Lindy’s Blog: Where Mom is Always Right

March 23, 2010

RIP, liberty

Filed under: health care,limited government,politics — by lindyborer @ 4:14 pm
Tags: , ,

Obama got his health care reform bill signed today and it only took a year, the opposition of a majority of Americans, bribery, arm-twisting, back-room deals and zero transparency to get it done.  I’ve never claimed to be a genius, but given the shady nature of this whole process I don’t understand why this is a “good thing” for America.  (Plus, guess who’s exempt from ObamaCare mandates?) 

I’ve simply had it.  I am actually scared for our nation.  If this thing goes, it’s game over.  I am beyond the point where I care about alienating anyone–including family–because of this.  This is my childrens’ future. 

What a small shred of people cannot understand is that this is not about health care!  I will say it again:  This is not about health care.  It is about the expansion of government.  It is about creating a welfare state from the cradle to the grave.  It is about Big Brother holding sway over even the minutest aspects of daily living.  Arguably, everything we do affects our health.  If (when) the government is suddenly the one in control of divvying out health care, they will do so solely upon the basis of controlling costs.  As such, they will see each of us as nothing more than a dollar sign.  And certain segments of the population will be more “cost effective” than others.  For example, it’s cheaper to have an abortion than a baby.  It’s easier to pull the plug than to give someone life prolonging treatment.  The unborn, the disabled, the elderly, the chronically ill–all these groups will be the hardest hit.  This legislation will drive doctors away in droves, and rationing will inevitably occur.

Reform is needed, but this leviathon of a bill addresses none of those things that would have truly reformed our system without taking over 1/6th of the economy and sacrificed our individual liberties.  (Tort reform?  Being able to purchase insurance across state lines?  True competition among insurance compancies would lower premiums faster than anything.  It would solve the problem for those who can’t get insurance because of a preexisting condition.)

With the signing of this bill, the Democrats have effectively taken the first step in turning our nation’s healthcare system into the DMV.  Break out the champagne!

One of the most interesting aspects of this entire issue to me is the one of liberty and self-determination.  ObamaCare undoubtedly will put a bureaucrat in the middle of patient and doctor.  It will do more to erode these basic, foundational American ideas than anything else we have seen. 

Give me liberty or give me death!  This is America!  

One comfort?  We will not go down without a fight.  This legislation and its mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional.  It is a direct violation of state sovereignty and states’ rights.  It will be challenged in the courts.

June 3, 2009

300, de Tocqueville, and Obama

This is why conservatives are so damn “mean”.  (Now, if only we had a Gerard Butler/Leonidas.)

June 2, 2009

This, that, and the other

Some links that have gotten my attention:

Caution: Bloody Century Ahead  Not for the faint of heart. I keep trying to disagree with Patterson, but…I…just…can’t.

Late-term abortionist George Tiller’s shooting death is a travesty, and his shooter most definitely qualifies as a domestic terrorist.  No matter how deplorable I found Dr. Tiller’s actions, to fight the anti-life agenda by taking life is wrong and deplorable. 

Obama has meanwhile assigned other abortionists police protection.   One wonders whether or not he has assigned the same protections to military recruiters, in light of the recent shooting death of one in Arkansas by a militant muslim.  Probably not.  (And does anyone remember the name William Ayers, the president’s favorite domestic terrorist?)  From Malkin:  Obama condemns Muslim attack on Arkansas Army Recruiters…not 

Every single pro-life organization has condemned Tiller’s shooting death, but the blame game is on.  Many are blaming Bill O’Reilly for his honest and brave reporting on Tiller and his practice:

Kudos to O’Reilly.  Without a doubt, any attempt henceforth to report upon and instruct people about the horrors of abortion will be deemed incitements to violence.  We must resist this full-on.  Women have the right to full knowlege about this horrific practice.  Reporting on it is necessary and must continue. 

And this article from American Thinker:

Do Liberals Crave A Master?   It’s almost like many people, even if it’s not overt, do need someone to tell them what to do.  Many conservatives/individualists like me often wonder why so many people not only accept but seemingly invite a person or group of persons (aka the government) to impose their agendas upon them.  I still maintain that the individual and the individual’s freedoms are to be protected, first and foremost.  A whole lot of people are seemingly content to kiss their individual freedoms goodbye in the name of “fairness,” or whatever.  This article presents a possible diagnosis.

To whet your appetite: 

Contemporary liberals, having abandoned the belief in God-given inalienable rights, masochistically crave a worldly master. This master is a sadistic god-substitute who will provide the stern discipline needed to force economic equality and “fairness” by requiring painful sacrifices and bestowing government-created rights onto obedient and acquiescent groups of left-leaning masochists. 

It’s really interesting.

And I stumbled across this as well.  I don’t know anything about the person or group that created this, but I just thought it was thought-provoking.

One way to answer an atheist:

May 27, 2009

Government takeovers and why this is not okay

Back from a long and busy weekend, with a lot to say, and so very little time to say it!  Best get on with it.

Some news items of late that are itching at me:

1)  Obama taking over Chrysler (and everything else.)  This whole government taking over private industry is not what the USA does.  It is not what the USA has been about, and it is not what has made the USA great.  It is, however, what the governments in third-world countries do, and it is a favorite activity among people like Hugo Chavez…and Barack Obama, apparently. 

I realize that many of us are just too busy with life to stop and consider–really consider–what is happening in the USA right now.  But the one thing that I think we should do collectively is ask whether or not this is Constitutional.  (It’s not.)  And we should ask ourselves why we’re so complacent.  Is it because we’re ignorant?  Apathetic?  Scared? 

The last option is kind of interesting, in that I believe many business owners are scared.  Of the government.  And that is not okay in the United States of America.  For frick’s sake, I cannot even believe that I have to type that out, but there’s going to be a tipping point.  The whole Chrysler thing might not be directly affecting you or me right now, but at some point, the government is going to get involved in your life or livelihood, and you’re not going to like it.  There have been countless Chrysler dealerships–many of them family-owned and operated, that have been forced–FORCED–by the government of the US to close their doors.  And there doesn’t seem to be any rhyme nor reason as to why.  IMO, if you’re going to start forcing out private businesses, there had better be a damn good way of deciding just what the criteria is for your decision.  It would make the most sense to close those with poor sales or management or no profit.  But that is not the case. 

What these closing dealerships DO have in common is that they all have a history of making donations to Republican political candidates or to opponents of BO.  

Via Gateway Pundit:

• Vernon G. Buchanan: $147,450 to GOP candidates and organizations
• Wallace D. Alley and Family: $4,500 to GOP.
• Robert Archer: $4,600 to GOP and conservative causes.
• Homer S. Higginbotham and Family: $2950 to GOP.
• James Auffenberg and Family: $28,000 to GOP; $6,000 to one Democrat candidate.
• Michael Maroone and Family: $60,000 to GOP; $8,500 to two Democrat candidates.
• Jerome Fader: $6,500 to Democrats; $2,500 to Independent Joe Lieberman.
• Stephen Fay and Family: $13,500 to GOP.
• William Numrich: $20,000 to GOP.
• Robert Carver: $10,000 to Democrats including $1,950 to Hillary Clinton, nothing to Barack Obama.
• Robert and Linda Rohrman: $24,000 to GOP.
• Frank Boucher, Jr. and Family: $18,000 to GOP, $1,000 to one Democrat candidate.
• Scott Bossier: $4,300 to GOP.
• Todd Reardon: $17,000 to GOP; $2,000 to one Democrat candidate.
• Russ Darrow and Family: $78,000 to GOP.
• Bradford Deery and Family: $24,700 to GOP.
• Charles Gabus and Family: $30,000 to GOP.
• Brian Smith: $15,500 to GOP.
• Michael Schlossman: $14,000 to GOP; $14,000 to three Democrats ($12,500 to Sen. Russ Feingold).
• Don Hill: $11,000 to GOP; $12,800 to conservative incumbent Rep. Heath Shuler.
• Don Miller: $2,000 to GOP; $1,000 to Feingold.
• Eddie Cordes: $2,150 to GOP.
• Robert Edwards: $1,100 to GOP.
• James Crowley: $19,100 to GOP.
• Stanley Graff: $2,200 to John Edwards (2008 Presidential Run); $500 to GOP.
• John Stewart: $10,500 to GOP.
• John Fitzgerald and Family: $4,600 to John McCain (2008); $2,000 to Hillary Clinton (2008); nothing to Barack Obama.
• William Churchill and Family: $3,500 to GOP.
• Thomas Ganley: $9.450 to GOP.
• Gary Miller: $20,000 to GOP.
• Kevin and Gene Beltz: $18,500 to GOP.
• Arthur Grayson: $14,000 to GOP.
• Eric Grubbs and Family: $26,000 to GOP.
• Michael Leep and Family: $19,500 to GOP; $4,800 to three Democrats including Sen. Evan Bayh.
• Harry Green, Jr.: $10,000 to GOP.
• Ronald Hoover: $5,250 to GOP.
• Ray Huffines and Family: $18,500 to GOP.
• John O. Stevenson: $1,500 to GOP.• James Marsh: $8,200 to GOP.
• Max Pearson and Family: $112,000 to GOP.

This is not right, people.  It did occur to me that this just might be representative of most entrepeneurs or business owners to be Republican.  But it would be comforting to see a list of the Obama Administration Auto Task Force’s list of criteria for forcing these business closed.  (Nope.  It wasn’t Chrysler’s decision.  And yes, that would be a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment.  Constitution, schmonstitution.)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, right?  What, exactly, is stopping Barack Obama right now from closing down any industry he wants?  He stated during his campaign that cap and trade would, necessarily, bankrupt the coal industry.  (From which most of us derive most of our energy, btw.)  Since when do presidents go around deciding to cherry-pick industries to bankrupt? 

In this vein, I ran across this from The Cynical Christian (whose blog, incidentally, always seems to serve up a gem or two):

The lesson I’d like people to learn from the Obama administration is that the rule of law hangs by a very thin thread. You can have all the constitutions you want–the government will do whatever it wants unless somebody musters the will to stop it.

Gov’t: “We’re taking over the banks!”
Us: “Gotcha.”
Gov’t: “And the auto industry!”
Us: “Alrighty.”
Gov’t: “Probably gonna get health care next!”
Us: “Umm…okay.”

If they can do what they’ve done so far, why couldn’t they take over restaurants, or grocery stores, or internet service providers, or anything else? What legitimate argument could you make against them? That it’s beyond their constitutional authority? Ha! We left that behind a long time ago.

On to news item number two:  Obama supreme court appointee Sonia Sotomayer.  She’s a woman, she’s a Latina, and she’s empathetic.  Hence, she’s Obama’s gal.  Except she’s not apparently that familiar with the primary role of a SC justice, which is supposed to interpret the US Constitution as it is written, blindly.  Sotomayer’s career has been filled with instances of judicial activism, something that no one–left or right–wants on the Supreme Court.  And apparently, she’s not in agreement with the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is a big deal.  The right to own and carry a gun is the right that protects all other rights.  It’s why the NRA has such a huge support base, from those on the right and on the left.  And recall that only last year, the Supreme Court handed down in D.C. v. Heller that–now, take a deep breath, here–private American citizens have the right to own and carry guns!  Now, if you’ve recovered from that shock, know that this wasn’t a 9-0 vote as it should have been, but a 5-4 vote.  Ken Blackwell details Sotomayer’s opinions (which should, in all reality, have absolutely NOTHING go do with her role on the Supreme Court, should she be approved) on this decision, and why gun owners have a new fight on their hands. 

And news item number three, which I had previously discussed:

What do Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey, George Soros, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet all have in common?  Read the link to find out, and try not to vomit in the process.

Meeting of World’s Richest Names Pro-Abortion Population Control As Main Cause

Oh, goody.  Eliminate poverty by…eliminating people.  Fantastic idea!  Not evil or draconian in the least.

“Hey, let’s all meet so we can coordinate our charitable donations.”

Awww.  That’s nice.

“Hey, let’s work on eliminating poverty!”

Gee, that’s wonderful.  How are they going to go about doing that? 

“Let’s focus on eliminating poor people!”

Wait a minute…

May 8, 2009

Live free or die!

If nothing else, you’ll want to read this by Mark Steyn:  Live Free or Die!  In it, he talks about the four stages of the infantilization of the population under a government that does everything for them (and thereby erodes freedom):  Stage 1) the massive expansion of governement (i.e., the “stimulus”) comes with strings attached (we’re now seeing this with the banks and with Chrysler)  Stage 2) Once you accept you’re a child in the government nursery, why shouldn’t Nanny tell you what to do? and then Stage 3) what to think? and Stage 4) what not to think?  All of these are fleshed out with first-hand examples. 

When governments annex a huge chunk of the economy, they also annex a huge chunk of individual liberty.  You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of junkie and pusher–and you make it very difficult ever to change back.  Americans face a choice:  They can rediscover the animating principles of the American idea–of limited government, a self-reliant citizenry, and the opportunities to exploit your talents to the fullest–or they can join most of the rest of the Western world in terminal decline.  To rekindle the spark of liberty once it dies is very difficult. 

Steyn likens it to perpetual adolescence.  Life is about nothing more than sleeping in.  Once we rely on the government to provide the things that ADULTS used to provide for themselves, then it’s back to the playpen for us, and goodbye freedom. 

In other news, Ted Turner thinks China has done pretty well with population control, without resorted to “draconian measures.”  Huh, that’s interesting.  Turner doesn’t consider forced abortions, one-child only governmental policies, and forced kidnappings of infants “draconian.”  Which, by the way, we taxpayers now support, thanks to Obama restoring our tax dollars to the UN Population Fund, which enforces these–“un-draconian”–measures.  The fine for having an “illegal child” in China now costs 3-5 times a Chinese family’s income, and if they don’t pay up immediately, government officials come knocking, and forcibly remove the infant.  Gee, and here I thought that liberals were always so concerned about human rights?  (Big lie number 589 about liberalism.)  And despite what the UNFPA tells us, forced abortions are still taking place.  Can you imagine being forced to abort your child? 

These types of abuses should be condemned by pro-life people AND those on the other side of the issue.  We should not continue to allow our tax dollars to make this sort of thing possible.  But all I hear from the Obama administration?  Chirping crickets.

Blog at