The principles of Columbia University

Which of these two individuals seems more dangerous and deplorable to you?

1. An American citizen who has founded an organization dedicated to lawfully fighting the problem of illegal immigration and helping to secure our National borders in accordance with immigration laws.


2. An extremist leader of an Islamic country (which has documented ties to terrorist organizations) who has made the following statements:

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

"Israel must be wiped off the map."

"Israel will be annihilated."

"Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

"[There is] no significant need for the United States."

"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world...The World without Zionism."

"The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."

"If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender."

"With the support and power of God, we will soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism and will breathe in the brilliant time of Islamic sovereignty over today's world."

"A nation that on the other side of the globe has risen up and proved the shallowness of their power…They are angry with our nation. But we tell them ‘so be it and die from this anger’. Rest assured that if you do not respond to the divine call, you will die soon and vanish from the face of the earth."

"The anger of Muslims may reach an explosion point soon…the waves of the blast will not remain within the boundaries of our region and will engulf the corrupt powers that support this fake regime [Israel]."

Number 1 is an American citizen engaged in protecting our country through completely legal and peaceful channels. Number 2 promotes the genocide of an entire race of people, the annihilation of one of America’s allies, and the total destruction of the United States.

Which one seems more dangerous to you?

Well, if you are a “progressive” student at Columbia University, you would no doubt conclude that Number 1 is clearly the more dangerous of the two. If Number 1 were to speak on your campus, you would immediately assemble a protest group to shout him off stage and prevent him from speaking. No doubt you would call him a racist and a Nazi.

But, if Number 2 were to speak on your campus, you would plead with the rest of the Columbia University student body to refrain from any protests. After all, you wouldn’t want him to be “demonized.”

I really wish that I was making this up. But, sadly, I am not.

Last year, “progressive” students at Columbia University protested a speech by Jim Gilchrist, the co-founder of the Minutemen, by storming the stage and shouting hateful names at him.

This year, it has been highly publicized that Columbia University has invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, to speak at their campus. In reaction to this invitation, the Columbia University “progressives” sent out an open letter asking students to refrain from any form of protest against Ahmadinejad.

“We have serious concerns with the content of some of the hostility that has been expressed to his presence, and specifically with the planned protest. We fear the demonization of Ahmadinejad, because we think this demonization contributes to the likelihood of war… A rally where each speaker denounces Ahmadinejad’s reactionary policies and just a few call explicitly for military action will still be perceived, on campus and around the U.S., as pro-war.”

The dichotomy is absolutely amazing to me. They hate the idea of Ahmadinejad being “demonized,” yet they publicly condemn and shout-down an American citizen who is dedicated to the security of the United States.

You might also be interested to know that while Columbia University has invited Ahmadinejad to speak on their campus, the dean of the University has also expressed his willingness to have Hitler speak at their campus:

“If Hitler were in the United States and wanted a platform from which to speak, he would have plenty of platforms to speak in the United States. If he were willing to engage in debate and a discussion to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him.”

I guess they really do embrace the free and open exchange of ideas! They would invite anyone to speak publicly on their campus, no matter how outrageous, deplorable, controversial, or evil they are.

But, wait…what’s this?

Oh, that’s right. Columbia University, while publicly stating that they would invite Hitler and Ahmadinejad to speak at their campus, continues to ban the ROTC from their campus.

Columbia University welcomes anti-Semites, power-hungry world leaders, and genocidal racists to their campus. But, they refuse to allow their students to participate in an officer training program for our armed forces.



Many people who support Ahmadinejad’s right to speak at Columbia University do so by arguing that this forum will allow students to directly challenge the Iranian President on many of his controversial statements and beliefs. They believe that this will be an open forum with the free exchange of ideas.

Think again.

“During the program, cards will be distributed to members of the audience, so that they may submit questions for the speaker. If you were unable to register for the event but would still like to submit a question, please email your question to”

Questions will have to be submitted to the moderator, and no doubt screened. Let’s see if they actually ask him the tough questions. But, regardless, this isn’t the “open forum” that many are hyping it to be.


Typical of the DailyKos

The DailyKos, the heart and soul of the modern leftist movement, has once again proved itself to be completely and utterly worthless. A new diary post on their site is a classic example of how so many of them truly view the military. They hold them in complete disdain.

Many supporters of the DailyKos, and likeminded websites, will claim that it is only a fringe element of the left who hold extremist views like this. They claim that right-wing bloggers simply cherry-pick anonymous comments on their message boards (which they also claim to be planted by right-wing bloggers) to “prove” that the left doesn’t, in fact, support the troops.

Bear in mind, however, that this diary post (or this one) is not a single anonymous post on an obscure message board. And, it has not been planted by a mysterious right-wing blogger out to smear the DailyKos. It is, in fact, an official diary post, monitored and approved by the website administrators.

It is entitled, “I Don't Support the Troops..oops, there, I said it.”

Here are a few excerpts:

Supporting the troops essentially means supporting the illegal war. It seems that us anti-war types have been doing all sorts of mental and philisophical gymnastics to try and work around this. What has emerged is a sort of low impact, mealy-mouthed common wisdom that is palatable to everyone but is ultimately going to allow us to stay in Iraq for years to come…

Until we have another draft, this is a volunteer armed services. I am not even beginning to count the numerous mercenaries that are involved in the occupation. You signed up, you get to go to the desert and risk being shot at by brown skinned people who don't believe the lies you've been told. A war of aggression is immoral, period. If you believe in God, you can damned well be sure you are going to hell for your participation in it. The only troop I support is the man or woman who refuses to be deployed so that they can make the middle east accessible to profiteers who don't give a flying F about morality or democracy. Or a soldier's life.

When Sunni tribes got paid off enough to stop shooting at GIs and instead shoot at Al-Qaeda (in reality themselves) it is funny how they suddenly became Freedom Fighters. During WWII, French resistance fighters were also called terrorists and insurgents by their German occupiers. Can an anti-war proponent look at these Iraqi resistance fighters with the same admiration, even though they worship differently than us and when they eventually win are likely to install a distasteful (to Americans) theocratic tinged state. Can a person who doesn't believe in violence support that people's right to govern themselves, perhaps violently.

I am sorry but supporting the troops means supporting this illegal war.

Notice that he doesn’t just admit that he completely rejects respect and support for our men and women in uniform. This guy also embraces the “Iraqi resistance fighters” (the Islamic terrorists who are killing our troops), and looks at them with “admiration.” He supports their “right to govern themselves, perhaps violently.”

Ultimately, he also concludes that the “Iraqi resistance fighters” (again, the Islamic terrorists who disguise themselves as civilians and attack OUR troops) will “eventually win.”

Truly, truly disgusting.


HillaryCare - Part 2

Hillary Clinton's newly unveiled health care plan has so many fundamental problems that I had to split this into two blog postings. So, without further adieu...Part 2.

Clinton claims that her plan will only cost $110 billion. (FYI - This is a separate fallacy which would require a 3rd blog entry. It’s a completely unrealistic dollar figure.)

She states that the $110 billion for her plan would come “through a combination of cost savings and the expiration of some of President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the most wealthy.

The AP quoted her this way:

“In unveiling her plan, she called for a requirement for businesses to obtain insurance for employees, and said the wealthy should pay higher taxes to help defray the cost for those less able to pay for it.”

In other words, her plan calls for wealth redistribution. She plans to take money from those she considers to be “the most wealthy” and give it to someone else. She’s sticking to her Socialist roots.

On top of empowering the Government to mandate the purchase of insurance and to redistribute wealth, Hillary’s plan also places more regulation on private insurers.

Joking that her proposals "won't make me the insurance industry's woman of the year," Clinton said companies would no longer be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions or genetic predisposition to certain illnesses.

If private insurers are required to cover high-risk individuals, insurance premiums for everyone will increase. It’s not rocket science.

She claims that people who are content with their private plan can keep their plan the way it is. However, the premiums will be much higher due to increased regulation, and taxes will go up.

But, then again, she’s just trying to provide us with “more choice.”

One vital question

When it comes to Government actions, one question should be asked of every decision that they make. One question is absolutely vital when discussing our ever-growing Government. Yet, it is seldom ever asked. That question is:

“Where in the Constitution is this power granted to the Federal Government?”

Sadly, this question is irrelevant to some. It has become an inconvenience to first consider Constitutional merit of certain Government powers before new policies are perused. It happens on both sides of the aisle. Both parties are guilty of ignoring this pertinent question.

But, there is one current issue that must be framed around this question. Failure to do so, will lead us down the road of Totalitarianism. However, it is my belief that this question will never be raised when discussing this issue. Too many Americans have allowed their emotional approach to the issue to overtake their concern for the Constitution.

That issue is health care. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton unveiled her new plan for our health care system. Although she claims that it is not Government-run health care, it will be funded by taxpayer dollars, and will enact many new Government-enforced mandates.

Her new health care plan revolves around one major principle which she trumpeted yesterday:

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton, whose first attempt at a health care overhaul fell flat 13 years ago, unveiled a broad proposal on Monday to require health insurance for all Americans and make it more affordable.

The proposal would mandate coverage for 47 million uninsured Americans but maintain a role for private insurance companies in what she said would be a simplified system with more choices for consumers.

She claims that her plain provides Americans with “more choices” when it comes to insurance. She even uses the word “choice” in the title of her plan.

It’s a strange dichotomy to think that a plan mandating that every American purchase health insurance somehow provides us with “more choice.” In reality, she is robbing consumers of their most basic choice…their choice to not purchase insurance.

She uses the analogy of requiring the purchase of Auto Insurance. But, there are several fundamental flaws with this analogy. Primarily, there is NO mandate for all Americans to purchase auto insurance. The only mandate on auto insurance is IF you own a car, and IF you use it on public roads. If you own a car, and only use it on your own property, there is NO requirement for insurance. Thus, there is NO universal mandate for coverage.

Which brings me back to the vital question:

“Where in the Constitution is this power granted to the Federal Government?”

Where does the Constitution give the Federal Government the power to force Americans to purchase something? Answer: It doesn’t. The Federal Government does not have the power to mandate something like that. It is absolutely, unequivocally unconstitutional and un-American.

(FYI - The same question should be asked of John Edwards’ plan for mandatory doctor visits.)


What is your child being taught in school?

I have railed against Government schools before, so it probably won’t come as any shock that I have yet another story to share with you.

Mike Brooks, a history teacher at Bidwell Junior High School in Chico, California, recently sent his eighth grade students home with letters asking their parents to do something very…odd. Wait…“odd” really isn’t the right word. The word I’m looking for is…DISGRACEFUL!

The letter, written by Mike Brooks, asked the parents to renounce their U.S. citizenship and declare themselves independent members of the “global community.” I…kid…you…not.

The local Newspaper in Chico ran the story here. Check this out:

Reached at home, the teacher said his U.S. History class is studying the Declaration of Independence, and he decided to write a letter putting the document into modern language. His intention, he said, was to send it home for parents to review, and possibly discuss with their children.

He concluded the letter with "After careful consideration of the facts of our current situation, I have decided to announce to everyone that I am no longer a citizen of the United States, but a free and independent member of the global community."

"The point was, I wanted to ask parents if they would sign such a letter if conditions that existed prior to the Revolution were happening now."

So, why would he do such a thing? Naturally, his response was:

"I just wanted to start a discussion."

There it is - the familiar “discussion” rationalization. Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah. Jay Bennish tried to use that defense on the “Today Show” after he was caught on tape teaching his students that America is the most violent nation on the planet.

Interestingly enough, this rationality is also a favorite tool of the 9/11 “Truthers” who claim that they are just “asking questions.”

Based on that idea, teachers could theoretically “ask questions” and “start discussions” on a litany of issues. Why not have eighth grade classes dedicated to the JFK assassination or the Roswell landings? Why not teach high school students about the commonalities between the United States and Nazi Germany (Wait…they already do that.)? Why not “discuss” with students the theories surrounding the “illuminati?”

There is a reason that this stuff is not acceptable in a classroom. They are gross distortions of the facts. Schools are places to foster rational, critical thinking based on proveable facts. They are not places to foster indoctrination based on biased worldviews.

“The lesson being taught in class was that the U.S. kidnaps innocent people and takes them to Cuba, where they are kept indefinitely and tortured.”

I know that the unhinged left love to claim that Guantanamo Bay is a black-ops prison where inmates are routinely tortured and subjected to inhumane treatment. But, the facts just don’t bear that out. Innocent people are not being kidnapped and taken anywhere. The only prisoners being held at prisons such as Guantanamo are enemy combatants.

Brooks was teaching his students unfounded conspiracy theories, which are on par with the aforementioned 9/11, JFK, Roswell, and Illuminati theories. They have no place in a classroom. Yet, Mike Brooks felt it was perfectly acceptable material to “discuss.”

But, even that wasn’t enough for Mike Brooks. He had to take his anti_American agenda one step further. He actually asked parents to renounce their citizenship and join the “global community.”

It is a truly disgusting display of colossal arrogance and ignorance.

So, what did the school administration have to say about this? What do you think? It’s a Government school, and it’s in California.

Naturally, they defended Brooks’ actions:

Bidwell Junior High School administrators said a letter sent home with students in an eighth-grade class Tuesday was a good idea for a history lesson, with bad execution.

"It was a well-intended lesson that didn't shake out too well," she said, adding that Brooks would not be subject to disciplinary action.

And, the real kicker…

Parsley said she doesn't believe Brooks has any political agenda to advance.

How much stupidity can possibly be contained in one school district?


And now for something completely different...

Admittedly, this story is very different from anything that I normally post. But, I just had to share it.

Take a look at this picture, then read the accompanying story.

I’m trying desperately to maintain my rugged, masculine exterior. But, on the inside, I shed a little tear. It’s a very small tear. I wouldn’t even call it a tear, really. It’s more like a droplet.


The Hsu Scandal

If you haven’t heard about the recent Norman Hsu scandal in Washington, you’re not alone. The mainstream media has virtually ignored it. Even the New York Times admitted that this scandal is receiving “only a handful” of attention.

Here we have a prominent New York businessman, who is a long-time fugitive from American authorities, has been charged with several counts of fraud, plead “no contest” to Grand Theft, and has mysterious sources of income most likely connected to illegal Ponzi schemes. He has a history of making very large political campaign donations, many of which are suspected to be in serious violation of campaign finance laws.

Yet, the media is giving very little attention to it. Why?

I guess I forgot to mention that Norman Hsu’s campaign donations, including the illegal ones, were to DEMOCRAT candidates. For the media, this makes all the difference.

Remember, if you will, a little story known as the Jack Abramoff scandal. This story was plastered on the front-page of almost every newspaper in the country and received “top story” coverage from all of the major networks. Even though, Jack Abramoff made contributions to both Republican and Democrat politicians, the media treated it as a purely Republican scandal. For instance, CBS’s Harry Smith labeled the Abramoff scandal a “Republican problem.” Abramoff was referred to as a “Republican lobbyist,” and his ties to Republican politicians became the central focus of the scandal. Of course, very little attention was given to all of the Democrats that he contributed to.

That story was a goldmine for the mainstream media. But, now that we have a campaign finance scandal involving top Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Patrick Kennedy, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and Harry Reid, nothing is being made out of it. Take a look at this spreadsheet of political donations made by Hsu. You’ll notice that out of the 83 Politicians on the list, only 1 is a Republican - Tom Gallagher, Chief Financial Officer of Florida. The other 82 Politicians are Democrats.

So…once again…if the media is sooooo concerned about political contribution scandals, why not make this a front-page story for months, just like they did with the Abramoff scandal.

I think you know the answer.

You might be inclined to believe that this isn’t a major story because the candidates didn’t know about Hsu's fugitive status or his history of fraud. Those among us with the slightest bit of common sense will understand that Politicians don’t blindly accept large contributions. They know who they receive it from.

Case in point – this story from the New York Daily News:

“Team Clinton can't explain ignoring warnings on Hsu”

WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton's campaign couldn't explain yesterday why it blew off warnings about felon-turned-fund-raiser Norman Hsu - and the Daily News learned FBI agents are collecting e-mail evidence in the widening scandal.

Yesterday, the campaign insisted it did all it should to vet Hsu after California businessman Jack Cassidy warned in June that Hsu's investment operation was fishy. Cassidy e-mailed his tips to the California Democratic Party, which forwarded them to the Clinton campaign.

His warning "prompted a search of publicly available information, which did not reveal Mr. Hsu's decade-plus-old warrant," said Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson. He would not say why the campaign didn't follow up on specifics Cassidy included to explain his suspicions.

"They knew [about Hsu], and they knew back in June," a source told The News.

To her credit, Clinton has said that she will return the $850,000 donated by Hsu. Of course, she’s doing this 3 months AFTER she was warned about Hsu’s illegal activities (and only AFTER the story was made public).

This is a HUGE story. But, it is a story involving the Democrats “culture of corruption.” So, it will be conveniently ignored by the media. And, the American voters will be none the wiser.

They will continue to believe that only Republicans were involved in the Jack Abramoff scandal, and only Republicans would be so corrupt as to accept illegal campaign donations.


Global Warming: An Unsettled Science

Here’s a great video entitled, “Global Warming: An Unsettled Science.” It raises several good counter-arguments to the religion of Global Warming.

Watch it, if only for the amazingly dramatic music.

Pay special attention around time marker 3:50. It discusses a huge flaw in climate models:

In theory, greenhouse gases (GHGs) should warm the troposphere faster than the surface. However, observations show just the opposite.


Totalitarian Nanny State

No Commentary. Just a question:

How is this a part of promoting the FREE MARKET?

As America gets fatter, policymakers are seeking creative approaches to legislating health. They may have entered the school cafeteria -- and now they're eyeing your neighborhood.

Los Angeles officials, among others around the country, are proposing to limit new fast-food restaurants -- a tactic that could be called health zoning.

"While limiting fast-food restaurants isn't a solution in itself, it's an important piece of the puzzle," said Mark Vallianatos, director of the Center for Food and Justice at Occidental College.

This is "bringing health policy and environmental policy together with land-use planning…I think that's smart, and it's the wave of the future."

"The community has suffered for decades by an assumption that attracting business of any type is good, and it's not true."

If you have an answer, I want to hear it.


Indocrination Of A New Generation

Growing up, I watched a lot of Saturday morning cartoons. But, I never got into the animated movies. For me, they just weren’t that entertaining. A thirty-minute cartoon on Saturday morning was one thing. But, sitting through a two-hour movie about a deer and a skunk was too much to ask of me.

As I got older, I noticed that people my age not only enjoyed animated movies as children, but they still watched the new animated movies! They would talk about movies such as “Toy Story” or “Shrek” as if they were the funniest movies ever made. No offense to those who may enjoy those movies, but I’ve watched them. I hated them.

But, regardless of my personal feelings towards movies like “Toy Story” or “Shrek,” they are admittedly harmless, and all in good, kid-oriented fun.

There are however exceptions to this. Recently, I had the great displeasure of watching the movie “Happy Feet.” Forced against my will, I sat through the two-hour session of leftist indoctrination. If you've seen the movie, you probably know why I refer to it as such.

Not surprisingly, the main villain in “Happy Feet” is us – mankind. Evil, greedy, overfishing, imperialist mankind. The movie covers several hot-button topics, not the least of which is…you had to see this coming…Global Warming.

It is a topic that permeates our daily news. There is no escaping it. The Church of Global warming has to constantly find new ways of injecting their agenda into mainstream audiences. They have decided to use animated films to indoctrinate the next generation of Americans. Their hope is that these children will grow up accepting Global Warming as complete fact, and never question their own belief system.

Call me crazy. But, even research scientists at major universities have noticed this trend in children’s movies. has released an article titled, “Hollywood recruits kids to fight climate change.” Did you read the headline? They are RECRUITING children to their cause. Here a few excerpts from the article:

Children have always been very sensitive to the plight of animals — way back to ‘Bambi,’” explained Dave Walsh, president of the National Institute on Media and the Family, a research and advocacy organization based in Minneapolis that studies the impact of media on children’s behavior.

So penguins and polar bears — those marketable animals among the most obviously affected by the negative impacts of global warming — are the chief mascots for the cause…

“It’s not surprising with all of the recent talk about global warming that people who are creating children’s entertainment would translate that current-event discussion into the impact on animals,” Walsh continued. “Kids aren’t going to relate to the impact on the polar ice cap.”

Dan Anderson, a professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, studies toddlers’ understanding of television and consults on several children’s programs…

A significant amount of “moral learning” happens during the formative ages — generally beyond pre-school, Anderson explained. Kids roughly 7 and older begin to understand, remember and reflect on serious topics like death — including the Earth’s death. Elementary school students even start becoming interested in political positions.

Many experts believe that children are the “hidden agenda” in the environmental movement, since the whole premise behind its activism is to convince people to leave the Earth better than they found it for the clean-air enjoyment of the next generation.

These researchers agree, and seem to endorse the notion, that animated movies like “Happy Feet” attempt to appeal to children’s emotional attachment to animals to solidify their message. Just tug at the children’s heart-strings a little bit, and they are putty in the hands of the environmental movement.

Sure…that sounds like an honest way to educate people about your cause.

In a lot of cases such indoctrination is based on incredible factual inaccuracies. For instance, in “Happy Feet,” the assertion is made that Penguin populations are threatened by melting sea ice. Even if the contention is made that sea ice near the penguin populations is melting (even though the antarctic sea ice, overall, is increasing), what proof is there that man is the cause of this, as “Happy Feet” implies? (FYI – it was recently revealed that less than half of published scientists buy into the anthropogenic Global Warming theory).

I think one of the most telling statements in the article comes when discussing the PBS program “It’s a Big Big World.”

“Big Big World” features a 7-foot hairy sloth named Snook, whom Kriegman
[the show’s creator] calls “the Al Gore for kids.” Snook lives in a treehouse
and reads books on science, geography and nature. The show is developing
outreach and promotional opportunities in conjunction with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group. In one episode, he tells his viewers: “Hey, did you know that you are an animal, too?”

NO. NO WE ARE NOT! Humans are not merely another animal wandering around this planet devoid of sapience and self-awareness. We are a completely separate entity. To equate us with animals is to degrade the human spirit.

These movies are not innocent presentations of cute and fuzzy animals which only seek to entertain the viewer. They are laced with propaganda, and an agenda that only has legs when it utilizes an appeal to emotion.

In closing, I wanted to post a clip from another animated movie, which is the most obscene and hideous piece of leftist propaganda being passed off as a kid’s cartoon. It is a clip from the movie, “The Ant Bully” (With a little creative text overlay, courtesy of The People's Cube). Sadly, this movie wasn’t even mentioned in the Politico article. But, parents should pay attention. “The Ant Bully” is nothing more than indoctrination into Socialism.


Fred Thompson!

Fred Thompson has officially announced that he is running for the Presidency of the United States! Here is his announcement video:

For me, the greatest line in the entire video came at time marker 2:34. He sums up his core belief system with this phrase:

“A Government that is big enough to do everything for us is powerful enough to do anything to us.”

I wholeheartedly believe that, and it something that I fear greatly. Thompson seems to hold the same fear. And, at the same time, he speaks of the importance of the individual. He recognizes that individual freedom is inseparable from our very existence. It does not come from Government, but from God. Government is not the solution to our problems. In most cases, it IS the problem.

Watch the video. Decide for yourself.


Tyrannical Government Health Care

One of the main arguments that I use against the idea of Government-controlled health care is that the Government would, in fact, CONTROL our health care. That’s why I refer to it as Government-controlled healthcare, and not “Universal Health Care” or a “Single-Payer System.” Both of these diluted terms are meant to distort the reality of the situation and distract you from a major problem – Federal bureaucrats would have complete control of your health care.

Some people hear that argument and tell me that I’m being irrational. Government would not seize control of our personal health care. They wouldn’t ration it, and they wouldn’t implement draconian, tyrannical mandates concerning it. They would simply act as a control to make sure that everyone had equal access to “free” health care.

If that’s what you believe, you may as well stop reading here, because your fantasy world is about to get a huge reality check.

One of the biggest names in the Democrat Party is John Edwards. His campaign for the Presidency has been centered on a few different issues. But, mainly, his focus has been on “Universal Health Care.”

According to John Edwards’ website:

Under the Edwards Plan:

* Families without insurance will get coverage at an affordable price.
* Families with insurance will pay less and get more security and choices.
* Businesses and other employers will find it cheaper and easier to insure their workers.

So, what steps would he take to achieve these things? Well, part of his plan calls for MANDATORY VISITS TO THE DOCTOR!

Let me say that again. Under John Edwards plan, all Americans would be FORCED by the Federal Government to get regular medical check-ups. This includes “mental health care as well as dental and vision.” According to an article by the Associated Press:

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

Do you still believe that the Government would stay out of your personal health care decisions? John Edwards has said, up front, that you will not be allowed to refuse regular medical check-ups. And, since his plan even covers “mental health care as well as dental and vision,” you would also be FORCED to see a psychiatrist, a dentist, and an ophthalmologist. Does this sound like a Government which promotes Freedom for the individual?

So, how does John Edwards justify this? Well, if the Government will be subsidizing (via the taxpayers) health care for all Americans, they must find ways cut and control costs. For most Government-controlled health care systems, this means a rationing of health care. For John Edwards, this means FORCED visits to the doctor. He assumes that regular preventative care will cost less than emergency care.

To a certain extent, he may be correct. Preventative care may, in fact, be less expensive than emergency care. But, the more important point is that the Government is directly controlling the health care system and making decisions which should be left to the individual.

Where does it stop? If we are forced to get regular check-ups from a doctor, a psychiatrist, a dentist, and an ophthalmologist, will we also have to submit to mandatory Government diets? Will they regulate what foods we can and cannot eat (FYI – They are already trying to do this by banning trans fats)? Will we be FORCED to undergo mandatory Government exercise?

These things sound absurd. But, so do forced visits to the doctor! It is the way that Government seizes more and more power…slowly but surely.

These are not powers that should be granted to the Government. These are powers that belong to us – free individuals. But, sadly, there are many Americans who would willingly trade their precious freedom for feel-good policies and so-called “security.”

Side note: I’m sure that the same people who scream over President Bush’s “tyrannical policies,” will have little or nothing to say about this.