This article from Mark Steynis a great example of two things: one is why anyone should read as much Mark Steyn as possible, and two is the support for my latest idea regarding politicians - you get what you vote for. Mr. Steyn's article about the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy is very good. He is correct that we are complicit in the career of Sen. Kennedy. Similarly, many are complicit in the career of Sen. Harry Reid. That is how it works with all politicians. You vote for them and you endorse them, mostly politically, but to some degree personally as well. I do not think that says much about the average American voter. We seem to keep putting up with tremendous crap. Why? Is it because a given politician has valuable "experience" or some other such nonsense. We need to identify ideals and principles that we want our politicians to strive for and then hold them accountable by getting rid of them when they do not uphold those ideals. There is no other way. I am not saying they need to be perfect, but there has to be some line they cannot cross, some act or non-act they cannot get away with.
Glenn Beck has put together some audio of Ronald Reagan warning us about socialism. It is a must to listen to this. I am not a huge fan of Glenn Beck. I think he can be a bit over the top at times, but there is no denying that we are headed toward giving away (and I do mean giving away) our freedoms in this country. It is a great fear of mine that I will wake up one day and has to admit that I live in a completely socialist country. Of course, we are getting there by degrees, meaning we already have too many socialist aspects to this country and we are getting more every day. We have to find a way to stop it. I do not want to try and explain to my kids one day what it was like to live in a free country.
This seemed like a great opportunity to jump into the debate on health care. The National Center for Public Policy Research has published a book, and when I say published I mean that in the broadest sense of the term. They have apparently waived the copyright and want everyone to have access to this book for free. The book is called Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care. It contains stories from countries that currently use the "government option" about the health care received. Just reading the Table of Contents and Mark Levin's introduction will give you a really good idea of what the book is about.
I have been on a bit of a "vacation" lately, but I feel it is time to get back to posting some of my thoughts on a more regular basis. The reason is simple: I have a fan. I may have only one fan, but it is my mom and she is definitely my biggest fan. Also, she requested that I do this again. Moms are the best.
This article in the Wall Street Journal by Janet Adamy is simply amazing. It really exposes the undeniable leap in logic that liberals seem to have when it comes to taxes. First, the article talks about how some people want to help pay for Pres. Obama's new health care system by imposing a tax on soda. Then, the article talks about how taxing soda (a very unhealthy beverage) will improve people's health because they will consume less of it. Somehow, no one seems to put these two ideas together and ask or answer the obvious question: If you are taxing soda to pay for health care and the tax results in less people drinking soda, how are you going to pay for the health care? The money you think you will get from taxing soda will go down as people stop drinking soda, so you will not get as much money to pay for health care as you project. Where is the money supposed to come from? On a related note, everyone seems to understand that if you tax soda, people will end up drinking less soda. So why do people not seem to understand that if you tax prosperity, there will be less prosperity? Taxing something is how you destroy it.
Dr. Paul Kengor has a very interesting article that explains why elections matter. I know that during the most recent presidential campaign there were many people talking about the fact that the next president would pick a number of Supreme Court justices. I seriously doubt the implications of that were considered by many voters. If these implications were considered, I wonder if they are enjoying the consequences.