Let's stop warping words

Rhetoric often manipulates our understanding through bias-laden misuse of language. We all have encountered such examples. "Progressive" suggests innovative, visionary and benevolent. But most "progressive" policies merely regurgitate antiquated notions that were disproved decades ago. A principal contemporary example of outdated "progressive" policy would be the flurry of big-spending, big-government legislation being touted by this Administration, merely repeating the failed economic policies that worsened and prolonged the Great Depression.

Conversely, "conservative" has come to signify stingy and contrary. Actually, there are two distinct forms of conservatism: fiscal and social. Fiscal conservatives believe that spending should be restrained, not over-taxing the public, especially during this economic downturn. Conservative fiscal restraint limits government spending just as people must limit their home budgets. Social conservatives believe in traditional interpersonal values, such as integrity and responsibility.

"Benefits" implies improvement. Properly used, the word denotes the favorable outcome for which we must commit some expenditure of time and resources. When used by the government, though, some people expect the proverbial "free lunch" free for them, paid by someone else.

"Government-funded" has no meaning whatsoever. At any level, no government has any money except ours. Taxes and debt are the only sources of government funding. That is, WE pay for "government-funded" projects. If a politician promises to deliver yet more benefits (see above) at no additional cost, that money must then be taken from some already-funded program.

Impassioned rhetoric should instantly signal the need for wariness, carefully assaying the logic and validity of the speaker's or writer's words. Bias-laden buzz-words especially trigger our alarm bells, protecting us from their misleading damage.

Asking the trillion-dollar questions

First, why disguise these proposals as "health care reform" when they concern only the federal takeover of health insurance? True health care reform would extend the availability of service through, for instance, more facilities and medical school scholarships. Removing the proscription on medications from Canada would help, aswouldallowing us to purchase insurance from providers in any state.

(2) If the proposals are so wondrous, why make them mandatory, with penalties on those who choose not to participate? While claiming to promote competition, the bills' proponents are denying us any economical choice.

And why are the lawmakers themselves exempt? Will they pay that penalty for not participating?

(3) The bills' proponents tried to make their "reform" more palatable by allowing states to opt out. Will all the residents of the state then be penalized, even those who might view the legislation as beneficial? That's hardly democratic nor beneficent. (4) Why not allow us to opt out individually? Oh, yes, we'll be penalized.

(5) Among the powers and duties of the federal government, distinctly outlined in our precious Constitution, where is it stated that Congress or the Executive branch can control health insurance? (6) Or so vastly restrict our freedom of choice?

(7) Given all the complaints against the FAA, TSA, SEC, BLM and so on, why entrust health care to inept bureaucrats?

(8)In what way do these proposals promote competition when every taxpayer will already have paid for the "reform" insurance? Only competition among providers can ensure efficiency and minimum pricing.

And finally, the BIG question: (9) How can our already-overburdened economy generate yet another $1 trillion to finance this boondoggle?

Remember that the government has no money except ours. Governments' only income is our tax dollars. Governments never give us anything. Governments only return a small portion of the money they extract from us through taxes not efficiently nor at minimum cost.

Airborne arrogance

You've seen that frightful image: a 747 flying low across New York City tracked by Air Force fighter jets. Still-traumatized New Yorkers understandably fled. Then we learned that an Obama administration official authorized that costly, insensitive folly as an unnecessary Air Force One "photo op" despite the numberless archived images of the presidential airliner. Why be surprised? Did we trust that these ultra-liberals actually meant their campaign propaganda about compassion and fiscal responsibility?

Consider the underlying psychology of an ultra-liberal. Liberals are motivated by a profound, yet pathetic craving for kudos and control. Their professed concern for our needs, fears and hopes extends only to claiming our votes. Once in power, they reveal their true self-absorbed disregard for you and me.

The liberals' pose invokes a powerful allure, manipulating our emotions (and bypassing our reason). They call up our fears and propose to ease our anguish. But beneath their pretense of concern lies a hidden but massive insult.

Ultra-liberals strive to sell us the notion that we are victims. They cast us in the role of hapless, ineffectual schmucks. What greater insult could they invoke? Simultaneously, they gain the ego-boost of seeming superiority as our rescuers. And we get to pay the enormous bill!

Personally, I don't buy it not their designation as victim nor their stupendous vote-buying expenditures. Paying their debt would indeed make me THEIR victim.

That Air Force One incident illustrates their total lack of respect or regard for us. You might want to remember this illustrative incident the next time an ultra-liberal proclaims his/her dedication to our welfare.

Keep the change, Mr. President

Will Obama deliver on his oft-repeated promise of “change"? Probably not, and let's hope not. For one thing, his chosen team largely recreates that muddled, discredited Clinton administration. Recall that officials of Clinton’s administration initiated the unsound Freddie/Fanny loan policy that brought us the current mortgage crisis. Similarly, Obama’s “new New Deal” gravely threatens America’s injured economy. As explained by economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo, FDR’s New Deal substantially worsened and prolonged the Great Depression. Applying those failed Big Government concepts to today’s crisis makes no sense. When a scheme doesn’t work, you don’t repeat it.

You’re smarter than that. The Dems apparently aren’t.

Big Government cannot promote a healthy, thriving economy. What the “nanny state” offers is theft disguised as “redistributing the wealth” by which the deceptive nannyists mean taking your hard-earned income, keeping or wasting most of it, and doling out a pathetic pittance to recipients of their choice.

If you believe that you deserve the earnings of your bright ideas and plain hard work, you must equally uphold that for others as well. In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson stated, “… a wise government … shall not take from … labor the bread it has earned.”

Jefferson illuminated another severe flaw in Clinton/Obama nannyism. By its very nature, Big Government is a profound insult to every one of us. We are, according to the nannyists, too stupid to formulate sensible decisions. By definition, nannyists deem us inferior. Jefferson described “two parties: Those who … distrust the people and want to draw all powers from them … [and those] who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them….”

So, after all, we will all be better off if Obama’s oft-promised “change” doesn’t materialize. We don’t need a repetition of Dems’ insulting and economically destructive nannyist policies.

Clueless celebrities vs. leaders & heroes

Americans need to think and talk more about the timeless principles of leadership, principles that also apply equally well to citizenshipand simple person-hood. How desperately those principles are needed everyday, and how sadly lacking.

Too many "leaders" today are merely celebrities, with no notion of integrity and no commitment to God's goodness. Little wonder that people feel cheated and seek ever anew for some "leader" who could restore good government, but instead the media imposes on us yet another clueless, self-serving celebrity. The risk to our republic is immense.

Then, too, because people are taught that those shallow, unprincipled weaklings must be idolized, people have little chance to learn about genuine goodness. In place of valid heroes, representing by their example the principles and godliness we each need to emulate, the media adulate these false "leaders" and people's moral integrity and civic responsibility erode ever further.

This year, on this blog, let's proclaim the true values that we need in our leaders and in ourselves.