Elections have consequences

While campaigning in 2004, then President George W. Bush said, "Elections have consequences."

Less than two weeks after taking office as President of these great United States, Barack Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. During his acceptance speech, President Obama said, "I do not view it as a recognition of my accomplishments."

There's been a whole lot of hoop-la from every corner of the media as to whether Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. However, we must consider some of its past recipients. Jimmy Carter, Yassir Arafat, and Al Gore have all also received this distinguished award. I understand their reception of this award about as much as President Obama's.

One consequence of this past election? The Nobel Peace Prize.

(Cartoon by Joe Heller - http://www.hellertoon.com/main.html)

Now to change the topic just a bit... calling all Pennsylvanians!! We may not have a Gubernatiorial or Presidential race this year, but we do have one of the most crucial elections in our lifetime.

Right now, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is evenly divided with 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans with one seat open. The election on November 3rd will determine which party holds the majority on the bench.

Regardless of your party affiliation, I ask you to consider which party you want holding the majority on the highest Court in our Commonwealth. It will either be Republican or it will be Democrat. The results of this election will affect us for a decade and possibly a generation. A Democratic majority on our high court will undoubtedly lead to a liberal majority and liberal decisions from the bench. Do you want a court that interprets the Constitution or one that legislates from the bench?

Judge Joan Orie Melvin is the Republican candidate. But she is a conservative first. Please do your research and vote for her on November 3rd. We must keep a conservative majority who will interpret the Constitution on our Supreme Court!

Further, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will undergo redistricting after next years census. Our General Assembly is in charge of re-drawing our districts via a 5 member Legislative Reapportionment Commission. This Commission will consist of 2 D's and 2 R's. If these 4 individuals cannot agree on a 5th individual to complete the committee, this individual is appointed by our Supreme Court.

Guess what? The party controlling the Supreme Court will be the party who will have the majority on this Commission. If Democrats control the Commission, they will be able to effectively "erase" multiple consistently Republican districts from our map, leading to an even greater Democratic delegation from Pennsylvania representing us in Washington.

Elections have consequences. Think about it. Vote on November 3rd...

Oh, and by the way, our Superior Court hears more cases each year than any other appelate court in the country... I encourage you to research these Conservative Republican candidates for Superior Court of Pennsylvania: Sallie Mundy, Temp Smith, Judy Olson, and Paula Ott.

Operation Enduring Freedom

Eight years ago today, President George W. Bush addressed the nation from the Treaty Room of the White House.

Operation Enduring Freedom had begun. Our B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers, F-14 Tomcats, F/A-18 Hornets, and Tomahawk cruise missiles led the offensive against Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the terrorist network harbored in Afghanistan.

Today, General Stanley McChrystal leads our operations in Afghanistan, commanding our 68,000 troops (plus 100,000 Nato forces). He has requested an additional 40,000 troops from our current administration in order to win this fight against terrorism.

However, his request has been stalled for over a month as the White House studies our current strategy.

Our Vice President supports a new strategy calling for the use of drone missile strikes and special forces ops as our primary offensive. Gen. McChrystal has stated he will reject this strategy, saying it would lead to "Chaos-istan."

774 American soldiers have given their lives thus far in Afghanistan. This number includes 8 US troops killed last weekend (while we discussed strategy) in an Al Qaeda attack against a military outpost near Pakistan. This was the deadliest attack in more than a year... and of President Obama's term.


For a President who campaigned on the need for us to focus our military efforts in Afghanistan, I for one don't understand the delay.

Could it be that we have forgotten why we are in Afghanistan? Just in case, here are some highlights of the speech that introduced this conflict to the world.

President George W. Bush, October 7, 2001:

More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps; hand over leaders of the al Qaeda network; and return all foreign nationals, including American citizens, unjustly detained in your country. None of these demands were met. And now the Taliban will pay a price. By destroying camps and disrupting communications, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans.

Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places. Our military action is also designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice.

We did not ask for this mission, but we will fulfill it. The name of today's military operation is Enduring Freedom. We defend not only our precious freedoms, but also the freedom of people everywhere to live and raise their children free from fear.

In the months ahead, our patience will be one of our strengths -- patience with the long waits that will result from tighter security; patience and understanding that it will take time to achieve our goals; patience in all the sacrifices that may come.

Today, those sacrifices are being made by members of our Armed Forces who now defend us so far from home, and by their proud and worried families. A Commander-in-Chief sends America's sons and daughters into a battle in a foreign land only after the greatest care and a lot of prayer. We ask a lot of those who wear our uniform. We ask them to leave their loved ones, to travel great distances, to risk injury, even to be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice of their lives. They are dedicated, they are honorable; they represent the best of our country. And we are grateful.

To all the men and women in our military -- every sailor, every soldier, every airman, every coastguardsman, every Marine -- I say this: Your mission is defined; your objectives are clear; your goal is just. You have my full confidence, and you will have every tool you need to carry out your duty.

The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail.


Gen. McChrystal has said that failure to engage in a troop surge will lead to failure in Afghanistan. So as our government wavers, tires, and falters, it leads one to wonder, will peace and freedom prevail?

You can listen to this speech here: http://fallen.wingslikeaneagle.com/mfiles/20011007-8.a.ram

Some history on nationalized healthcare

When I was younger, I remember hearing people talk about euthanasia and thinking, "How do youth in Asia fit into that sentence? That makes absolutely no sense." Today I know that euthanasia makes just about as much sense now as it sounded to me then. Yet, it is part of the history of nationalized healthcare.

The debate over a nationalized health care program seems to have overrun every aspect of society. Every news outlet is talking about it, every office is talking about it, every family is talking about it. Sometimes I wonder if there is anything else going on in our nation or the world? Yet, just for the record, I will weigh in on this overwhelming subject.

There are definitely improvements that could be made to our current health care system. Choice and competition seem to have become the mantra of the battle cry of liberals fighting for what many affectionately call, "ObamaCare." I agree with them. We do need choice and competition. Allow us to buy health insurance across state lines. Surely that would breed the best form of choice and competition this debate could offer?

Instead, the choice and competition we're being offered will cover illegals, pay for abortions (yesterday afternoon the Senate Finance Committee voted down an amendment to the health care bill proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch ensuring federal funding would not be used for abortions), and force you to buy your own insurance, get on ObamaCare, or be fined. There are your choices and I don't like that competition.

European and other nations with socialized medicine have been hailed by the Obama administration and the main stream media for their effectiveness. I've heard the names of a lot of countries thrown out there, but there's one that, strangely, I haven't heard anyone mention yet.

Before I explain, allow me to quote a paragraph from an article published in the Chicago Tribune yesterday.

• "When an entire major party has excused itself from meaningful debate and a thoughtful U.S. senator like Orrin Hatch no longer finds it important to make sense and an up-and-comer like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty attacks the president for giving a speech telling schoolchildren to work hard in school and get good grades, one starts to wonder if the country wouldn't be better off without them and if Republicans should be cut out of the health-care system entirely and simply provided with aspirin and hand sanitizer. Thirty-two percent of the population identifies with the GOP, and if we cut off health care to them, we could probably pay off the deficit in short order."

If the government controls health care, the government controls the health care you receive. God forbid the day would come, but if liberals are already suggesting Republicans be "cut out," think of where government run health care could lead...

Religious profiling, you're a Christian, oh, you just get aspirin and hand sanitizer.

Ethnic profiling, you're a Jew, oh, sorry, you just get aspirin and hand sanitizer.

Political profiling, you're a Republican, oh, sorry, you just get aspirin and hand sanitizer.

Age profiling, you're 76, oh, sorry, you're no longer useful to society, you just get aspirin and hand sanitizer.

Which brings me to the country whose nationalized healthcare we haven't been hearing about.

In 1880, this people group accepted socialized medicine as part of an "anti socialization" plan which promoted the thought that a little socialization would prohibit complete socialization of their society. Doctors were no longer employed by individuals, they were employed by their government.

In 1935, this government passed a law calling for forced sterilization which allowed for abortion up to the sixth month of pregnancy. Shortly thereafter, a euthanasia program was implemented in an attempt to remove the remainder of the government's unwanted citizens. This led to experimentation in lethal altitude and ice baths (to name a very few).

You probably know by now that this nation was Nazi Germany.

The ultimate result of nationalized healthcare in Germany: "justified" torture and euthanasia.

To say that this is an extreme example is erroneous. Do you really think that the generation who allowed socialized medicine in 1880 thought that it would be used to justify scientific experimentation with the lives of those it deemed unworthy of life? Do you really think they thought it would turn into a license to kill? I don't.

We are people, just as they were. We are capable of the same evil. Maybe not in the US today, but what about 50 years from now? Are we willing to gamble with the government running health care?

When men like Garrison Keillor, the popular host of a show many of us enjoy (or used to enjoy), Prarie Home Companion, "Where women are strong and men are beautiful," are already suggesting cutting Republicans out, where do you think it will lead?

If government runs our healthcare system, they will have the ultimate choice in the care you receive. Is that the choice and competition you want?

Even if Mr. Keillor was joking, I don't think this is a laughing matter. But in fairness to him, here's the rest of his article:

• "It's time to dump the dead-end issues that have wasted too much time already. Old men shouldn't be allowed to doze off at the switch and muck up the works for the young who will have to repair the damage. Get over yourselves. Your replacements have arrived, and you should think about them now and then. Enough with the shrieking. Pass health-care reform."

By the way, those "dead-end issues" he mentions? "Abortion and prayer in the schools and pornography and gays." Still like the prospect of nationalized healthcare? You can read the rest of his article here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0930keillorsep30,0,1198390.column.

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. The next time you hear some country lauded for its nationalized (socialized) medicine, ask yourself why they don't talk about its "success" in Nazi Germany.

(For a more detailed look at socialized medicine and its rise in Germany, this is an excellent article on the subject: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/)