Universal Health Care

During a recent and highly televised prime time address, President Obama promised that he will pass [health care] reform that “lowers cost, promotes choice and provides coverage that every American can count on.” Believe me, I wish I could trust the man to keep his word and fulfill that promise. But my gut, and my inability to ignore the promises he has already broken tell me he will inevitably let the American people down again. I want to start by addressing two very important points regarding the reform bill currently working its way through Congress. First, it should be understood that we the people do not have a thorough understanding of what this reform would mean for us. And, really, how could we be expected to, considering that neither Congress or the President have much of an idea themselves? Obama recently admitted that he is “unfamiliar” with one of the bill’s key provisions, which would govern whether or not the public can keep their existing insurance. At the same time, members of Congress who even care to read the bill are just beginning to scratch the surface of the one thousand plus page document. The bottom line is that this is not something that should even be voted on, let alone passed, without Congress reading it and fully understanding it. If passed into law, this bill will transform the way in which we are able to receive medical care. That could be a good thing, or it could be a very bad thing. I’ll get into that more later. The second important point I want to make is this: the President and members of Congress will not be required to abide by this new law. Congress will pass it and Obama will sign it, but none of them will have to play by its rules. This is not good. In an effort to sum up my concerns, I ask you this: “How can we possibly have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people if those elected to create laws are not required to abide by them?

There is so much more to say about this health care reform, and more posts on the issue are sure to ensue. I assure you I’m not trying to write a book here, but allow me to briefly address some of the negative aspects of adopting a universal, single-payer health care system that perhaps you have yet to consider. Again, we do not yet know exactly how these provisions would govern our care. But, we do know some, and many of us recognize the overwhelming amount of power that would be granted to the federal government if we were to implement a traditional universal health care policy. Please understand, I believe every American citizen deserves and should have access to affordable, quality care. But the reality is that universal health care, or socialized health care, will not achieve this. In fact, it would be terribly ineffective. If we look to other parts of the world, we can already see what we would face if we were to adopt this system. In Canada, for example, citizens have no freedom of choice when it comes to receiving medical care. And, as a result of so many people seeking care from the same federally mandated clinics and hospitals, the system is overburdened and underfunded. What’s worse? The only way the government is able to keep spending to a minimum is by rationing the care. That is exactly what will happen here. A person in need of immediate surgery could end up having to wait months or longer. Ultimately, this system will give the federal government the power to decide what kind of care you get and if you'll get it in time. There is so much to consider, and I urge you to continue to listen to arguments from both sides. As you continue to learn more, consider this recent quote from Congressman Ron Paul, who is also a practicing physician of over thirty years: “Trust me, with managed care, and now with socialized medicine coming, quality will go down, costs will go up, there will be shortages, there will be lines, and nobody’s gonna be happy.” Lastly, if you support a government run health care system, I would very much like to know why. This is important, and we should all be talking about it.

The Memory Hole

Collecting hundreds of books and using an entire room to store them is a thing of the past...if you’re willing to shell out four hundred dollars. A couple of years ago, Amazon.com released the Kindle and revolutionized the way people buy and read books. The compact, lightweight device allows users to purchase books directly over a wireless network and store over one thousand titles that can be accessed with the push of a button. In considering convenience and the notion of never having to turn another page ever again, potential customers often ask themselves, “Why would I ever choose the real thing over this?” Well, the answer, or at least one of the answers, can be summed up like this: “As Amazon.com giveth, Amazon.com taketh away.” In a recent stunt that has caused a fair amount of outrage, Amazon.com recently remotely deleted some digital editions of both George Orwell’s “1984” and “Animal Farm” from the Kindle devices of readers who had bought them. In my opinion, the frustration and the outrage is justified. Not only did the company remove the files from their database, they took them away from people who had already purchased them. It is important to note that not even Amazon’s own terms of service agreement permits this. But even more importantly, one must recognize that in our ever increasing digital age, this is the equivalent of someone coming into your home, taking a book off the shelf, and leaving with it. Granted, Amazon.com claims to have refunded customers their money, but there is a much bigger issue at hand. The harsh reality that customers are facing is that they can no longer trust that all of their books, which they payed for, will be available to them tomorrow. Even worse is the fact that any and all annotations created by users for those works disappeared along with the rest of text. Justin Gawronski, a 17-year-old from the Detroit area, was a victim of this and explains that “they didn’t just take a book back, they stole [his] work.” While focusing on the broader issue of censorship, we must not allow ourselves to ignore the specific works that were deleted. In “1984”, government censors erase all traces of news articles embarrassing to Big Brother by sending them down an incineration chute called the “memory hole”. As our government grows more and more secretive, and breeds more and more opposition, it does not surprise me that a book warning us of the overwhelming force of government would be removed. If we value free speech and care to protect it, we must raise our voices and let it be known that this is unacceptable. If a whole lot of people don’t make a fuss now, they’ll have no reason to expect the masses to complain when government officials actually do enter our homes and start removing books from our shelves.

End the Fed!

Last night, my brothers and I went to In-N-Out for dinner. When we stepped into the restaurant, I suddenly remembered that I was wearing my “End the Fed” t-shirt. “Okay, that’s a good thing to have in mind”, I thought. “I should be ready for some nasty glares or even some voiced opposition.” After this internal dialogue, I said out loud, “Oh crap I forgot I was wearing this”, or something to that effect. In response, my brother Bryce asked me, “Why would that be a bad thing?” His question made me realize that I had failed to tell him about a recent experience I had at Walgreens in which an older man saw my shirt before giving me a nasty look. A real nasty look. The guy looked angry, and he even looked a little scared. To be honest, I was nearly convinced that he was about to hit me or tackle me. But, he didn’t, and I just walked on by, left to think about what had just happened. The story definitely surprised both of my brothers, but they were under the impression that my experience was rare. One of them said, “I doubt too many people are so pro-Fed that they would be offended by your shirt. I don’t think most people are walking around shouting, ‘Man I friggin love the Fed! Yea!’” I laughed at that and appreciated the point they were making. But the real reason for this post is to tell you about what happened next. We had ordered and were waiting for our food. In fact, I think the food had just arrived at the table, but I hadn’t touched it yet. As I sat there, thinking only about the Double-Double in front of me, I suddenly heard a voice behind me. “End the Fed!” I turned around, saw a man in his late 40s or early 50s, and replied, “What’s that?” And from there, the exchange went something like this:

Stranger: End the Fed!

Me: “Oh, yea, absolutely!

Stranger: Bunch of gangsters.

Me: That’s what I’m saying.

Stranger: Controlled by the Bank of England.

Me: That’s what I’m saying! I’ve gotten some nasty looks for wearing this.

And then, we came to the part of the conversation I remember the most. This is the part that is really sticking with me. After making my last comment, this guy looked me dead in the face and said, “The masses...they don’t know.” Without skipping a beat, I looked back at him and said, “No...they have no idea." At that point I turned around to take a bite out of my burger and, minutes later, I looked back and he was gone. For a second I actually started to question if the conversation had really taken place. But I quickly learned that Bryce had overheard small parts of it, and knew then that I had not imagined the very odd but pleasant encounter.

Vaccines and Autism

For the first year and a half of her life, Hannah Poling had no evident health problems. Then, one day, she received nine doses of vaccines and her life changed forever. Almost immediately Hannah developed a fever, seizures, and severe health problems. Shockingly, the government has now conceded (8 years later) that, in this case, the vaccines aggravated a rare cell disorder that no one knew Hannah had. And this aggravation resulted in serious brain damage and autism-like symptoms that she will have to deal with for the rest of her life. While the Poling case was the first of its kind to become public, at least 9 other similar cases have been uncovered which date back to 1990. The link between vaccines and autism is yet another reason why parents should question vaccines. Hannah's case is tragic and I hope that it will, at the very least, encourage parents to do some serious research before telling their children to roll up their sleeves.

Embedding for the video covering this story has been disabled, but it can be viewed here.

Video courtesy of YouTube user "z00mVision".

Got Transparency?

We the People of the United States should be outraged. Having been recently promised the most transparent Administration in history, we are now falling victim to an increasingly secretive federal government. Our elected officials, chosen by us to represent us, are not fulfilling the duty bestowed upon them. Not only are members of both parties ignoring what their constituents have to say but, even worse, many of them aren't even giving the people a chance to speak their minds. CNN recently reported that 94% of the bills passed in the Senate have been by what is known as "unanimous consent". This means that 94% of the bills passed (a total of 855 so far) were not even open to vote or debate. According to the Congressional Research Service, only 6% of bills have been passed by vote and 388 were introduced and passed the same day. How does this affect you? Well, for one, these bills include legislation that will cost U.S. taxpayers a lot of money. Nine billion dollars to be exact. Such secrecy is unacceptable under any circumstances but, in the midst of an unprecedented financial crisis, its consequences become an even bigger slap in the face. We the People cannot afford to let this type of behavior to go unchecked. Our government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people". But now, we are allowing elected officials to create laws in secret and, again, our freedom is under attack.

For more information, watch this CNN report:

Video courtesy of YouTube user "SenJimDeMint".

Gerald Celente

The next time you're bored, google "Gerald Celente". Or, better yet, just click here. Mr. Celente, Founder and Director of the Trends Research Institute, is a unique soul. More specifically, he is a trend expert, trusted worldwide as the foremost authority on forecasting, analyzing, and tracking trends. Celente accurately predicted the current financial crisis, and strongly argues that the Federal Reserve System is at the root of our problem. I am always fascinated when I hear him speak, but I found this clip from one of his appearances on Russia Today particularly captivating.

"Washington is Wall Street and Wall Street is Washington. It's an illusion that there's any difference. And again, the Federal Reserve, by lowering interest rates, created the problem. And now they're creating the bailout bubble, which is even bigger than the dot come bubble and the real estate bubble. So no, this is not going to do much of anything. It's just a confidence-building measure, and confidence isn't really going to change the game. It's like putting a set of brakes on a car that has already crashed, and these aren't very good brakes at all."

Gerald Celente

Russia Today

06/17/2009

Video courtesy of YouTube user "GeraldCelenteChannel".

S.1261- The PASS ID Act

If the globalists have it their way, your state issued driver's license will soon become obsolete. The Pass Act, or S.1261 would require all U.S. citizens to carry a standardized federal ID card with an embedded trackable chip. Remember the transponder that you voluntarily put in your car which allows you to be tracked every time you stop at a toll booth? Well, now imagine something similar, but much smaller that you would be required to carry with you at all times. Do you see where I'm going with this? Not only would this new ID impede on your privacy, it would pave the way for a cashless society. It would also be regarded by the globalists as monumental progress in their continuing effort to build their control grid. Despite individual states working to ensure that driver's licenses are secure documents and possess document integrity, the federal government wants to set international standards that are unnecessary. And, despite states recognizing that these standards are unnecessary, the federal government is using bribery to convince them otherwise. I can only hope that at least some states will put their foot down, keep it down, and refuse to cooperate with a policy that directly violates the U.S. Constitution. But, as we all know, money can and often does change things. At first glance, it can be difficult to understand the dangerous nature of this bill. To learn more, please watch the video I have posted below. It includes some helpful information and helps explain why this bill is an attack on the 1st, 4th, and 10th amendments.

"In the end, because of the biometric capability that's required for the digital face image, your photograph, all Americans are being enrolled into a single, global biometric identification system that will link their body to their ability to buy and sell. The issue really becomes [that] the presumption of innocence is lost. You are guilty until proven innocent. Those cameras that you see on your streets...those cameras aren't targeted at terrorists. They are targeted at you, American citizens."

Mark Lerner

The Stop Real ID Coalition

Video courtesy of YouTube user "lonelantern".

The 1st Amendment

In the midst of endless federal bailouts, skyrocketing unemployment rates, and the threat of economic collapse, the American people are becoming more and more appreciative of their right to exercise free speech. Concerned citizens everywhere are recognizing that when elected officials begin to threaten our prosperity and civil liberties, voicing opinions of dissent becomes more than a right, it becomes duty. Today, as our government expands its reach and gains more control over the masses, the rights bestowed upon us by the First Amendment have never been more important. And, having said that, I regretfully report that those very rights are now under attack. New hate crimes legislation is currently making its way through Congress which, if signed into law, would allow the federal government to prosecute people involved in "hate speech" transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The important thing to remember here is that the term "hate speech" is broadly defined and would remain open to interpretation. To be clear, the House version of this bill clearly states:

“Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)”

"In other words", as Paul Joseph Watson of PrisonPlanet.com explains, "if a talk show host engages in 'hostile' speech against a person or persons of the above mentioned federally protected group that talk show host will face federal prosecution and the prospect of a two year prison term." In his article, Watson also warns us of the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act which "would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been 'harmful' to an individual".