Pope Francis Ends Church Support For Liberty

     Pope Francis, in the latest published pontiff pontification has signaled a change for the Catholic church from defender of freedom to purveyor of Marxist ideals. It is hard to believe that it was scarcely thirty years ago that Pope Francis' predecessor, Pope John Paul II, joined forces with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to oppose, and finally defeat the communist Soviet Union. But here we are thirty years later, and today's Pope not only refuses to oppose the practice of communist ideology, he has suggested the augmentation of such ideas as some sort of panacea to solve all the world's problems.
     The current Vicar of Christ wrote that much of the world's pain and suffering has been caused by "unfettered capitalism." I wonder in which part of the world His Holiness sees "unfettered capitalism?" The failings of capitalism have existed to the extent that government interferes with it, which allows crony capitalism to supplant free market capitalism. We have seen this corruption  practiced in this country for several decades, but it has been greatly accelerated under the Obama administration. Companies and businesses that have an "in" with the administration receive favorable treatment through legislation i.e., Dodd/Frank, or blatant political payoffs with taxpayer money, i.e., Solendra and the rest of the "green energy" sector.
     Pope Francis also wrote that more government is needed in the world, and that government needs to provide its people with health care and other essentials of life. I must have missed the Holy Father's appointment to the Obama administration, but it sounds as though he has fallen right in line with its talking points, "If you like your Catholicism, you can keep your Catholicism." Pope Francis may know matters of faith, but he is woefully under served by his knowledge of world history. The most tyranny and oppression throughout history has been practiced by unlimited governments, not limited ones.
     Of course no left-leaning treatise would be complete without its reference to "equality," and so it is with Pope Francis'. But what Leftists like the Pope fail to recognize is that all men are equal in the eyes of God, but God has also placed inequalities in men and nature in order for the proper functioning of a balanced world. Civilized and free societies can not function when its members have equality forced upon them. And throughout history these types of systems have always failed because there is no equality in nature, and the abrogation of the laws of nature is the reason Leftist public policy fails wherever and whenever it is implemented. The world is defined by inequality; one mountain is higher than another, one location is warmer than another, and so on. So it is with men; one man is more intelligent than another, one man is more athletic, and so on.
     It is very disheartening to see the faith of my upbringing utterly dismantled by that which corrupts and sullies everything it touches; Leftism. Christ told Peter, the man considered the first Pope, that he was the rock upon which he would build his church. Unfortunately the current successor to Peter has traded that rock for the fleeting, feel-good feather bed of Leftism.

Rocky Mountain High

     It has been one year since the voters of Colorado chose to believe the arguments of the pro-marijuana crowd, and legalize the sale and use of that harmful drug. And after only one year, teen use has risen substantially in the state, traffic fatalities as a result of driving under the influence of marijuana have seen a forty percent increase, and there are more cannabis shops in Colorado than in Amsterdam. The Colorado experiment with legalized marijuana should be enough to convince any reasonable person that it is a practice that should be avoided in other states.
     The level of THC (the chemical in marijuana that produces the high and addiction) has gone from 3-4% 40 years ago to over 30% today. This has caused not only more addiction, but an almost epidemic rise of personality disorders such as depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia, especially in teens and young adults. So much so that there are now more young adults in drug treatment programs for marijuana use than all other drugs combined.
     The pro-marijuana crowd has always tried to convince the unsuspecting that marijuana is a harmless drug. One argument that they have trotted out from the stables of misleading statistics is the fact that persons under the influence of marijuana commit fewer violent crimes and cause fewer traffic fatalities than those under the influence of alcohol. But in using this statistic, the pot pushers conveniently omit the fact that alcohol is legal, and therefore is in much wider use than marijuana. This fact alone would cause a spike in crimes and traffic fatalities due to alcohol use. We see the proof of this theory at work in Colorado, where after making marijuana legal, a spike was seen in crimes and traffic fatalities caused, or at least involving, marijuana.
     Another tactic used by the pro-marijuana lobby is what they say are the drug's medical benefits to those suffering from any number of illnesses. This "argument" is just a shameless use of the sick to justify the recreational use of the drug. Marijuana's use as an elixir for the ill has been greatly exaggerated, and besides, its benefits in this area have been available for years in the prescription drug Marinol. For ninety five percent of the afflicted who would benefit from marijuana use, Marinol is a seamless substitute. With a quick perusal of the side effects of Marinol, which are often sited by the pro-marijuana crowd as a reason to legalize pot, one would quickly notice the striking similarity to the side effects of smoking marijuana. Not to mention the "gateway" qualities of marijuana, which the pro-marijuana crowd say are a myth. But while many who smoke marijuana never escalate to other drugs like heroine or crack, the vast majority of heroine and crack addicts have begun their journeys of addiction with marijuana use.
     In recent years, with the aid of fresh studies and millions of case histories, I have seen that marijuana is not some miracle substance that is at the same time a harmless recreational drug, and a powerful medicine that can relieve the symptoms of those suffering from serious illness. In my mind, the Colorado experiment has illustrated that any small benefit to society that legalization of marijuana may have, is obliterated by the deleterious effects the drug has on society at large, especially among the young. And the future of this great nation, and the continuation of liberty itself, depends on the lucidity of thought that is almost impossible with the use of marijuana.  

The Medical Oppression To Which State Licensing Has Lead

     The state licensing of individuals in the medical and legal profession is against the very core principles of limited government. When any government entity can determine the composition and participation in a profession, it can also control how that profession is practiced. I have always wondered why the successful completion of medical and legal schools' requirements are not sufficient for those wanting to participate in those professions. Why the approval of bureaucrats is somehow more legitimate than the degree one receives from the centers of higher learning from which they attained the knowledge and skills to perform the functions of their chosen profession, is beyond me.
     This constitutionally ill-advised practice of state governments interfering with matriculation into certain professions is now being discussed as a means of forcing doctors to participate in ObamaCare exchanges, which they are fleeing like Leftists from the truth. This forced participation by the federal government will take the form of either federalizing the licensing of doctors or by the heavy boot of the federal government being placed on the throats of states through mandates aimed at compelling ObamaCare participation by doctors. Either way, the medical profession will essentially be transformed into an army of government workers who will be at the mercy of rules and rationing imposed by tax collectors and bureaucrats.
     It was not until the late 1800s that states began to license doctors and control the profession, originally to improve the quality of medical standards. But now, combined with ObamaCare, licensing could result in actually lowering both the standards and delivery of care. President Obama himself illustrated this in his response to a woman at a town hall meeting in 2009 when she asked if her ninety year old mother's will to live could be taken into account when determining if she could receive a pacemaker. He basically told the woman that her mother's age had to be the only determinant for receiving care, and the best that could be done for her is to administer a pain pill and send her home to die.
     Another more recent example is that of Sarah Murnaghan, a ten year old Pennsylvania girl who was facing sure death without a lung transplant. Her doctors determined that Sarah would be an excellent candidate for an adult lung, which often is not the case for young children. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, refused to allow the operation, saying that, "some people live and some people die." It took an order signed by a federal judge to overrule the Sebelius death panel of one, and thankfully Sarah is alive and doing well today, no thanks to the "compassion" of Leftist government policy.
     I understand that prior to doctor licensing in the 1870s, many people were practicing medicine who were doing more harm than good. But has not the maturation of the medical profession in the last hundred years mitigated and not intensified the need for government interference into this noble profession? Does any reasonable person believe that out from under the government's thumb, the medical profession would revert to 19th century standards and practices? To the woman at that town hall meeting, Sarah Murnaghan, and millions of other Americans, the government thumb on the jugular of the medical profession has now become the bane of quality health care that is medical oppression.
    

Should Kindness Play A Role In Politics ?

     In a recent champagne swilling event with his Hollywood devotees, President Obama quoted the late Roger Ebert to explain his own political philosophy. The late Mr. Ebert once said that all his political beliefs are based on kindness, and Mr. Obama stated that it is that philosophy that gets him out of bed each morning to face his critics. Beyond the fact that this president has displayed more nastiness towards those who disagree with him on policy than a bull caught in barbed wire while being taunted by a group of rodeo clowns, is the fact that his statement is illustrative of the core flaw of Leftism.
     Politics is, as its root word polis invented by the Greeks suggests, the creation of a city-state that is governed by its citizens. As such, public policy is implemented to the benefit of all the governed, not, as kindness would suggest, to the benefit of a select group of individuals within the whole. James Madison articulated this concept best and most succinctly when he said there is no charity in the United States Constitution. This is as it should be, charity and kindness is best left to individuals in the private sector practicing these lofty and worthy virtues on their families, friends, and neighbors.
    The inappropriateness of any President of the United States saying that his politics is driven by kindness is that the subjective nature of kindness can destroy what should be the objective nature of the law and public policy. This is the reason that the symbol of this great nation's justice system, Lady Justice, is blindfolded. The law, as well as public policy, should apply equally to all citizens regardless of sex, race, creed, wealth, or any other cosmetic or external characteristics. But this truly fair way of implementing policy would be the death knell of Leftism because it eliminates governmental authority being used to create victim groups for the expressed purpose of also creating permanent voting blocks, mainly for the Democrat party.     
     The wisdom of the Founders informed them that a nation based on the subjectivity of human emotions such as kindness and charity could lead to the justification for tyranny. This was best exemplified by Davy Crockett during his term as a representative of Tennessee in the House. Legislation was speeding through the congress to allocate taxpayer money in support of the widow of a well known Navy veteran. Mr. Crockett made an impassioned plea for his colleagues not to violate the public trust by using its money for the benefit of an individual, instead imploring his fellows to follow his lead in donating a portion of their own salaries to the cause. His speech on that day, entitled, Not Yours To Give, should be required reading by everyone in public service. It illustrates that charity meted out by government is not a virtue, but a vice visited upon those who have no stake in the largess of that charity.
     And so public servants like Barack Obama who speak of kindness as a driving force for politics, are silent on the inherent unkindness to those who pay the freight for their magnanimity. Of course the kindness of which President Obama and others on the Left speak has its roots more in political opportunity for them and their friends than any benefit for those who are in need of that kindness. In the final analysis, kindness as a driving force for public policy leads to the unraveling of the very fabric of liberty. A concept the founders understood when they created the documents which lead to the greatest nation in history populated with the most prosperous, and I might add, the kindest people on earth.

My Thanksgiving Message

    The national holiday of Thanksgiving was first suggested in 1789, by George Washington. It did not reach its lofty national status until the 1860s. But the origins of Thanksgiving predate George Washington's recommendation by more than 150 years. The first Thanksgiving, as legend has it, was celebrated by the pilgrims who settled the New World around the dawn of the seventeenth century. They were thankful to God almighty for the blessings bestowed upon them in their new home, thus making Thanksgiving one of the only remaining national holidays with its roots in the spiritual world. Even Atheists celebrate this national day of thanks, although I always wondered who it is they are thanking.
     Many myths about the first Thanksgiving persist, the most widely held one is that the pilgrims had such a bountiful harvest because of the farming skills taught to them by the local natives. Actually, even though the pilgrims received some valuable farming tips from the natives, they weren't totally helpless and it was not the kindness of the native population that saved them from certain extinction in the New World.
     Governor Bradford originally set up the colony to be a co-op, where the harvest was shared equally among all the colonists. Not only was the harvest communal, but so were the houses and other structures, no matter who was responsible for their construction. Mr. Bradford quickly found, as everyone does who implements this type of system, that the work was not being accomplished. With no personal incentive to work hard and own the fruits of their own labor, even these puritanical and spiritual people succumbed to the sloth that is inherent in a socialist system. I recall an episode of the sitcom Taxi where the Reverend Jim, a 1960s burnout, talked about a commune on which he lived. He said they farmed and raised animals and everyone did their own thing. When asked why it disintegrated, he said it turned out every one's thing was sitting around getting loaded. Reverend Jim's fictional commune and that of the real first pilgrims did not share a problem with drugs and alcohol, but did share human nature. And human nature teaches that if everyone is getting an equal share, even the more industrious will not put forth their best effort.
     Governor Bradford solved his problem by splitting up the land into plots over which each family had complete control, and benefited from the harvest of their land. This led to an over-abundance during the harvest, which they were able to share with the native people. They were also able to pay off, ahead of schedule, the overseas investors who sponsored their trip. They learned a valuable lesson about how working in one's own self-interest benefits the entire society. This is because there is more motivation to work hard when the individual is able to keep the fruits of his own labor.
     There are many things for which to be grateful on this day. Gratitude itself is the essence of a happy and well-lived life. If you find yourself in good health, be grateful that your health isn't poor. If you find yourself in poor health, be grateful for the opportunity to improve your condition. If you have enough money to pay your bills and be generous with others, be thankful for that blessing. If your paycheck runs out before your bills or you are unemployed, be thankful that you live a country where these conditions do not have to be permanent. No matter how dark the hour may seem, their is always some sliver of light for which to be thankful. And finally, be thankful for those pilgrims long ago who gave us the basis for the freest, most prosperous and exceptional nation in the history of the world.

The Continuing Adventures Of EPA Oppression

     There is hardly an American over the age of twenty one and in possession of cognitive abilities who does not realize that the bureaucracy known as the Environmental Protection Agency has outgrown the bounds of decent regulatory authority. The latest oppressive measure to be reined down upon business and residents alike is the draconian regulations on lighting. Of course we are all familiar with the EPA's tyrannical decision to outlaw incandescent light bulbs, in use for well over 100 years, and force Americans to use the mercury-laced compact fluorescent bulbs instead.
     The latest light bulb oppression from the EPA has reared its ugly head in the manufacture and sale of the tube fluorescent bulbs that are available in a variety of sizes. These bulbs are designated by the industry as T12, which the EPA has determined have too much rare earth minerals in their composition. Beginning in July of 2014, the T12 bulbs will no longer be legal to manufacture and sell. This means their replacement, the T8 bulb, must have new fixtures in which to be installed. This regulation, past not by Congress but by the Obamacrats in the EPA, will affect millions of businesses that have T12 fixtures in their offices and manufacturing facilities.
     This new edict from on high, along with previous regulations on light bulbs, will force 97% of all light bulb manufacturing to take place overseas, mainly in China. This will of course facilitate more jobs vacating the sinking ship of the Obama economy. This new wolf of oppression dressed up in the sheep's clothing of environmental concern will be another impediment to growth for American businesses. Having to expend the funds to replace T12 fixtures joins the nails of the worst economy since the 1930s Great Depression and ObamaCare, to affix the lid tightly on the coffin of prosperity in America.  
     The founders of this great nation did not trust government to make very many decisions, hence the severely limiting nature of the Constitution with regards to the federal authority. They would be shocked and dismayed that we have vested so much power in unelected bureaucrats. The power to oppress business and individuals alike, all in the name of the environment of which the Left, in their foolish arrogance, have appointed themselves protectors, is anathema to the founding principles of this country. It is this soft tyranny that grows into full blown oppression that the framers of the constitution were trying to avoid when they drafted the greatest document of freedom the world has ever seen. A document that the current occupant of the White House has betrayed in words and actions, thus violating his oath and disgracing the office entrusted to him by the citizens of this great nation.

Since When Does The Support Of The Governed Matter To Obama ?

     President Obama's approval rating in a recent CBS poll dipped to 37%, a level at which the main stream media tried to convince the American public that President Bush was no longer able to fulfill the duties of his office because he had lost the confidence of the American people. Of course, President Bush's low approval rating was only accomplished after four years of non-stop bludgeoning by the main stream media. President Obama has gotten his all on his own, the main stream media having carried his water for the better part of five years now.
     Conservatives have been jubilant at the prospect of Barack Obama's approval rating plummeting. I have heard some say it is the beginning of the end for the President. I do not know what that means to a President who has already won re-election, and can not run again. And if these conservatives are alluding to next year's mid-term elections, I do not see any indication or evidence that Democrats in congress will suffer from a low approval rating by the President. If that were true, then the opposite would also be true, and the Republicants would not have been able to take control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term election at a time when President Obama enjoyed an approval rating over 60%.
     The Democrats may lose control of the senate next November, but it will be vis-a-vis their support for the train wreck that is ObamaCare and not the President's low approval rating. The recent invoking of the nuclear option by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, essentially eliminating the 230  year tradition of the filibuster, is a result of the Democrat leadership seeing a possible loss of the senate next Fall. It is also due to fear of Republicants like Ted Cruz who are actually serious about their duty to the constitution. Make no mistake, the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republicant party is gaining strength, and scaring the hell out of the Washington establishment on both sides of the aisle.
     At this point in Barack Obama's term he has no concern for, or sense of duty to, the approval of the governed. The reason is twofold. One is that with essentially no filibuster in the senate to slow down his agenda, he is free to impose his will with a much lower level of congressional support than any president in the past. The second reason is the signaling of acquiescence by Republicant leadership, who have publicly stated that they refuse to allow another government shutdown for any reason, even to fight for the constitutional integrity of this republic. It is a republic that is currently at a crossroads, to the left is tyranny and to the right is liberty. The path taken depends on how We The People use our dwindling constitutional power to retake the authority granted to us by our founding documents before we become totally subservient to our Washington masters.