda of redistributing wealth through whatever means they found effective.

For some of you, the following is common knowledge: Over the past 2 weeks, a young couple's attempt to reveal corruption within Acorn was enough to effect Congress. At five separate Acorn locations, Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe posed as a prostitute and pimp - seeking a loan for a "house." The house would be used for prostitution. Additionally, (and this is where things get really sad) they couple would be importing 13-15 year old girls from Central America, a slave trade, to fill the brothel.

At each of the 5 Acorn locations, representatives coached the Giles and O'Keefe how to make this happen. How to fill out the forms with occupational information to get approved. How to identify the underage imports so as not to raise suspicion. And to realize they would not be able to claim the girls as dependents at tax filing since Giles was too young to pose as an adoptive mother.

The tapes shown on various nights of Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity were damning. There was no gray area to wonder if the Acorn personnel were confused. They fully understood the proposition and eagerly coached Giles and O'Keefe in the manner of making their "dream" come true. Oh by the way, Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity all report for the same cable news channel - Fox.

This was quite a scoop. Where were the other news agencies? This scandal wasn't being covered by other news agencies. Silence. That is until, some of them, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc, could no longer remain silent and posed the coverage as wondering whether Giles and O'Keefe should be brought up on charges for their tactics. Understand this: there was no outrage that Acorn was facilitating the loaning of taxpayer money to a pimp and prostitute, participating in slave trade of minors for the purpose of prostitution. Rather, they reported this as right-wing pundits attempting to smear Acorn. On the internet, if you Google "Acorn sting" you'll get primarily hits of sites defending Acorn for understanding the plight of inner city blacks who must resort to prostitution to survive, and attacking Giles and O'Keefe for their efforts.

Are you old enough to remember the Watergate Investigations with "Deep Throat"? The reporters who broke that story, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, were heralded as heroes. They refused to divulge their sources. Woodward and Bernstein became iconic during the 1970s as paragons of virtues - representing what the media was meant to do: keep government honest. I don't remember anyone questioning Woodward or Bernstein as being the culprits in view of the actions of the administration. All major networks followed the story, and the American public followed the nightly news with baited breath.

The Acorn scandal? One cable news network, Fox, covers the story. The others ignore it until there is no ignoring it, and then turn the tables by casting aspersions at Giles and O'Keefe. Without apology, they excuse Acorn for enabling and financing prostitution and a slave trade of minors for the purpose of sexual profiteering.

The same is true of the Van Jones story. If you don't know about Van Jones, I'll assume you don't watch Fox. Again, the other agencies ignored the revealing of this Obama czar's past, ethics, and racial hatred toward whites. When he was put in the limelight, he quietly resigned, with no fanfare nor explanation from the President. Compare this to earlier administrations wherein a Presidential post left office. Seems to me it was standard fare for news coverage to examine what was going on.

On 9/12/2009, the Tea Party Express congregated on the Mall at Washington, DC. These were Americans there to protest unresponsive government, irresponsible spending, and the agenda attempting to move America toward socialism. These people want a government by the People, and when they express their concerns, they don't want to be labeled as "Astroturf" or "Dangerous Extremists."

Was this a significant gathering? Well you tell me: When over 1.7 million people take time off work, spend time and money to travel to Washington, DC to make a statement, is that an event worthy of note? That number of people is about the same as the combined population of these cities: Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco (1.9 million). Those are the folks who showed up. (For any given protest, I wonder how many people didn't, or couldn't attend, by who agree with the sentiments of the attending protestors?)

Where was the media coverage? Typically, when there is a protest of this size (or even miniscule in comparison) the press covers it for days. They interest the organizers and turn the event into a big deal. They interview participants asking why they were willing to travel all that distance and make the sacrifice to express their views, and what they hope this will accomplish. They fawn over those who brought their children - highlighting that this is a family event. And then, on the big day, they broadcast aerial shots of the crowd and give color commentary of the event. Did you see the coverage on "mainstream" media? Neither did I. Why the silence?

My point? With the exception of Fox News, other agencies are giving Obama a pass. They are no longer acting as the watch dog on government. Instead of asking the hard questions expected of the media in keeping the public informed, they are covering Michael Jackson, sports, traffic, and the weather. If there happens to be a natural disaster, such as a fire in LA, we'll hear about that too.

Critics of Fox claim it is a right wing tool that doesn't report news but rather make up sensational stories. You need to judge that for yourself, but if you wait for the "mainstream news" or SNL, or Lettermen to endorse it, that's not going to happen. Those folks don't want you to question whether Ted Kennedy was a hero or should have paid the price for killing Mary Jo Kopechne; they don't want you to ask why Obama promised to have US troops out of Iraq within 7 months of being elected, but hasn't done so; nor do they want you to question the government bailout and takeover of companies like GM; and they certainly don't want you to examine the contents of the National Health Care bills until it's too late. Why not? Because 80% of all news agencies and reporters identify with far left politics. They're in favor of a movement toward socialism.

What do I have to gain by voicing this? As I mentioned in earlier blogs, the American I love, our rich democratic heritage, the opportunity to grow through capitalism, is soon going to be referred to as the "good old days" if Congress and the President are not stopped. (I want to reiterate that the Stimulus Plan blame falls in the lap of President Bush as much as Obama.)

Where we used to be able to turn on the news and assume they were covering important stories, that is no longer the case. On television, with the exception of Fox, other news agencies are keeping us fat, dumb, and happy. And that's dangerous.

American History (Part 6) Muddy the Waters with Name Calling

Name calling didn’t end when we finished elementary school. The technique still appears to be the most employed means of derailing an argument and stirring up anger. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for calling a behavior by its appropriate title. For instance, if I practice lying, I’m a liar. If I consistently advocate conservative ideas, it’s fair to call me conservative. And if I promote the ideas of fascism, I may earn the title of fascist.

On the other hand, using a title or epitaph as an incendiary tool - one which is meant to inflame and divert attention from the details of the controversy, serves only to give opposing sides a handle to conveniently categorize and overly simplify opposing viewpoints. 

In the setting of the 18th century, the British government was blindsided by the American reaction and protests to the Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Quartering Act, Townshend Acts, and Tea Act. All of these were laws passed by Parliament seeking to re-line the pockets of the English purse by directly taxing the American colonists; colonists, as covered in earlier blogs, who rightly asserted that England was stripping them of their rights as English citizens to select the men who determined their taxes, as well as other laws. Initially, England had perhaps, understandable pause in evaluating the American response. After all, the American colonies existed to financially benefit Mother England. Additionally, England had just defended the colonies against the French threat during the French and Indian War.

This notwithstanding, the American colonists were the ones taking the direct risk of living on this frontier. They were the ones to whom failure carried not just economic but rather mortal consequences. More importantly, the principles being disputed did not boil down to who was benefitting whom, but one much more basic: An Englishman had rights guaranteed by the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights. Period. Abridging those rights was not to be tolerated. As for the French and Indian War - that was a war protecting the nation of England. Colonists fought and died for Mother England, they weren’t just protected.

The English living back in England had no real concept of the realities faced by their American cousins. What they heard of life in the colony was based on gossip, what was carried in the news, and perhaps correspondence. The Americans were being depicted as overfed, ungrateful children, spawned and protected by the graces of British generosity, but obviously insolent, arrogant, and spoiled. Those living in England who were concerned about their country’s welfare had to make sense of the situation as economic hardship dictated their economy. What conclusion would they reach about the American response to England’s need? The most popular response, fostered by elements in Parliament and the press was that Americans were Disloyal.

Time to digress: Wisdom is gained by living through experiences and coming out the other side, gaining understanding about the human saga. And this is what I’ve learned about name calling: the basis of resorting to labels is an attempt to compartmentalize information about people. It is always an oversimplification, giving our brain a chance to bring a matter to closure rather than grapple with further extenuating circumstances which may forestall conclusion. I believe this applies to sexism, racism, agism, ad nauseam. In other words, I assess observation #1, perhaps #2, and maybe #3, and reach my conclusion that a person is a racist, or whatever. As or culture increasingly becomes less analytical, we’re complacent to reach our conclusion after observation #1.

 Once one reaches the conclusion wherein they assign a label, future analysis of the situation becomes stymied. A decision has been reached, a label assigned, and future consideration is largely limited by the meaning of the label. What does one do with disloyal children (in the case of the British)? Well, abandonment would be one option -  unless the children’s income was too much of a consideration. That was truly the case here. England had grown dependent on America’s wealth. Option B: Bring the children under control. That was what proceeded. Disloyal, ungrateful children need to be disciplined. Once your mind is made up, you allow yourself to dismiss further consideration of the validity of the other side’s perspective. For those living in England, this meant you didn’t need to consider whether Americans were entitled to the rights of the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights. You didn’t need to wonder how you’d feel if you were the one living with the risks of frontier life. You could relegate your American cousins to the the status of provincials, incapable of understanding the complicated realities of English needs, reducing them to the status of simple, ungrateful children who merely needed discipline. 

The colonial response? This validated their fear that England did not take them seriously; that England was not going to treat them as equals. Their argument of receiving the same rights as any English citizen was going to be swept under the carpet and the focus of the issue would be diverted into considering whether Americans were loyal or not.

Loyalty. That’s an emotional word. When one is disloyal, it seems to trump other considerations. Get enough people to believe you are a disloyal person, and it’s pretty hard to get the argument back on track. It’s easier to focus on “how could you betray your own mother ?(England).” The ploy worked with some; many colonists would back away from the association with those who argued that their rights were being ignored, if it meant being disloyal. Others tried to prove their loyalty while adhering to their rights. Eventually, those who proceeded in identifying with the Patriot movement had to abandon hopes of vindicating their motives, and reach the conclusion that a breach with England was inevitable - they would never convince detractors of the validity of their point of view.

How does this relate to our situation today? While we celebrate America electing its first black president, those who raise concerns over his policies are often labeled as racist. Doing so derails the detractor immediately, regardless of the validity of their concerns. The critic of Obama may attempt to raise points A, B, C, etc. But the cries of racist are loud, emotional and divisive. The audience has to decide, is it worth it to analyze the arguments being promoted by the critic? Crying racism has a certain romanticism associated with it - so some may jump on that bandwagon at this point and forgo any analysis; it’s easy and it puts you in good standing with people of color. Others may not understand the arguments of the detractor; rather than struggle with bridging the information gap, it takes far less effort to glom onto the label of racism - reach the conclusion and move on. Still others, and this being the most dangerous group, realize that the detractor has valid points but would rather live with, or embrace, the Obama direction, and so uses the label of racism to purposely divert the focus away from the actual concerns and to a hot button accusation  - thereby defusing the potency of the detractor’s points. The validity of his or her points are drown out in a din of emotional accusation, relying the characteristic so deeply embedded in our culture - guilt.

What other names are we hearing? Right Wing Extremist. McCarthyists. Bigots. Uncaring. Hardhearted. Hate monger. Selfish. 

Like the colonists in the 18th century, Americans who oppose the direction of their government are having to make choices. For some, the association with labels such as racist is far too threatening, and they will back down and avoid the possible condemnation among their peer group. Others will vainly try to explain they are not a racist, extremist, or hateful. They feel strongly about their values, but also feel the need to vindicate their position. Others have, or will eventually, give up trying to satisfactorily explain - they will reach a decision that they don’t care what the opposition thinks. 

Solution? History indicates that sitting down at a table, hoping to eventually convince others of your good intentions hasn’t really worked. We need to move past the sting and hurt of emotional labels and words, and proceed in pursuing the truth. If people accuse you of being a racist, hateful, or an extremist - don’t change your focus into trying to vindicate yourself in that light. Stick with your concerns. Address what you don’t like. Tell people you don’t care if the president is black, white, or purple - you can’t support a man who...

Your detractor might say, “You’re the one calling the President a fascist! If that’s not name calling and emotional, what is? At that point you need to know your facts. It’s important that you understand what fascism is, and be able to explain that it’s not an emotional label meant to smear his reputation and divert attention away from the behavior. It’s a term meant to accurately describe his actions - that being, a governmental movement to take control of a private business, e.g. General Motors.

Name calling has probably been around as long as there have been humans. It’s hurtful and often takes consideration away from the facts of the situation, highlighting instead some emotionally charged accusation which is used to conveniently oversimplify the position of an individual or group. Realize that it’s a tactic, often used by those who having nothing left to say, so they grasp at straws, and names. Don’t take the bait; bring the focus back to the facts and the principles involved.

In conclusion, even Jesus addressed this issue during the Sermon on the Mount:

 11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

 13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

 14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

(Matthew, Chapter 5)

Obama's Health Care Address to the Nation

Obama Care, to the Rescue

The series I’ve been writing on the history of the American Revolution, and how it relates to today is being interrupted for this blog. Having watched President Obama’s address to the nation, I feel the need to address that topic.

Let me qualify by saying I actually took notes during the address. I get impatient with stating things from memory only to have the opposing side say, “He didn’t say that.” So, I have my notes. If you disagree, please find the content of the speech online and come prepared with specifics - not recollections.

President Obama started by making sure all in the audience understood that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. President Clinton said the exact same thing. It seems to be a theme with the last two liberal administrations. While I can’t support Bush in many of the policies he pursued, let’s judge each president by what he actually did. I was appalled at President Bush II urging that Congress rush the Stimulus Act through. As am I appalled at the actions of Obama tripling the national debt inside 6 months. Which action is worse? Eight years of slow economic deterioration, or 6 months of a sudden trifold in your debt? Put this on a personal level: Let’s say you were involved in 2 marriages. The first put you $10,000 in debt before a divorce pursued. The new spouse took the reins of your existing debt and within 6 months increased your indebtedness to $30,000 by trying to spend his or her way into recovery. (Personal examples always help me get back to basic understanding.)

Despite our present situation, President Obama claimed, during the speech, that he had brought the economy back from the brink. Bringing something back, to me, means moving in the opposite direction. How is it that you are bringing something back, when actually the problem gets worse? 

Obama stated that we, the new administration, did not come here to clean up crises, but to build a new future. The astute listener must ask himself, “build what future”? What many voters did not choose to hear prior to the election was Obama’s promise to re-form America. That’s exactly what he is trying to do. Barack Obama does not cherish our American legacy, despite what he may say in any speech. He truly does want to re-form the fabric and structure of this country. Otherwise, he would say that he wants to grow, capitalize on, strengthen, improve, adhere to, etc. Re-forming means change the form of. Many Americans, myself included, have absolutely no interest in abandoning the Constitution and the legacy left us by the Founders and Framers. If you’re in doubt, Obama said that you could judge his administration by the people he surrounded himself with as advisors. Take a look at them; check their pasts and their writings. Using this as the litmus test, Obama has very little interest in preserving the Constitution, the tenets of the Declaration of Independence, and the legacy of our American heritage.

Obama stated that coverage for an individual seeking health care costs three times as much as if that same insured obtained group coverage. Problem: If I obtain coverage with a group, I obtain a “group average” rate. If I am obese, have pre-existing health issues, am a smoker - well, Obama’s probably correct; I will get the benefit of healthy people subsidizing my poor health choices. However, if I’m of an appropriate weight, don’t have pre-existing conditions, am a non-smoker, well, I’d probably be better off seeking my own insurance rates than going for the group average. Because in this second scenario my good habits provide the insurance company with surplus premium dollars used to subsidize the the unhealthy insureds within the group. It’s not a mystery, it’s just a “spread of risk” function of insurance. Insurance companies cannot invent the statistics - they justify their rate structures to the state insurance commissioners before they’re approved. Further, Obama said we are the only country that allows 14,000 insureds to lose their coverage daily. I wonder why? Did they lose their jobs because of the recession and lost their health benefits? (Probably.) Did they walk away from their private insurance? (No.) Obama said, those with insurance have less security than ever. Why is that? Again, it’s not the insurance, it’s the economy. He went on to site one patient who had gall stones as a pre-existing condition, and another with acne; both patients were reportedly denied benefits for non-related life threatening problems, which  eventually led to the deaths of these people. As a person who works in the insurance industry, I’d really like to know why, if this truly did happen, the companies which denied benefits were not sued to the full extent of the law for failing to live up to the policy provisions. Once insured, customers are not excluded from benefits during the policy period, unless that it can be proved they lied during application. Acne? Come on.

At one point, Obama brought up Medicare and Medicaid, stating that private insurance puts pressure on it, inferring that these two governmentally administered programs are suffering financially because of the existence of private insurance. Hmm. Obama went on to assert, “Nobody disputes this.” He never did explain what he meant. What I have observed is that providers and suppliers who have worked with Medicare are attempting to distance themselves from it as government prescribed payments are so restrictive, those entities cannot stay afloat economically if the number of their patients on Medicare exceeds are certain percentage. Secondly, the red tape involved in dealing with the government programs puts an unrealistic burden on the administrative staff.

Obama stressed these points that he says should be mandatory inclusions of national health care: 1) Insurance cannot exclude applicants based on pre-existing conditions; 2)  Insurance cannot drop an insured nor change his/her coverage when the insured is sick; 3) The can be no “arbitrary” caps on limits to insurance; 4) there must be a limit to out-of-pocket expenses on the part of the insured; 5) Insurers are required to cover the costs of procedures such as mammograms and colonoscopies. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think #2 is a moot point; I don’t know of medical coverage that is allowed to practice changing or dropping insurance when an insured experiences illness. As for the  other 4 points, these are all accomplishable, assuming that price is no consideration. Again, let’s apply this to a personal level: you own a small business and you decide to provide medical insurance for your employees out of your own pocket. Your employee association, a group of 10, come to you with these demands: 1) you have no right to know whether we have diabetes, HIV, cancer, or heart disease; 2) No matter how expensive coverage gets, you can have no limits to what you pay; 3) After we pay up to $500, our personal obligation is over and you’re on the hook for everything else; and 4) we demand that you pay for tests that we deem in our best personal interest. As a private employer are you going to be able to live up to these terms? Why then, when we extend this to several thousand insureds do we think the practicality of these concerns goes away? I’ll tell you why Obama and the National Health Care advocates think they go away. Because ultimately the bill will fall to the responsibility of the taxpayers - in the eyes of government, a veritable bottomless pit.

Following this, President Obama discussed the concept of an insurance exchange. For those who could not access private insurance through employment, they would be able to obtain it through the exchange. The collectivity of this group would be large enough to provide the same negotiating power as groups such as say, the teacher’s union. However, if this group is organized by the government as their “group,” we must assume that anyone stepping forward to insure them would have to live up to the demands listed in the previous paragraph, as outlined by Obama: no pre-existing condition underwriting, no caps on coverage, limited out-of-pocket costs to the insured, and mandatory testing on prescribed health concerns. It was inferred that these people would have manageable costs due to the fact that they were forming a “group.” Two things: 1) Every group plan I’ve participated in had me paying a portion of my care, and my employer paying the other half. Who is the employer in this case? For instance, in my last job in teaching, I paid about $800 per month while the school district paid another $800 in the form of paid benefits. That’s $1600. Will the government pay the second half? (That is, the taxpayer.) Or will those in the exchange come up with the full $1600?

Then, there was that group which Obama said didn’t have the means to participate in the exchange. For this group, he simply said they would receive tax credits to help them access health insurance. What this means, he didn’t exactly explain. Are we to assume that the poor will receive a federal tax cash refund to pay for insurance? If so, how will we be sure the poor use it to actually pay for health insurance? But let’s presume that it’s not cash, but some type of voucher which must go toward health care. Are these vouchers susceptible as a “black market” currency, such as food stamps? Will this type of care be susceptible to the same abuses as Medicare, which have left this program bankrupt? If not, why not? The President didn’t say.

President Obama stated, “I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business...I just want to hold them accountable.” He claimed the not-for-profit-public option would do that. How, again, he didn’t say. In a free market system, the absolute best force available is competition. Competing companies will hold one another’s feet to the fire while honing better and better products at the best price. But competition is currently being stifled by interstate laws preventing insurance companies from competing freely throughout the country. If you want to see improvement today, allow all insurers to compete freely in all 50 states.

Obama likened his proposed national health care agencies to universities, saying they would be self-sufficient, earning their way just as the private companies do. Do you follow the budgets of state run colleges? Name one public college or university that pays its own way. Last time I checked, they are ALL heavily subsidized through taxation.

The President pledged that he would not sign a plan that added one dime to our deficit, now or in the future, period. To prove it, he said, he’d make the spending cuts to make up for it. Time out. Did you notice the inconsistency here? A minute ago, he said the national health care would pay its own way. In this breath, he’s saying that he pledges to make up the difference by making spending cuts. Whoops. Obama is conceding this will cost more than we have. He went on to say that the money could be found in existing wasteful spending. Time out again. Wasteful spending exists, and we added to it with the Stimulus Bill? I thought every penny was needed to oil the mechanism of government programs for the good of the economy. Now, he saying he knows of wasteful spending. How come we didn’t go after that before passing the Stimulus Plan, and why don’t we assess that wasteful spending today to determine what useful means those salvaged dollars may be put to?

The absolute biggest arguments put forth by conservatives to combat spiraling costs of health care is in the way of tort reform. Let me repeat: THE BIGGEST. Limiting court costs, frivolous lawsuits against physicians and drug companies, and bringing about malpractice insurance that is not prohibitive - these are changes that can be made without overhauling the best health care system in the world. Obama devoted less than 30 seconds to this; maybe a sentence or two. Short shrift. He dismissed it. Obama is a lawyer, elected by lawyers, as are most in Congress. Follow the money.

The critics of the bill were characterized in Obama’s speech, once again, as disseminators of misinformation. The President raised the controversial points “a plan to kill off senior citizens” which he said was a lie, plain and simple. The root of this argument has to do with whether bill will result in health care rationing. The proponents say there is no such stipulation; the critics contend that necessarily, the tax sustained plan will have limits, and policy makers in Obama’s inner circle embrace prioritizing the contributors of society, making sure they are guaranteed societal provision, whereas infants and the elderly don’t have as much to contribute and are therefore, more expendable. So, say the critics, the plan doesn’t need to spell these terms out, it will just be a reality of a brave new world where limited resources are distributed according to the ruling party’s philosophy concerning the sanctity of life. Several key players in Obama’s inner sanctum embrace attributing relative value of life based on what the individual has to contribute (Sunstein, Holdren, Jarrett, and the recently departed Jones). Obama also cited misinformation as far as critics saying illegal aliens would have access, and that abortions would be funded. Again, calling it misinformation is dodging the point: those things are currently happening. Why would we think that practice would suddenly change?

Okay, so it sounds like I’m just a big naysayer. Just like I was a naysayer concerning the Stimulus Plan. Does our country need health reform. Yes. Do I have a better answer? Well, I think serious tort reform, restricting health care to citizens, opening state markets to all insurance companies, and requiring patients who show up without insurance and have no intention of paying private providers to set up a payment plan would make a dent in some of the need. And by the way, I’d like health insurance and don’t have it. So I’m not sitting in my ivory tower untouched by the reality of the need. But this health care bill doesn’t work at fixing our system; it is the beginning of a replacement for our system. It’s a move toward Canada and Great Britain. 

Despite President Obama’s promises and assurances, the economics of his plan don’t make sense. As the Stimulus Plan doesn’t make sense. The Obama administration and Congress are rushing to make policy upheaval within a very short period of time while they don’t even take the time to fully understand, or even read the bills that special interest groups and advisors are writing as opposed to the Constitutionally planned legislative model of elected legislators. When changes are as significant as the Stimulus Plan which puts future generations in debt, Cap and Trade which would further sidetrack our private sector from providing free market economic recovery, and this National Health Care Act which is the mostly hotly debated legislation in over 40 years, it just doesn’t make sense to ignore at least half of the constituents in America. Even if you do have a majority in Congress.