O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O god, to whom vengeance shew thyself.
Lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth; render a reward to the proud.
Lord, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?
How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves?
They break in pieces thy people, O Lord, and afflict thine heritage.
- Psalm 94: 1-5
When President Bush, adorned in a flak jacket, announced triumph in Iraq in 2003, the Republicans felt, as the Democrats may have felt in 1964, 1976 and 1992, that they were the “winners of history.” An unknown Asian-American Washington state legislator named Gary Locke was offered as the Democrats’ sacrificial lamb to “rebut” Bush’s State of the Union speech. When Bush and his party swept aside all opposition, winning with a record number of votes in 2004, hubris marked their victory.
How did they blow it? In short, instead of annihilating the terrorists of Iraq in a major display of force in 2005, they fought, almost Vietnam-style, with their “hands tied behind their backs.” A war that could have been handled by 2005 dragged on and on. Even though the Surge effectively “won” it in 2007, it was not a satisfying victory. Violence continued. Nobody was happy with the outcome. Nation-building failed, and it cost the country so much money that one of the great economies ever achieved, reaching a crest in 2007, was lost after the Democrats took over Congress.
Illegal immigration was not handled properly. Bush also spent tremendously, falling into the age-old corruptions of D.C. budget temptations. When the sub-prime crisis caught him by surprise, he opened the door wide open for Barack Obama and the Left when he signed the first stimulus package. He was practically telling them to bring Socialism to America, and in so doing signed a death sentence for the McCain-Palin ticket.
Barack Obama emerged out of nowhere. The first time most Americans ever heard of him was when he spoke at the 2004 Democrat National Convention. Even Rush Limbaugh announced after his speech that “he’s got it,” the charisma a winning candidate must have. The old, tired Hillary Clinton was shocked first to see Obama had a chance, then actually losing to him in the 2008 Primaries. No man had ever been elected President whose name was unknown to 99 percent of the public a mere four years before their election. Teddy Roosevelt had risen in similar fast manner, but he had been a crusading New York politician, cleaning up Tammany Hall in the 1880s. He disappeared to “find himself” on a Montana cowboy ranch after his first wife died, but returned to the scene.
Barack Hussein Obama arrived with the mother of all agendas. At the heart of his goal was the concept of social justice, which on the surface sounds . . . cool, but is not the same as military justice, criminal justice, or just plain justice. It is based on the notion that world history is dominated by white males. At one point, Asians and Arabs were the world dynasties, while white Europeans were still living in caves, wearing animal skins. Warm weather played a major role in historical development. The peoples of the Middle East, once the Persian Empire, lived in warmth, allowing them to freely move about, invent things, and engage in commerce.
The warm weather Europeans, Greeks and Romans, were the first to emerge as empires of intellect, philosophy and military conquest. After the birth of Christ, the religion spread to Europe but was largely rejected by dark-skinned peoples in Asia Minor. The Renaissance ensued, with Europeans at the head of the new world order. But the Catholic Church, according to the accusations of social justice, imposed racist, violent doctrines on indigenous peoples, namely through the Spanish Inquisition. Colonization ensued. America was born with the “original sin” of slavery. Even after a fighting a war to free blacks, they were subjected to another 100 years of prejudice before the country won two world wars and finally, as Dr. King said, “lived up to its creed” and embraced civil rights for all throughout the land.
But for many blacks, Latinos and others, it was not enough. Victimology spread. Race extortion, reparation, a desire to repair past wrongs by extracting from the modern day white man, whose ancestors had committed these crimes, became the driving force of a new ideology called social justice. At the heart of this philosophy is the belief that whites, particularly males and those who espouse pride in past accomplishments, whether it be Western Civilization, the Constitution, even winning World War II, were racist, corrupt, immoral, illegitimate, and needed to be replaced by history.
Many have argued who Barack Hussein Obama is. Where he comes from, what he has read and believes, what drives him. Many argue that he is not one of those “victims” who holds this grudge against Caucasians, that he himself is half-white, and that he is not an advocate of this particularly virulent brand of social justice; indeed, that social justice is not a pejorative in the first place, as the term liberalism has become. After a review of four years of his Presidency, there are a large number of citizens who have come to believe that he does believe in this philosophy. This leads to the great question, to be answered in 2012 and in subsequent culture battles for the soul of America: what side will win?
Obama, Alinsky and Communism
It does not start with Barack Obama. He is a product of something that was around long before he was even born, yet he is, despite the mocking of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and his numerous detractors, “the one” the Left has long been waiting for, a messianic figure of liberalism who is to them what Jesus Christ was to the Jewish prophets. He is their hopes and dreams, imagined in their minds for over 100 years, this vision manifest in flesh and blood to fulfill their goal of rebellion.
The Jonas’s, the Samuels, the Ezekiels, the John the Baptists of the Left were Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, Henry David Thoreau, Emma Goldman, Jean-Paul Sarte, Albert Camus, Che Guevara, and Noam Chomsky. They looked for their North Star not in Heaven, but in the seeds of revolution in Russia, China, Cambodia . . . Kenya.
His father was a Kenyan. Obama wrote two biographies, both before he accomplished much of anything. There was a sense that because he was half-black, and came also from a mixture of racial identities including Islam, Indonesia, American hippy culture and the plains of Kansas, this made him unusual and interesting enough to publish books about himself. Apparently, for somebody with this background to be smart enough to write a book, to be educated and advance in the world, led back to the affirmative action notion that such a person should be given a publishing deal while so many others faced rejection.
He is not always a truth teller. He invents scenarios and stories to further his view of himself. The first evidence of this comes in his books. He writes of a grandfather who was tortured by the British for fighting on the side of the Mau Mau rebellion, but evidence uncovered by his biographer, David Maranis, disputes this. He writes of official discrimination and prejudice faced by his father, who ran out on his mother. This premise has many holes in it, including evidence that it was his mother who wanted out as much as his father abandoning the family to return to Africa, seeking a political career.
There is an odd psychosis in inventing stories to enhance prejudice against his father, since he was an African-born black man married to a white American woman in the early 1960s. Unquestionably, there was plenty of prejudice against such a pairing, even in a place like Hawaii, but Obama felt the need to go beyond the ordinary run of the mill taunts and looks, enhancing it to a more political level of discrimination, possibly to “justify” his father’s decision to leave.
His mother, who had some education and was a capable woman, was left to fend for herself. A single mother with a half-black child, there was scorn directed at her. It is in reading Obama’s views of his mother and her parents that we begin to see the formation of his character. His mom was a hippy girl, a flower child of the ‘60s. Her decision to marry and bare the son of a black was not merely physical lust or love, but a political act of white guilt, a form of reparations against age-old injustice. It was difficult for her. Obama was raised in large measure by his grandparents, white folks from the Midwestern plains, and all that entails. He was “colored,” but he was their flesh and blood and they loved him. He loved them back.
Yet, in his biographies, he finds complaint with them. First, he belies a lack of real respect for his mother, the guilty hippy child. There is anger in Obama, and not the kind of anger that identifies with guilt, his mother’s or his. He cannot identify with the plainspoken Americanism of his grandparents, who he apologizes for because they lacked, in his view, true enlightenment. The prospect of black criminals in his grandmother’s proximity frightened her. His mother’s approach likely would have been to reason with them, make them love her, and if they robbed, even raped her, to consider it small reparation for her “guilt.” The grandmother understandably wanted to avoid them. Neither approach was satisfactory to Obama. He oddly found himself identifying not with his guilty mother or accusatory grandmother, but with the black criminals, the real “victims” in his emerging world. In his writings he declares allegiance to blackness, and a definite rejection of whiteness. He finds and enters in these and subsequent years membership in a victim class of the oppressed, the plundered and the exploited. All he has, all people like him ever had, has been stolen by the white man, and in his world the white man, “the Man” is America. He does not find the lack of logic in this any more than Oliver Stone does in his “zero sum game” argument, given to Michael Douglas’s Gordon Gekko, who makes the faulty analogy that for one man to get rich, he must steal from a poor man even though the poor man has nothing than can be stolen. This is the nebulous notion of the rich man making the poor fella get a credit card and max it out so he has something that can be stolen. Or, the Indian thieves who always left enough in the Mexican village’s they plundered so the Mexicans could survive to grow harvests the Indians could steal from again the following year.
Obama was born in Hawaii. Neither of his parents could know that his middle name (Hussein) and last name would be the same or nearly the same as the two greatest American post-Cold War enemies (Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden). Many have said he was not born there, and the evidence is somewhat sketchy. He never produced real birth certificates, which is apparently the way Hawaii does it, but it was confusing. An announcement appeared in the paper, but his mother could have placed that there by sending in a note. Despite Right-wing arguments to the contrary, however, it appears he was born in Honolulu in 1961, shortly after statehood, and therefore he is an American.
But there was also Indonesia. His mother re-married an Indonesian Muslim man who moved the family to Indonesia, where he apparently set out to raise his step-son under the auspices of Islam. He attended a madrassa. Muslim madrassas are filled with political hatred against the United States. To the extent that they were in the 1960s, and that the one Obama attended was one of those; this can only be speculated on. Maranis’s research indicates that while he learned much about Islam, came to admire its beauty and even grandeur, he remained an American, returning to his home country while still young, not a fully formed religious person.
The marriage failed and his mother died of cancer. Obama was left with his grandparents. He attended Punahou School in Honolulu, one of the most prestigious private academies in America. It was expensive and academically arduous. How he got in and who paid are unanswered questions. Perhaps he had the grades and his grandparents forked over the tuition money. The conspiracy theorists offer the scenario that he was “sponsored” by some nefarious political organization, not unlike the “Yuri” character who turns out to be Kevin Costner in No Way Out. These are the people who look at Bill Clinton in like manner. Clinton was the son of a woman who was likely a “gangster’s moll” in the mob town of Hot Springs, Arkansas. She paid her gambling debts via “favors,” and had children by different men. The thread on Clinton is that these criminal elements recognized his academic and political potential early, then decided to pay his way up the ladder of an elite education, supposedly so he would be their guy in power down the road.
Just as likely, Obama benefited from relatively new affirmative action policies kicking in to full extent by the late 1970s. Being black and probably unable to pay, he was what affirmative action was all about. His own biography describes not a good student, as Bill Clinton was, but a lazy slacker and drifter who smoked reefer, sniffed blow, drank copious amounts of beer, hung out with ne’r-do-wells, druggies, dealers, low lifes and criminals, was part of the notoriously skanky Waikiki beach scene, and whose only “healthy” interest was basketball.
This does not describe the kind of academic over-achiever who against all odds makes it to Occidental College or Columbia University. From all indications, affirmative action was his ticket from Punahou to Occidental to Columbia to Harvard Law School. Others see Muslim handlers, or even Communists behind his rise, but there is no evidence. Others argue that even though these scenarios may not be true, his political formation was as if it was. Each school was ludicrously expensive and incredibly hard to get into. Each was in a big city that cost a lot of money to live in. Each featured a social scene in which wealth and prestige were keys to advancement. There is no evidence he worked his way through college, but he always had money to wear the right clothes, attend the right parties, and ingratiate himself with the right people.
Nobody knows his grades, how he was accepted, or who paid the bills. Some speculated that he applied as a foreign student and declared his religion to be Muslim. Possibly there were affirmative action slots for students of this background and this was how he entered, via a lie. Without actually producing the records, the speculation continues.
Acceptance to and even graduation from Columbia is one thing, but acceptance to Harvard Law School is quite another. No matter how much preference he received, he surely was a student of promise and accomplishment. Still, he was elected editor of the Harvard Law Review, a very political position very likely awarded him so the powers that be could feel good about themselves for givin’ it to the black fella. Most editors of the Review have a long paper trail of theses, papers and opinions. Obama does not.
His wife, Michelle apparently received the same kind of preferential treatment in the Ivy League. Her response to every possible benefit and benevolent gift bestowed on her by America was to write a thesis claiming the world made it extra tough for her because she was black. The main argument backing up her claim was that being surrounded by intelligent whites put her at a disadvantage (?).
Obama graduated from Harvard Law School, but the mystery continued. He spent a short amount of time working at a private company, which he described as being “behind enemy lines.” At a young age, he undoubtedly sees only Big Government as worthy. Private enterprise is the “white man’s world,” and this is the world of the colonizers and immoralists of an illegitimate history. He was an adjunct professor at Harvard. Nobody remembers much about this. There are no students who step forth and recall him. He may have been a glorified teacher’s aide. He wrote nothing; no books, theses, opinions. An adjunct is a nebulous hanger-on from semester to semester at any college. This period has been described as one that makes him a “Constitutional law professor.” He came under the auspices of professor named Derek Bell, a radical black liberation theologist, typical of ethnic studies programs by this time. He also associated with Professor Henry Louis Gates, whose Left-wing view of black victimhood influenced him. Professors like Bell and Gates were singularly responsible for the huge liberal turn that had long marked Harvard, which by this time was in full swing.
In the early 1990s, Obama attempted to embark on a career path that says as much about him as any other factor. He wanted to be a writer. Nobody really knows who his influences were. They likely were not Hemingway or Kerouac, but rather James Baldwin. This was a particularly conspiratorial period in African-American history. The CIA was said to have invented AIDS so as to wipe out blacks. They were said to have planted drugs in the ghettos (according to The Godfather, the mob did that). The existence of liquor stores on every street corner was the white man’s doing, to keep the brother’s down, or so said Laurence Fishburne in The Boyz in the Hood. So many Africans were thrown overboard in 400 years of the slave trade that it changed the migration habits of sharks. A great “university,” the “University of Luxor,” was supposed to have been the center of world knowledge before the white man came along and filled the world with lies. The devil was a blue-eyed white man called Magog, or something like that; an invention of Louis Farrakhan, who came up with some kind of “Creationist” story along these lines. Jews and Koreans would not hire the blacks pimping and prostituting their women in front of their stores, thus giving “cause” for riots in New York, L.A. and elsewhere.
Blacks were looking for self-identity. They had joined cause with the radical forces of the Anti-War Movement, but that was over, the white hippies now in corporations, academia and suburbia, but many blacks were still in the ghettos. The Black Panthers were all but over with. Many blacks deserted that way of thinking for traditional Christianity. But what of those left behind? Like Germans willing to believe Hitler’s lies, to believe that somebody else was to be skapegoated for their failings, they needed to invent scenarios and paradigms favoring their point of view.
Barack Hussein Obama looked around and decided on his paradigm. In 1991 he landed a literary agent, who created a pamphlet including a short Obama biography. It stated that Obama was born in Kenya. Why did it state that? He was apparently not born in Kenya, which of course, if he had been, would have made him ineligible for the Presidency. But it was in lying about his birthplace in the early 1990s that Obama reveals his true nature, and not just the fact he is a liar. In trying to establish his identity as a writer, he decided – no doubt felt his best chance at getting published – was not to identify himself as a patriotic American citizen, but as a native, an African, a Muslim, an “other,” a victim, one of the colonized, the oppressed; somebody who had a story to tell of hatred, of white racism, of a struggle against a landscape of exploitation not just against him (non-existent), but against all he represented (the world). Thus did Obama begin to see even then that he was this messianic figure, “the one we’ve all been waiting for,” the child in a ghetto manger (or at least a beach manger near Waikiki), Rousseau and John Reed and Upton Sinclair and Camus and Chomsky the proverbial “wise men” gathered to pay homage to the arrival of a new age long prophesied.
The writing career initially did not work out, but Obama came to Chicago, where he became a “community organizer.” Apparently this “job” paid well enough for him to buy an expensive home, which reminds one of the Copa scene in Goodfellas when young Ray Liotta explains his display of wealth and power with the breezy declaration, “I’m a union delegate.”
As for his wife, Michelle, she road Obama’s coattails all the way to a job paying around a half-million dollars a year as a “hospital coordinator.” So vital was this job that when her husband was elected President and they went to Washington, nobody replaced her. She had ascended to a new status within America, beyond affirmative action, to the high-priced professional black woman. This is a high-paying job large corporations pay to some educated minority not to work or actually accomplish tasks, but to fill out a new quota system, long established by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It was a job created in large measure by the work of her husband. Something to trot out and display to the world as “proof” they are not racists.
Obama never met Saul Alinsky, who died in 1972. Alinsky dedicated his books to Sirhan Sirhan, assassin of Robert F. Kennedy, and to Lucifer. He seems to be a real-life figure straight out of The Rolling Stones’ “Sympathy for the Devil.” Obama dedicated the book he eventually did write to Alinsky.
Alinsky was a community organizer. He was, in fact, a street protestor, an extortionist, a rabble-rouser, an anarchist, and a Communist. Street protest had been around before America and, of course, manifested itself as “the Terrors” during the French Revolution. There were draft riots in New York in response to the Civil War. Emma Goldman and the anarchists organized riots during World War I. Communists and union organizers routinely stirred up riots during the Great Depression. Ronald Reagan faced these same people, now tools of Moscow, during his time as SAG president in the 1940s and 1950s.
After relative peace during the Eisenhower ‘50s, a confluence of events turned the 1960s into a boiling hot cauldron. The Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-War Movement, and the free speech movement gave rise to the feminist movement, the environmentalist movement, and the gay rights movement. Reactionary Republicans like Ronald Reagan and Duke Wayne, and anti-Communist Southerners like George Wallace, argued that this nexus of protest, riot and rebellion was funded, or connected in some way, to international Communism. The liberals laughed and mocked this assertion. What, exactly, was international Communism? The Communist world was just that, internationalist, with varying headquarters, directions, money and orders coming from Moscow and Peking, to Vietnam, to Cuba, to Latin America, Asia and Africa; the Third World. The liberals said this was too disparate an “enemy” to be identified. They wanted to own the protests, to take credit for it, to believe it was the new America. They had taken it to the streets, they had “taken it all down, man.” The sentiment of these protestors was the sentiment of the youth, or so they believed.
David Horowitz, who was one of those protestors, indeed was one of the protest organizers, was also one who later turned on them and divulged their secrets. A series of carefully-hidden front organizations, many from Moscow, funneled through fellow traveler middle men organizations, were indeed funding the 1960s street protests. Red-faced from revelations of the Blacklist, when the Hollywood Ten were exposed, and John Howard Lawson identified as taking direct orders from his Communist handlers, the enemies of America became adept at banking, money laundering, and the tricks of financing revolution. Aside from Horowitz, others left the movement, as Whittaker Chambers had done, and in the 1990s the Venona Project confirmed it. Despite the fall of the Berlin Wall, however, dogged pursuers like Michael Savage identified some of these same fronts, using new names and new personnel, as the backers of anti-war protest during the Iraq War.
Alinsky was at the heart of this disguised Communist movement. His official cover, still naively repeated by apologists like Bill Maher, was that he was out to “help black people.” He was an anti-American enemy of the U.S. out to hurt the country during the Vietnam War. He was a traitor, and he was a hero to Barack Obama.
Alinsky tapped into something that lay dormant for a long time. Left-wing sentiment found nothing in traditional American values to cheer. Christianity, capitalism, entrepreneurial freedom, even athletic success, was considered bourgeois. Even President Obama, when asked during the 2009 All-Star Game to list some good memories of Chicago baseball, spoke of Cominsky Park. Even while discussing Our National Pastime, the man could not help a Freudian slip that Communized and Alinskyized the name of the venerable Comiskey Park, old home of the White Sox.
Alinsky discovered that corporations could be shaken down for money to avoid accusations of racism; that business people would pay criminals not to break things and commit crimes. It was not a coincidence that Alinsky operated out of the Windy City, and that the 1969 Chicago riots – largely funded by third party Communist fronts – was the worst protest in American history. This was the world Obama admired and aspired to emulate, to be a part of, and to lead. He accomplished his task.
It was also no coincidence that Obama’s race extortion work was in Chicago, first the home of Saul Alinsky, later of Jesse Jackson. With the Vietnam War over, the Persian Gulf War over almost before it was started, the only place to protest any more was in corporate America. Jackson and Obama found a lucrative race-baiting business, essentially promising not to march crowds of angry unionists and blacks in front of corporate headquarters buildings. They mixed this with environmental protest, aimed mainly at so-called Big Oil, shaking down large companies they accused of polluting the green environs. They railed against a steel company for perceived injustices.
Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, former Weather Underground criminals and American Communists, discovered Obama’s work. Somehow, despite attempts to blow up the Pentagon, police stations, cops, and other symbols of America, they were allowed not only to freely walk about the Earth, but also to teach at the college level. Unable to be truly public figures, they needed a man to do their dirty work. That man was Barack Obama. They recruited him and launched his political indoctrination into the infamous Chicago Way, the single most corrupt Democrat organization in America.
Obama needed to prove his bone fides with the black revolutionaries, so he joined the largest black liberation theology “church” in the nation, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United. It was there that reverend Wright declared after 9/11 “no, no, no, not God bless America . . . Godd—n America.” Obama sat in his pews and soaked it all in for years. He claimed that under Reverend Wright he found Jesus Christ. Nobody can truly know what is in a man’s heart. God works in mysterious ways.
Obama was elected to the Illinois state Senate. He rarely attended, usually voting present. He had no accomplishments. He spent most of his time writing his two biographies. With the backing of Ayers and his connections with the Annenberg School of Communications, Wright and the Chicago Way, he had enough name recognition to justify publication of two biographies despite not having done much of anything. He was the “angry black man with something to say,” the great voice of the Left.
In 2004 he decided to run for the Senate. His opponent was eliminated using tried-and-true Alinsky techniques: illegal, criminal, immoral. Having ruined Jack Ryan’s family by opening his sealed divorce records, which was against the law, he cruised unopposed to victory, a major staple of the Alinsky playbook. The Left saw in him a rising star. At the 2004 DNC he proffered the fiction that Arab-American families cowered in the night because of President Bush. Only the election of John Kerry would free them from cowering. No Arab-Americans were cowering, and when Bush was re-elected, they continued not to cower.
For four years he was “bored” in the Senate, as described by colleagues. He offered no legislation, accomplished nothing, and opposed all GOP initiatives that resembled what he later did as President. In 2008, he entered the Primaries. U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D.-New York) was the odds-on favorite to capture the Democrat nomination. Sean Hannity was running what he termed the “stop Hillary express.”
But Obama captured the hearts and minds of fanciful liberals. Then Rush Limbaugh stepped in. One of if not the most influential man in media history, what he did in 2008 may have been his most influential moment. It also might have backfired, and in so doing, the great irony is that Limbaugh may be the reason Barack Obama was elected President.
When Obama won a few Primaries, Limbaugh instituted what he called “operation chaos.” Many of the state’s opened their Primaries to all parties. Limbaugh urged Republicans to vote for either Hillary or Obama, depending on who was winning or losing during the course of a topsy-turvy Primary season. It truly did create chaos within the Democrat Party, with Limbaugh laughing at them from on high. Then the Reverend Wright tapes hit. They had been hidden, but his 2001 assertion, “no, no, no . . . not God Bless America, Godd—n America,” surfaced. Limbaugh and the conservative media played it over and over.
Senator Clinton tried to take advantage of it. Rumors that Obama was not born in America surfaced. Senator Clinton tried to take advantage of that, too, but she was walking a thin line. Criticism of a black man’s black preacher and assertions that a black man, who had a Muslim name and might be a Muslim, might not be an American . . . she was quickly charged with racism. Her husband fumed, telling former Vice President Al Gore that a few years ago Obama “would have been serving them coffee.”
Then a funny thing happened. The Democrats analyzed Reverend Wright’s “Godd—n America” remarks, and the accusation that Obama had anti-American attitudes and . . . decided they kind of agreed with that way of thinking. He pulled ahead and was nominated at Denver amid statuary meant to depict him as like a Greek god.
Throughout the summer, surprise Republican nominee John McCain, a Vietnam war hero once held by the Vietnamese Communists, trailed in the polls. He decided on a “game changer,” Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. At first unknown, her movie star good looks and common sense conservatism quickly buoyed the campaign. After the Republican convention, one poll favored McCain-Palin by 11 points. The general lead was actually five, but in mid-September they looked like winners.
Then the sub-prime housing crisis completely destroyed the economy. President Bush told the country he was going against all his capitalist principles in signing a stimulus bill, which conservatives said was the first step towards Socialism. It was McCain’s death knell. He lost badly, his party falling with him.
The anointed one had arrived.
Soros, ACORN and the politics of race extortion
Obama worked closely for ACORN, a race extortion organization that was exposed by intrepid journalists to be illegal. They specialized in talking women into having abortions, or getting pimp-prostitution teams government benefits. They stirred up protest over “disenfranchisement,” placing forth the notion that the black vote was suppressed because conservatives tried to suppress the ability of illegals to vote, or for minorities to vote multiple times. In the mean time, the ability to vote remained as easy as getting an absentee ballot, voting, affixing a stamp, and placing it in a mail box. They worked with the New Black Panther Party, who on Election Day in 2008 suppressed the white vote, deemed not a crime by Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder. After working hand-in-hand with ACORN for years, making numerous speeches on their behalf, praising their vital work in the rise of his career, and using them to help win, after their crimes were exposed by Fox News he no longer mentioned them.
It is hard to really say who the most evil man in history was. Pontius Pilate gets some “votes,” but he was forced by the Sadducees into ordering the death of Christ. This was really pre-ordained by God as vital to man’s salvation, so in a strange way he was doing . . . God work? This borders on blasphemy so the subject is best dropped. Besides, we all killed Jesus. His death is our collective responsibility. In the 20th Century, there is of course Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung; take your pick. But among “non-criminals,” so called “respectable” men of politics and business, at least in the U.S. Joseph P. Kennedy is as good a candidate as any. His life and fate is cosmic. He orchestrated and pulled the strings in the rise to power of the Kennedy clan, who came this close to achieving monarchical status for generations, but in the end were felled by assassin’s bullets, scandal and immorality. In this Shakespearean drama, Kennedy’s sons were each felled by the stars that once favored them, but most ironic of all, the old man himself was felled by a stroke that forced him to sit, mute, and watch all of it unable to say a word. The unlikely Bush’s of Connecticut and Texas achieved far greater lasting power and impact than the Kennedys.
In the 21st Century, we have George Soros. He is at least as evil as “Old Man Joe” Kennedy. He is the modern backer of the Democrat Party and of Barack Obama. He does it in the shadows, but his money and his manipulations are the strings this puppet master uses to plot the course of the Left. He is the final culmination of centuries of hatred, all the combined terrors wrought upon the Earth by what the narrator in the Ronald Reagan documentary In the Face of Evil calls “the Beast.”
When Obama was elected President, some Christian fundamentalists asked whether he was the anti-Christ. This question has dogged Christianity for many years. Some felt Napoleon was for forcing the Pope out of the Vatican. Hitler and Stalin looked to be candidates, but Hitler committed suicide in the wake of defeat, Stalin’s nation was dismantled. World War II certainly made many think of Armageddon. The creation of national Israel has stirred the greatest “end of the world” talk. It clearly states in Revelation that this event is a necessary pre-cursor to Christ’s return. While the Bible is not clear on the existence of an anti-Christ, the history of man has definitely stirred within the spiritual the notion that a malevolent force exists, changing form, stirring up bad things, always rebelling against God.
Movies like The Omen, its sequels, and the Left Behind novels further propelled the popular idea of an anti-Christ, a final battle between good and evil. The New Millennium had many on the lookout for “signs and wonders.” The Mayan calendar ends in 2012. A radio preacher named brother Harold Camping convinced many that the world would end on May 21, 2011. Many felt Obama’s election and ascendance just before that date meant that he was the man who would emerge from the “world of politcs” to lead Satan’s armies. Hi looks discomfited some. Here was a multi-racial “man of the world,” which is the province of the devil since the Garden of Eden. He possessed a strange, almost trans-gender quality to him, equal parts feminine and masculine. Patriots felt no, an American would not be the anti-Christ. He would be a Communist, a Muslim, even a Jew. America was the new Promised Land. How could this righteous country be the place where such spawn rose, yet only the power of America, home of Wall Street, Hollywood, Washington and the United Nations, would give this man the forum to take over the world. Nobody can know. The believers must remain vigilant, on the watchtowers, watching, but the true nature of Obama, despite what he has done, is still mysterious. Talk that he is the devil is of mocked by his legion of supporters.
Many said America was no longer righteous. How could a country that aborts as many babies as people died in World War II, and elects Barack Obama President, still call itself righteous? Most of Europe and the rest of the world seemed far gone, no longer good, decent, and Christian, if ever they really were. America stood alone, it seemed, and within America a shrinking, marginalized Christian faithful fights to stem a tide that seems overwhelming and unstoppable. Only God can save us from ourselves.
The many faults of the Left are exposed, but the Left cannot be shamed. Once these revelations resulted in people changing their minds, not voting for the immorally exposed, but the age of Obama revealed the terrible dilemma that perhaps the Left is in the majority. Polls say 18 percent of the people call themselves liberal, 40 percent conservative, but this does not reflect itself in elections. America is totally divided, and the question is who will get 50 percent plus one. After four years of Obama, he still stands strong. This never would have happened in past generations, but it now appears that all the bad thing exposed by the Right, by Rush Limbaugh, by Fox News, are things the Left likes and supports! When this happens, a tipping point is reached. The question in the 21st Century is whether this tide can be stemmed and turned back. Once upon a time a Reagan turned it back, but will a Reagan emerge? It seems only God can see us through. Or, will Soros be the dominant force of this century? Will the forces he unleashes, the power he hopes to attain, drive the world?
Soros was a non-practicing Jew who helped the Nazis round up other Jews. His excuse was that if he did not do it, somebody else would. An atheist, after the war, he rose to great heights and power in the media and the financial world. In the 1990s he personally brought down the British pound, and orchestrated the Asian financial meltdown, not unlike the way Joseph P. Kennedy helped unleash the market forces of the Great Depression. Like Kennedy, Soros bet the other way and became wealthy beyond comprehension. He engaged in philanthropy, funding billions of dollars worth of money to “public causes” meant to make him look charitable. These ere Lefty-wing organizations meant to empower his causes and therefore Soros himself. Always he remained shadowy and nefarious.
He opposed Republicans and George W. Bush. His organization MoveOn.org was originally created in response to President Clinton’s Impeachment, when the mantra of the Left was to forget about it and just “move on.” When the Internet became the new tool of politics and innuendo, he formed MediaMatters.org, among other organizations designed to “fact check” Republicans and, like, Hustler publisher Larry Flynt, expose embarrasing things about conervatives and Christians.
When the McCain-Palin ticket surged to a five-point lead in mid-September of 2008, magically, seemingly out of nowhere and at precisely the worst possible time to hurt the Republicans the most, the sub-prime housing crisis hit. Subsequent blame has been fixed on President Clinton, who started the policies that started it, and Congressman Barney Frank (D.-Massachusetts), the politcian who advocated and led its implementation, most notably to make it posible for minorities to own homes even if they could not afford it. After years of papering it over, when and only when Senator McCain appeared to be winning, did it fail. Those who somehow saw the black hand of George Soros – the man who bragged he broke the bank of England and sent Asia into financial crisis in 1997 - behind this were laughed off as conspiracy theorists.
He remains behind the scenes. He avoids scandal or criminal prosecution. His money, power and international tentacles make it impossible to get to him. Efforts to expose him for what he is leave the accuser shouting in the wilderness, looking like a nut. Presidents and prime ministers come and go, but Soros remains, pulling the strings in a world so complicated and global no ordinary man can comprehend it. Whether he is a tool of a malevolent spirit, or just another bad guy; no man can pin such a thing on him, only suspect it, probably until it is too late. Such malevolence can be battled not with guns, as with Hitler, but with prayer.
What was wrought
All of these forces of nature, more than 200 years of Left-wing efforts at establishing the “social contract” of Rousseau, were embodied in a single event. President Bush committed the worst act in the history of the Republican Party when he signed the first stimulus package, in response to the 2008 sub-prime crisis. In so doing, he destroyed McCain, handed the election to Obama, but worse yet, told the Democrats – elected en masse on Obama’s coattails – that America was now a Socialist country, so have at it.
But Bush’s mistake was nothing compared to the second stimulus, signed by Obama a few weeks after his Inauguration, in February of 2009. Suddenly, over night, $5 trillion of new debt – Republicans claimed more money than all governments spent since the birth of Christ – were laden upon the United States of America. This will go down in history as the single worst thing any political figure ever did to the U.S. No amount of sunny, Reaganesque Republican optimism, can truly belie the notion that nothing can overcome this event in our lifetimes.
So monstrous, so terrible has been the stimulus debt, that if Republicans were elected to all high offices for 20 years it, built upon the backs of President Roosevelt’s New Deal, then President Johnson’s Great Society, institutionalizing Big Government, entrenched it so thoroughly that it cannot be turned back.
This event leads one to ponder further. If a man were a spy, a traitor, an undercover agent working on behalf of America’s sworn enemies, whether those enemies were international Communism and its post-Berlin Wall progeny; Islamo-Fascism; George Soros; or a combination of all these evil forces combined into one package; and if that man ascended by the strings of this nefarious power all the way to the White House; and if once there desired to hurt the United States to the maximum effect; what then would he do?
Would he use his power to explode nuclear weapons on our soil, killings millions? If the President so ordered such a thing, his orders would not be obeyed. The military powers that be would refuse, but if somehow he did manage to explode such weapons, it would fire up the patriotic elements of this country to such extent that there would exist the political will to simply turn into fire all foreign enemies. This was the power we alone possessed after World War II, but chose not to use, until the Soviets exploded their first atomic weapon. Thus would the Arab world and anybody else we deemed our enemy be bombed “back into the stone age.” No enemy-President would want to unleash such forces. The last time this nation came together in such common purpose, Adolf Hitler’s armies were destroyed and the U.S. ascended to heights of power eclipsing Rome, Alexander’s Greece, or the British Empire. Furthermore, a destroyed America, its landscape an Apocalypse of devastation lacking infrastructure, would be of no value to those who would desire to use American power and institutions against her.
To create the fullest impact of damage to the U.S., one would need to discourage her, reduce her power and place in the world, to weaken her from within. Osama bin Laden tried to do that by destroying the Twin Towers, but President Bush led a rally to all-time stock market highs in 2007. A TV program about the CIA some years ago posed the theory that the 1987 stock market crash was a last-ditch KGB plot, its failure when the Reagan economy could not be stopped the final death throes of the U.S.S.R.
The stock market can rebound. People will need to work jobs. But debt, the all-strangling debt that ended the British Empire, ultimately creating the failed Common Market, European Union, and other vestiges of a beaten-down Europe; debt is the way to destroy a country. The high essence of what a dedicated enemy of America would do to destroy her is precisely what Barack Obama did in February, 2009. The destruction wrought on America by the stimulus package will not be overcome in our lifetimes, and maybe not in our grandchildren’s.
It started right after the stimulus bill was signed. A CNBC economic reporter on the floor of the stock exchange had an on-air rant calling for a “tea party” revolution against it. At the 2009 All-Star Game in St. Louis, half the fans booed President Obama.
The conservative media ramped up a daily exposition of criminality on the part of the ACLU and ACORN. Fox News ate up the ratings like a hungry lion. They featured conservatives like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, day-by-day dismantling the Obama myth. The “lame stream” media that made up the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, and news programs on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC, all watched and read by nobody, not to mention the zero-ratings Air America; all these were failing in one way or another. Their excuse was the Obama economy, which saw the Dow Jones fall to a 12-year low of 6,547 in response to the stimulus, or the Internet, but these business factors did not have an effect on successful operations like the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, Human Events, the Weekly Standard and Newsmax. Keith Olbermann was eventually fired. Rachel Maddow and a host of lesser lights simply got no ratings.
Obama's supporters, including Jimmy Carter, began to state that his detractors were racist. In October, 2009 Obama “won” the Nobel Peace Prize. His nomination for the Nobel came within weeks of his January inauguration and he had accomplished zero in the months since. It served to mock him further when he traveled to Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympics in Chicago and was turned down.
Obama made a speech at West Point. The soldiers were falling asleep, and liberal commentator Chris Mathews called the U.S. Military Academy “enemy territory” for Obama. Millions of patriotic American citizens . . . made note of this.
While Democrats consider great young people in the military to be the “enemy,” Obama bonded with anti-American Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Communist genocidalist Fidel Castro expressed great admiration for Obama.
Obama failed to attend ceremonies for D-Day, the fall of the Berlin Wall or Pearl Harbor, preferring instead trips to places like Copenhagen to honor himself. Instead of watching the returns when Democrats got killed in the November elections, he was glued to a documentary about his “greatness.” A global warming summit failed despite Obama's plea to achieve “something.”
The Democrats attempted to ramrod socialized medicine on an American public that opposed it, 70-30. They attempted to bribe and buy votes, breaking numerous ethical laws. They tried to sneak everything past the public in the dark of night. Obama's campaign promise of transparency, of televised hearings on C-SPAN, was revealed instead to be a lie.
Obama's approval ratings head towards 40 percent, the fastest drop in the quickest amount of time in the history of polling. In November, 2009 Republican Chris Christie roundly won the Governorship of New Jersey and Republican Bob McDonnell wiped the floor with the Democrats in Virginia; both after Obama made personal appearances on behalf of his chosen candidates.
Senator Kennedy’s death opened the door for the election in early 2010 of Republican Scott Brown for “Kennedy's seat” in the “Boston Massacre,” winning by six points. It was an astounding event. These were the first shots fired in a conservative reaction to President Obama, the first indication maybe America would repudiate him, and possibly all the Democrats long stood for in the form of the Kennedys, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, ACORN, MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Code Pink, Bill Maher, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, “black liberation theology,” the legacy of the 1960s counter-culture, Hollywood, the “lame stream” media, the “blame America first” crowd indoctrinating our young from grade school to graduate school, man-made global warming, socialized health care ram rodders, displaced Communists, Socialism in America, and the “black hand” of the George Soros.
Meanwhile, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin spoke of a “fallen world,” of man's true relationship with God, and why the Founding Fathers favored limited government because they recognized the inherent corruption of men's souls. She was elevated to “rock star” status, her book selling in such extraordinary numbers as to be beyond mere phenomenon. Karl Rove exacted revenge on his detractors every day with words of wisdom in the Wall Street Journal and on Fox News.
The growing Tea Party Movement was besmirched as “tea baggers” by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, who two years later revealed he was homosexual and, most likely therefore, an actual tea bagger, a term applied to gay male sex. Congresswoman Pelosi said the Tea Partiers were not a “grass roots” campaign, saying instead it was “Astro turf,” just like Hillary Clinton's “vast Right-wing conspiracy” consisted of millions of patriotic American citizens who had the temerity to register and vote!
Senator Brown’s victory in Massachusetts denied the Democrats the vaunted 60th vote, the filibuster-proof number needed to pass nationalized health care. Hillarycare had failed in 1993, and Obamacare was no more popular, but Brown’s win secured its failure . . . except that Obama and Pelosi pushed it through using Congressional technicalities, not an actual Democratic vote. In 2012, the Supreme Court surprisingly upheld it as Constitutional. Health care reform mirrors, as Ann Coulter wrote in Demonic, “why the history of liberalism consists of replacing things that work with things that sounded good on paper.” Or, as Pol Pot once said, “It seemed that the only thing needed was sufficient willpower, and heaven would be found on Earth.”
But the Right was suddenly energized in 2010. Could it be that the unbeatable Obama was human after all? Could the Congress be taken back, and after that, was it possible that Obama himself could be defeated, a prospect that seemed unthinkable on Election Day, not to mention Inauguration Day?
In the 2010 mid-terms, the Republicans won sweeping victories. Obama himself described it as a “shellacking.” Obama's old Illinois Senate seat, sold by Democrat Governor Rod Blagojevich, and never actually “won” by Obama (he used an illegal court ruling to steal it from Jack Ryan in 2004), was won by Republican Mark Kirk, a huge repudiation in the President’s home state.
With the Middle East in flames while Obama “led from behind,” and the economy in the tank, Obama tried many tricks. He granted amnesty to illegal aliens and declared his support for gay marriage, acts meant not to bring the nation together, but to divide her While nuclear weapons were no longer the huge issue they had been during the Cold War, Obama cut the American arsenal by alarming numbers, to the point of literally leaving the country unable to defend against a full-scale attack. Some went so far as to describe this act as “treasonous.”
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney won a spirited Republican Primary campaign. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s big win repudiated public unions, setting the stage for a 2012 Presidential election that probably had more riding on it that any since Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860. Every electoral indicator favored the Republicans, but the hidden influence of Soros, the prospect of another “September surprise,” kept the GOP on its toes.
The truth about health care
Health care is the great pet issue of Democrats; of liberals and the Left; and of non-Americans (Canada, Cuba, et al). It is an emotional issue and easy to exploit. After all, everybody can use health care. Getting sick is something that happens to all people, so health care affects us all, right?
That is the point. In assessing the issue, we must use history as a template. Let us consider that there are many bad things that existed throughout Mankind's existence, until America came into being. The existence of America was not compatible with the existence of these bad things. America was stronger than the bad things, and therefore squelched it from existence. First and foremost, consider slavery, a thriving international institution that propelled trade between legitimate nations going as far back as history can recall. Along came America. Four score and seven years later, America was too strong for slavery to continue to exist as a legitimate enterprise. America is where slavery came to die.
Now, let us apply this method of causation to health care. Depending on whether you believe the Darwinians or the Creationists, man has existed on this planet for millions of years or 13,000 years. Either way, for all the time that man lived on the planet, our relationship with God or with mortality or whatever you wish to call it has been the same: we are born, we live a few years, we get sick, and we die. Some people died from other causes, but by and large, for thousands and thousands of years, life expectancy was roughly 20 or 30 years.
By 1787, the year the U.S. Constitution was written, the average lifespan was probably a little bit better, about 50-60 years. Anesthetics did not exist. "Surgery" was little more than butchery. It was not until the Civil War that doctors discovered that using dirty scalpels caused infections. Doctors were still "bleeding" patients. Leeches were still used. Strange home brews and elixirs of little value were all that could be offered.
If a person came down with cancer, it was a virtual death sentence. Heart attacks were fatal most of the time, as there was little to combat them beyond rest and bad care. Little was known about nutrition, exercise and other elements of good health.
Over the next 200 years, America happened. Everything that we associate with America occurred: freedom, Democracy, capitalism, entrepreneurialism, investment. The Left views many of these concepts as evil, but the co-existence of these concepts with human progress is impossible to discount.
There are a number of reasons why medical progress has made progress by leaps and bounds beyond all conception since 1787. Christianity certainly plays a role, since missionary zeal and charity have propelled much of this progress. However, Christianity had been around a long time prior to America, and during much of this time doctors were little more than barbers.
Obviously, the Age of Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, the Great Awakening; whatever we want to call scientific discovery occurred mostly in Europe prior to America, although it should be noted that great discoveries and invention occurred in Asia Minor while Europeans were still cave-dwellers. Then came Islam, and since then little progress in these areas happened in that part of the world. What does this mean? No commentary is offered. Arrive at your own conclusions.
While we marvel at the work of Galileo, Da Vinci and Copernicus, the pace of advancement in their day was a snail's pace compared with the pace of advancement once America arrived on the scene in all its glory. Why has America accomplished things that the rest of the world did not even dare to imagine; in all areas of discovery? Why, in little over 200 years, has a single nation, starting out as a few agrarian colonies separated by oceans from the salons of commerce, politics and culture, eclipsed previous empires and powers? Frankly, the answer to that question is quite obvious, but it is best to discover it on your own, not at my prompting.
As America grew, medical breakthroughs took place at breakneck (pardon the pun) pace. Polio, vaccines, childhood diseases, dietary discoveries, cancer, heart disease, lately AIDS research; through these advancements, mostly in, inspired by or privately funded by America, life improved. Life span and quality of life got better and better and better. People now live until they are 90, even 100 years old. 40, as they say, is the new 30. 50 is the new 40. 60 will soon be the new 50 . . . and on and on and on. Seniors no longer retire. They are active, healthy, vibrant, and enjoy themselves in all ways. A 72-year John McCain is running for President and did not seem to be the worse for wear.
Why has health care improved so much in America? Is it because the government mandated that it be so?
The reason, boiled down to its barest essential, is because smart people who could be anything choose to enter medicine. Why? If you think that it is all about benevolence, you are wrong. They do it because they can make a great living from it. This is the reason most people choose any career.
Why, once these smart people get through medical school, survive the boards and rigorous internships, do they discover great things? Why do they produce great new pharmaceutical drugs? Why do they invent new products and services that help people live better and longer?
Is it because the government funds them, prompts them, and inspires them? Okay, the government sometimes gets involved in research and development, but to fool ones' self into believing this is the driving force behind medical advancements is tomfoolery.
Health care improves mostly because of the profit motive. The profit motive drives individuals and corporations. The profit motive is most effective in the United States of America. Now, this is established. Next, we get to the result of all these health care improvements. Things that were unheard of 20 years ago are now available. Miracle drugs, stents, new technology, brain function, knowledge; it goes on and on.
How does this affect people? Well, ailments that 20, 30 years ago either killed them or left them in comas, bedridden, paralyzed, or in a state of recluse, can now be cured. Children can run free. Women can live without pain. Elders can hit the golf course. All is well.
But wait. There is a catch.
Let us get back to those smart people who, 20 or 30 years ago, decided to enter medical school, and who later on work in R&D, in cutting-edge hospitals, corporations and pharmaceutical companies.
Well, how did they accomplish all these wonderful things? First, they had to pay their way through medical school. Maybe they were on scholarship, financial aid, or whatever, but those professors' salaries, the books, the classrooms, the labs, and all the daily accoutrements of existence had to be paid for by somebody.
Then, when they became doctors and researchers, somebody had to pay their salaries. Somebody had to pay for their staffs, their equipment, their offices; somebody needed to pay for the time it took to accomplish excellence! Did this money come from the government? 90 percent always has and always will come from private industry by virtue of the profit motive.
The Apostle Paul in the New Testament states that greed and money is the root of all evil, and this may be so, but God does work in mysterious ways. There is a difference between greed and making an honest living in an honorable profession. Being a doctor is an honorable profession. Are there evil, greedy doctors? Yes? But lumping them all together because they mostly make a good living providing valuable services is not effective public policy. Yet nationalized health care is to do just that.
Let us get back to the incredible pace of medical advancements over the past 20 to 50 years and how that affects the average person. In 1970 a woman brings her child to a doctor with a severe malady. The doctor diagnoses it and says that, sorry, there is little that can be done. The child dies, or lives a shortened life, or a life of severe pain and reduced quality.
38 years pass, and some $1 billion has been spent on this particular affliction, with the result being that the malady, which sidelined a child in 1970, can now be cured. That $1 billion has been spent on the educations of thousands of doctors, plus all the ancillary costs associated with arriving at the cure in question.
Let us, for a minute, remove this question from the medical arena and make it something else. Let us call it an automobile. In 1970, the 18-year old kid would like a hot rod car worthy of Le Mans. This car, however, is not available to the public. It is a specialty car available only to race car drivers. He is not a race car driver, cannot afford it and therefore does not own it. In 2008 the 18-year old kid still wants that car. Now, it is a luxury car that only the richest of the rich can afford. The auto industry has figured out a way to streamline this car so that people other than race car drivers can have it, but the 18-year still cannot afford it and still does not own it. Is it society's responsibility that he have it? Of course not.
Apply this logic to anything: real estate, boats, high-tech equipment. By and large, people buy what they can afford and it is to the benefit of the economy that the government not interfere. This is the basic concept of supply and demand that drives the marketplace, and to paraphrase Winston Churchill, it might be the worst form of economic policy known to man, with the exception of all other forms of economic policy known to man.
So, to break it down, diseases that for thousands of years killed or sickened people can now be cured, only it costs a lot of money to accomplish this task. People, however, want to be cured. If they are sick and know that a cure is available, they want it . . . at all costs, especially if somebody else absorbs those costs. If the cost is $1 million, just to use a round number, obviously this is unaffordable to all but maybe five percent of the populace . . .but they want it anyway. In the old days, they were told they would not survive the malady. They accepted this prognosis because it was just the way it was. Now it is different. Why? Because, mostly in America, the prognosis has changed. They know that a cure is available.
Ah, therein lies the Shakespearean rub. In America. These medical breakthroughs take place mostly in America. Sure, there are good doctors and some fine research that takes place in England, France and maybe a small handful of other nations, but let's face it: 90 percent of this kind of advancement is, like 90 percent of everything good that has happened for 200 years, something that happens, as they say, only in America.
Well, it takes little in the way of logic to see where this is going. If it can be found only in America, they all will come to America. Thus we see that America's great health care helps to drive illegal immigration, among other things. We see that Englishmen leave England and Canadians leave Canada to seek medical care in America that is available . . . only in America.
Leftists will state that Cuba's socialized medical care, for instance, is the best in the world. This is not true, but they say it anyway. There is a world in Webster's dictionary that defines such a thing.
Okay, so we have established that the best health care is in America; that the profit motive is the driving force behind it; and that because it costs a lot of money to achieve the advancements, it therefore stands to reason that it costs a lot of money to purchase it.
Okay, we now arrive at the moral equation.
Health care is not the same as buying an auto, or a luxury boat, or a hot new stereo system. To be healthy is much more important to the five-year old, the 18-year old, the 50-year old and the 85-year old, than a mansion or sports car.
So, how do we make it available and affordable? Well, according to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, we make it a government program. Since the founding of America, successful government programs are few and far between. What is the government good at? Well, a few things. Keeping Communists from invading our shores. Defeating Hitler. Building highways and bridges. There is zero evidence that government ever has been or ever will be good at providing health care, which as I have so expertly demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs is successful when the private sector engages in it for profit.
Okay, fine. But we still get back to the moral equation. Do we stand around and watch the poor black kid, the illegal Mexican, or the average white blue collar guy, get sick and die because the treatment he/she needs costs too much?
Well, the world is not fair. Advancement and technology outpaces need. People live and die. This is our relationship with God. It cannot be prevented. Democrats want you to believe that but-for greedy health care providers you too will never die, The serpent said something similar to Eve in the Garden, too. All people cannot be treated and made whole all the time, especially when so many are poor and from other countries only because the health care they seek is only found here. This is a basic fact of life . . . and death.
What about volunteerism? A fine concept, well embraced by Biblical principles. Take Doctors Without Borders, for example. It is a noble ideal, to give of ones' time in order to help the needy. Nobody should dissuade against the notion. But consider also the cause-and-effect of preventive medicine, or preventive technology. Consider on the one hand one doctor treating one patient at a time in, say, Guatemala or Ethiopia. Consider also a large corporation that creates, via technology, some device that feeds thousands, or prevents thousands from getting sick in the first place. Both concepts have their place. The volunteer will always be necessary. The corporation that prevents disease or starvation will invariably succeed because . . . the profit motive. There is an ideology - liberalism - embraced by a political party - the Democrats - that will have you believe the myth that the profit-driven corporation is evil. They know it is not true. They say it anyway.
Finally, let us re-visit the cost of health care. Sure, it is expensive because the training, research and development is costly, but it is mostly expensive . . . because of trial lawyers.
It is mostly expensive because of trial lawyers like John Edwards. This man represented the essence of what is wrong with the tort system in America. He took corporations to trial, played to the fears of mis-led juries, and got super-wealthy extracting enormous sums from the very corporations that discover and produce the very treatments they need to get healthy. One has to admit, however, the man had chutzpah. Despite his complicity in making the system what it is, he with a straight face would stare into the camera and state the lie that only the government can reduce the health care costs he is responsible for making so expensive.
Of course, since medical advancements are so far ahead of the economic curve, the high costs of cutting edge treatment cannot entirely be avoided, but how many billions of dollars have the trial lawyers cost the medical industry? Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceuticals; they all factor these costs into their products, their services and the insurance policies that must absorb the brunt of the John Edwards's of the world.
This is the truth about health care.
Occupy Wall Street vs. the Tea Party
Occupy Wall Street, which merged into the larger, so-called Occupy Movement, is a protest that began on September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. It is in the tradition of the “direct action” that fused the 1960s protest movements, in the tradition of Left-wing activists Saul Alinsky, Tom Hayden, the SDS, Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground, the Chicago Seven; all funded in part by Communist fronts. It is supported by the Left and the Democrat Party in order to lay the groundwork for President Obama’s enormous expansion of taxes on the wealthy and middle class set to take place when President Bush’s 2001 tax cuts expire on January 1, 2013, 100 years after the institution of the Federal income tax instituted by the Democrats in 1913. They were heartily supported by Congresswoman Pelosi, and represent modern day liberal radicalism.
They espouse “social justice” by dividing the nation between the wealthy one percent and the remaining 99 percent, attempting to steal from the middle class and arouse class envy towards those who have more money than they do. They are at the heart of President Obama’s lifelong philosophy.
Occupy Wall Street followed on the heels of British student protests of 2010, as well as Greek and Spanish anti-austerity protests of (2011–2012), and the “Arab spring,’ saying “America needs its own Tahrir.” The internet group Anonymous created a video encouraging its supporters to take part in the protests. The U.S. Day of Rage, a group that organized to protest "corporate influence,’ also joined the movement. Sociologist Dana Williams argued that "the most immediate inspiration for Occupy is anarchism," and the L.A. Times identified its "controversial, anarchist-inspired organizational style.
Some media label the protests "anti-capitalist,’ while others dispute the relevance of this label. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times noted "while alarmists seem to think that the movement is a 'mob' trying to overthrow capitalism, one can make a case that, on the contrary, it highlights the need to restore basic capitalist principles like accountability.’
In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, pollster Douglas Schoen0.0. wrote that polling of the protesters revealed "a deep commitment to Left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth . . .”
The Occupy Wall Street Movement spread and quickly became a mob of homeless and criminals that had to be broken up by law enforcement. They consistently left public squares filthy, defecated in public, committed crimes and vandalism, and regularly raped women in their midst.
“In lieu of class crimes and counter-revolutionaries, American liberals have given us ‘hate crimes,’ ‘disparate impact’ rules, ‘sexists,’ and ‘bigots,’ ” wrote Ann Coulter. “Acts are irrelevant; your motives are on trial. You are presumed guilty and acquittals are rare.” The mob, she added, “is Satanic and Satan can only destroy.” In the John 8:44, Jesus says to the crowd following the devil, “and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth. Because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies.” The gravest problem faced by modern humanity is that we have reached the points where these words, which used to shame the sinners, are now heard and dismissed by an enormous portion of the American population, who dismiss it as gibberish. The great question is whether we have reached the point in which there are more of these people than those who will vote against Obama.
Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck writes in People of the Lie, the psychology of these crowds is “only powerful for destruction.” Occupy Wall Street merely carries on the tradition of Saul Alinsky, and are “shrieking oppositionists, braying, abortion-obsessed feminists, SEIU thugs, Earth Liberation front loons, Bill Maher audiences, and querulous dissidents” who “mock all that is good – America, religion, patriotism, chivalry, the rule of law, truth, the creation of wealth, life – while hysterically attacking those who oppose them,” writes Coulter. Confronted with facts they cannot be made to see truth. Radical environmentalists, for instance, can be told that the banning of DDT is responsible for 3 million malaria deaths per year in Africa; or that a particularly ravenous beetle destroys twice as much forest land per year as Amazon rain forest clear cutting, but refuse to listen. DDT is “bad,” and saving forests from beetles might improve the economy. They cannot have that.
The Tea Party Movement began in 2009 in support of the United States Constitution, adherence to an originalist interpretation, reduced government spending, reducing taxes, reduction of the national debt and Federal budget deficit. The movement is generally considered to be conservative, libertarian, and populist. It has sponsored causes and candidates that, with few exceptions, have been popular and successful at the ballot box, therefore offering the prospect that they will have a long, successful sat in American politics. If the Republican Party is to attain a position of strength, it will be because of the Tea Party.
The first organized event, called a "Porkulus Protest," was held in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Barack Obama signed the stimulus bill into law. Attendance doubled within a year, with events held nationwide. According to pollster Scott Rasmussen, the bailouts of banks by the Bush and Obama Administrations triggered the Tea Party's rise.
"They think Federal spending, deficits and taxes are too high, and they think no one in Washington is listening to them, and that latter point is really, really important,” pollster Scott Rasmussen said. After CNBC reporter Rick Santelli's calls for a new “tea party revolt,” 11,000 people a day began joining. Fox News and conservative Republicans embraced it.
The Tea Party is credited with spurring the huge Republican victories in 2009, 2010, the 2010 Congressional mid-terms, and Governor Scott Walker’s giant 2012 Wisconsin recall vindication. They are noted for maintaining order, are friendly with law enforcement who generally encourage them, clean up after themselves, and commit no crimes.
Causes Steven Travers Supports
Conservative, Christian, USC, American patriotism