About Me

Name: Mark S. Rader
Email: marksrader@gmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

The Reality of CEO Salaries

Posted by Mark S. Rader on Friday, November 13, 2009 9:00:00 AM
With the fervor over Health-care reform and so many justifying the government take-over by pointing to the need to control executive salaries I thought I would take a look at capitalism and compare a few salaries of the highest paid people period in the US in 2008. Look at these comparisons:

Aubrey K. McClendon of Chesapeake Energy Corporation was paid $112,000,000, while Tiger Woods of aaaa Tiger Woods INC. earned $110,000,000.

Lawrence J. Ellison of Oracle Corporation was paid $ 84,000,000, while Will Smith of well...  Will Smith earned $ 80,000,000.

Richard C. Adkerson of Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. was paid $77,000,000, while Johnny Depp made just under that with $72,000,000.

In fact if professional athletes and Hollywood stars were listed with corporate executives in 2008 people like Simon Cowell $75,000,000, Eddie Murphy $55,000,000, Mike Myers, $55,000,000, Ryan Seacrest $49,000,000, Kobe Bryant $45,000,000, Michael Jordan $45,000,000, and David Beckham $42,000,000, would all be listed in the top 15 wage earners. Will Smith would be #5 and Johnny Depp would be #7.
 
So the argument goes,  executives are taking money from the workers by taking such exorbitant salaries. What about these stars?  Will Smith' s $80,000,000 is only $20,000,000 less than his last movie earned total. How do you think that impacted the people who work behind the camera or those who invested in the movie?  What about Tiger Woods... how many people work for him?  In contrast Chesapeake Energy employed thousands of people and had net revenues of almost $12 Billion.
 
As for Health-care... the first health-care provider on the list is 48th and the CEO makes just over $20,000,000 a year... right up there with Charlie Sheen who made $21,000,000. in 2008.  Also the first Health Insurer on the list is ranked 53rd and their CEO makes less than 20 of the top paid athletes including two boxers, three golfers, five race-car drivers, five basketball players, a tennis player and one soccer player.
 
So let me get this straight... do those who hate capitalism really believe that there should be a law making it illegal for Oscar De La Hoya and Tiger Woods to make this kind of money?  I had someone say that to me just this last weekend. Can you imagine the impact on tax revenue alone when these top wage earners on Wall Street and Main Street fall to a lower tax bracket?
 
Honestly, the ability for an ordinary person to do extraordinary things in their lives is what has made us the most prosperous nation on earth. It has enabled the prosperity of other nations and made the general welfare of the world better.  The reality is that the world's poorest would gladly change places with the poorest people in the US.  As for how generous these top paid capitalist are, well ultimately that is between them and God... but I think anti-capitalists might be very surprised about where that money goes and how many people it affects.  It should also be said that many CEO salaries are dominated by stock options. That is they are given the "option" to purchase future shares of stock at 2008 prices.  This means on day 1 these options are worth nothing. They can then, on some future date, buy and sell those stocks for the residual. If the stock goes down they will likely never exercise those options. On the other hand, Hollywood stars and star athletes they get paid in cold-hard-cash and will likely make more than anyone in the end.
 
The way I see it, if you "limit" what a man can make you destroy his ability to dream, you remove his incentive to achieve.
 
Read More Like This At:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Anatomy of Meaningless Agreements

Posted by Mark S. Rader on Friday, July 10, 2009 12:00:00 AM
I have written before about my experiences as a campaign worker for the Clinton's years ago back in Arkansas. From time-to-time I am reminded of a conversation I had with a campaign staff member, about what responsibility a candidate has to his/her constituents. I remember clearly how he explained to me that it was "...not what you do. it is what you appear to do..." that is important. Things have not changed much in politics in the last 25 years. President Obama appears to have done a great job in negotiating with the Russians on nuclear proliferation and also with the Health Industry on cost savings for Medicaid and Medicare. The problem is... these agreements are truly meaningless.
 
Agreement with the Russians
 
When I heard about the Russian agreement I was taken aback to the comment that the Russian President made when Obama was declared the winner of the election. I wrote about it then because I thought is was so odd, even the press that was reporting it thought his statements might have been tongue-in-cheek. He started by talking about Obama's inexperience and then talked about how "attractive" a candidate he was and how "easy" it will be to work with him (giggle...giggle). Now this would not have been so odd except he and his associates seemed to be enjoying a very funny inside joke as they grinned and laughed their way through the question. I wrote at the time that it was clear to me they felt he was going to be a push-over. In looking at this wonderful agreement it seems to me they must still be laughing. The agreement does little for us but everything for them. It is an agreement that appears to be reducing their weapons arsenals but in reality they have not had the money or the manpower to maintain those weapons anyway. It has been reported that much of Russia's weapon systems are inactive or in a general state of disrepair. Essentially, they are giving up things they do not have anyway. We have to remember that one of the key's of winning the cold war was keeping the Soviets under pressure to spend money they did not have to try and maintain and upgrade their expensive weapon systems. Well, that job just got easier for them under this agreement and without putting them at any additional risk. The thing the Russians really want is to eliminate or reduce our Missile Defense Systems. Why? Because this makes it much easier for them to use their now smaller fleet of missiles if they ever want to take action against us or one of our allies. The last four US Presidents have refused to do that but I think the Russians think Obama will be much "easier" to deal with on this issue especially if they are willing to sign meaningless agreements that make him look good.
 
Hospitals 150 Billion Dollar Lie
 
The total cost of something is what it costs, that is the way math works. It might indeed be an inconvenient truth but if the Hospital pays for it... if the Doctor pays for it... or if the Government pays for it... the bottom-line is; we pay for it. Why? Because the Hospital, the Doctor, the Laboratory, the Clinic, the Nursing Home, and the Government all depend on us giving them our money to stay in business. The only way they can make any money is by getting us to give them ours to cover the cost of services rendered. There are no multiple sources of income here. Having said that, how do you think they will get the $150 billion that the Hospitals have agreed not to bill Medicaid and Medicare? All this announced "Agreement" will do is move the liability for cost away from the Government and on to the average American. In other words... if they can't raise your taxes they will conspire with others to charge you more for health services. Again, things cost what they cost. Believe me if HCA Hospitals felt that reducing the cost of services to medicaid patients was going to make them more money they would have done it long ago. Ultimately HCA is seeing dollar signs because they want to become one of the Governments primary providers under Obomacare just like Kaiser was chomping at the bit for Hilarycare.
 
The reality is, under this agreement these Hospitals will actually be freed from depending on the Government to set profitable rates for services and will now be able to pass the additional costs on to the average American who is not on Medicaid or Medicare. Don't get me wrong... they were doing this already but now they have permission to do it even more and to the tune of $150 billion dollars more. Just like Rich Umbdenstock, CEO of HCA said after the meeting, "..this represents coverage for all, paid for by all...". I think he meant paid for by you.
 
The refrain of "..its not what you do but what you appear to do..." has become a successful political policy for many politicians. I mean if you actually DO something like... fight a war on terror... someone might get hurt and you might get blamed. Its much better to identify a problem that is not really a problem and then pretend you fixed it. That way one can take credit without taking action and without taking risks.
 
By-the-way, better stay away from HCA Hospitals... cause you are gonna be paying big for this!
 
Read More Like This At:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Tell-Tell Signs of Ignorance or Deceit

Posted by Mark S. Rader on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:00:00 AM
Obama's approach to the problems in Honduras where the Honduran President was taking steps to circumvent that countries Constitution, is very telling. It shows that Obama is either far more unintelligent than we all thought or he is indeed more supportive of social democrat dogma than in the process' of liberty, freedom, or democracy.

Ignorance

As usual the major press outlets are reporting this story all wrong, or at least willfully shadowing the facts by calling the recent actions in Honduras a "coup". They would like us to believe that the president of Honduras was over thrown by an anti-government rebellion. But the reality is that the actions that took place in Honduras were not a coup but were actions to preserve the Constitution of Honduras. The actions were ordered by the Supreme Court of that nation with the full support of its Congress. Even the Honduran President's own political party supports him being removed from office. These actions are no more a coup than were the troops that were sent to Little Rock Central High school in 1957.

When faced with the lawful execution of a constitutional democracy Obama responds with support for the demagogue who was attempting to in-sight a real coup against Honduras's Constitution. While I can understand why the UN would support the rise of a dictator in Honduras, why would Obama do this? Well he is either, way over his head and this is just another example of his inexperience, or he is doing this on purpose.

Deceit

Many people wrongly believe that democracies can not foster dictatorships even when faced with the historic record showing this is simply not true. The only thing that stands in the way of the rise of a dictator in most democracies is its Constitution and laws. This may be why Obama said a few years ago that the biggest "problem" with the Constitution of the united states it that it contains too many things the government "can't do". Adolf Hitler's became Chancellor of Germany legally, but the way he exercised and maintained power was completely illegal under German law. It was the federal judges ignoring the laws, that made it possible for Hitler to become the dictator over the German democracy. This is exactly what the Honduran Supreme Court was acting to prevent.

The sad truth is that if Obama believes that an individual or even a popular group of individuals are perfectly within their rights to trample the Constitution of a democratic nation what might he be willing to do to this nation utilizing his popularity and his filibuster proof majority? It is so much easier for a Dictator when he doesn't have to explain himself or answer to the people on the street. Look how easy it has been for Iran now that they control the information leaving that nation.

Let's pray that Obama is just inexperienced and not a true believer in the actions he is supporting. Let's hope he is simply stumbling around as our President. But I must confess how alarming it is that we elected a man, who in his public statements, avoids the use of words like liberty, freedom, and democracy.
 
Read More Like This At:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama is right... we could be in trouble in about 117 billion years!

Posted by Mark S. Rader on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:00:00 AM

After Obama's speech  on energy last week I decided to actually do a little research on CO2 and I found out that Obama, Gore and the left-wing environmentalist weirdos may all be right after all.  Here is some Wikapedia information on CO2's.  There are a couple of things that jump out at me:

1) CO2 has no liquid state so it is impossible for it to "contaminate our water" as Obama stated.

2) It is absolutely required for plant life on earth.

3) The current level (after 4.5 billion years) of CO2 is 387ppm... it is not toxic until it reaches 10,000ppm so that means in 117 billion years it might... "pollute our air" as Obama said this week.

4) The levels go lower during Spring and Summer because of plant life being in its green season.  Wouldn't it be more realistic to spend our money on more trees and thicker lawns than on higher energy taxes?  I mean if they really wanted to make a difference?
 
Obama is either not as smart as we think or he is lying to us.  Could be that he and the leftist weridos want us to think that CO2 is Carbon Monoxide instead of Carbon Dioxide.  The scary thing is they may even believe it themselves.
 
*************************
 
Carbon Dioxide: (chemical formula: CO2) is a chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state.
 
Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars which may either be consumed again in respiration or used as the raw material to produce polysaccharides such as starch and cellulose, proteins and the wide variety of other organic compounds required for plant growth and development. It is produced during respiration by plants, and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms that depend on living and decaying plants for food, either directly or indirectly. It is, therefore, a major component of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is generated as a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels or the burning of vegetable matter, among other chemical processes. Large amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted from volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as hot springs and geysers and by the dissolution of carbonates in crustal rocks.
 
As of March 2009[update], carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 387 ppm by volume.Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the change of the seasons, driven primarily by seasonal plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere. Concentrations of carbon dioxide fall during the northern spring and summer as plants consume the gas, and rise during the northern autumn and winter as plants go dormant, die and decay. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared.
 
Carbon dioxide has no liquid state. At 1 atm the gas deposits directly to a solid at temperatures below -78 °C and the solid sublimes directly to a gas above -78 °C. In its solid state, carbon dioxide is commonly called dry ice. CO2 is an acidic oxide: an aqueous solution turns litmus from blue to pink. It is the anhydride of carbonic acid, an acid which is unstable and is known to exist only in aqueous solution. (CO2 + H2O  H2CO3) CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.

Read More Like This At:


 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Open Letter to My Legislators on Coverage vs. Care

Posted by Mark S. Rader on Monday, June 15, 2009 12:00:00 AM
I wrote recently about the Health Care Reform debate currently raging across the country and what is needed to really fix "forever" the systemic problems with both insurance and/or government run health care.  Here is the note I sent to my congressman and Senators on the matter.   Where do you want your money going?  For coverage or for care? Remember... coverage is NOT care! 
 
Dear Legislator,
 
Being someone who has lost my insurance recently and being put in the position of finding coverage I am realizing that health coverage is NOT health care and that trading one socialized system (insurance) for another (government) dose nothing for my bottom-line.  I want to be self insured.  I want to be able to save money for health care (not coverage) tax free.  I want my health savings account to rollover year to year without losing it. I want my health savings account balances to be passed on to my heirs for their health saving accounts. I want the purchasing power for health care (not coverage) to be in my hands not the government's or the insurance industry's. I want the taxes paid by the medical industry as a whole, segregated to pay for the health care of the poor.
 
In short, I want the government to get out of the way and help me to become self insured... to help every American to become self insured.  Trading one bureaucracy (the insurance companies) for another bureaucracy (the government) helps no one and will only continue to break the free market and force expenditures higher and higher for the same level of care.
 
Please, Please, Please, support health savings accounts that do not require one to have health insurance.  As the Canadian Supreme Court ruled for Canadians... "coverage is NOT care".
Read More Like This At:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Reality About Right-Wing Anti-Semitism

Posted by Mark S. Rader on Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:00:00 AM
James W. Von Brunn, who opened fire inside the US National Holocaust Museum this week, is defiantly an anti-Semite. However to categorize him as "right-wing", inferring that the religious right is anti-Semitic, is purely leftist rhetoric and is indeed Christian bigotry to its core.
 
The reality is that the vast majority of the religious-right are among the most vocal and ardent supporters of the Jewish people and the Jewish nation. Every political extreme has it's crazy anti-Semites, Rev. Wright and Joseph Farrakhan are two who are extreme left politically. Having grown up in the south I was never really exposed to and was actually shocked  by the anti-Semites I witnessed on a visit to Detroit Michigan during a United Auto Workers street rally I stumbled upon in 1989.  Since then I have seen it in many people but none of them serious Christians.
 
Think about it... the founder of Christianity was a Jew, all the apostles were Jews... Christianity is indeed a Jewish religion.  If someone claims to be a serious Christian and at the same time hates Jews they are extremely dysfunctional in their beliefs. The Jew, Jesus of Nazareth's primary teaching was love for all men and the only hatred that he tolerated was the hatred of oppressive sin.  People who hate Jews are just haters regardless of their political bent.  But for the record, the Conservative right is a far stronger supporter of the nation of Israel than is the liberal left in this country.  The press is going to try and convince you that anti-Semitic and right-wing walk hand-in-hand... but that is simply a lie.
 
By-the-way, we do not need a special "hate crimes" law to send this guy to the electric chair... he is a murderer and the first degree murder laws should do just fine.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Reality of Obama's Health Care

Posted by Mark S. Rader on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:00:00 AM
The political elites in this nation have been pushing this idea that there are 50 million Americans who do not have access to health care.  As usual you have to focus hard on the words that are being used to try and understand what they mean when they say that.  Are there really 50 million Americans who do not have access to health care?  No... every person in the United States has access to health care today...what they are saying is that there are 50 million Americans who do not have health insurance.  Anyone who can walk into a hospital emergency room has almost immediate access to health-care.  So why would we be told otherwise when the reality is that we in the United States have better access to health care than any industrialized nation.
 
In order to highlight my point I will refer to a posting on the whitehouse.gov website.  The Obama administration refers to "coverage" as the goal not actual health care. 

The Administration believes that comprehensive health reform should:

 

  • Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
  • Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
  • Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
  • Invest in prevention and wellness
  • Improve patient safety and quality of care
  • Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
  • Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
  • End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions


This point is important because under any plan that uses "insurance" as the solution for the so-called health care crisis is doomed and actually unethical.  This is exactly what the current Senate (Dodd/Kennedy Health Care) and the House (Tri-Committee Health Reform) bills do. They are both focused on getting you covered... care is less the concern. Insurance exists not to give you health care but only coverage.  Insurance works best when you only get coverage and don't use that coverage. The reality is that even today where insurance is involved, health care is completely socialized. That is, it is designed to get those who do not use the coverage to pay for the health care of those who do use the coverage.  Now they toss you bones, a doctors visit here or a physical exam, but even then they set deductibles and co-pays so high that most people rarely ever get insurance to cover much of anything. 

According to Consumer Reports.org the health insurance industry makes over $11 billion dollars in profits a year.  Now as a Conservative I do not have a problem with any company making profits and doing everything it can to make those profits.  The problem I do have is our politicians treating us like we are stupid.  Health care in this nation is already socialized... perhaps I should say it is a privately-socialized system.  The skyrocketing increase in health care costs is because of the private-socialized system built by the government and insurance companies and any involvement of insurance companies in a solutions will be its doom.
 
The insurance companies have used the so-called "reasonable and customary" costing system. This is a system that has forced the cost of health care up over 6.9% a year for the last 30 years.  You see, reasonable and customary charges are what insurance pays.  Who sets reasonable and customary?  The medical industry... today's price increase is tomorrows reasonable and customary charge.  The medical industry can raise their rates knowing full well that next year insurance will pay that amount. This causes systemic increases every year with no impact from the free market. By allowing this system to exist the insurance companies have shot themselves in the foot and in a short 30 years have destroyed market forces in health care.
 
The insurance companies have responded to this failed system by using so-called negotiated rates.  Negotiated rates have further destroyed the free market system because no one knows what things really cost anymore.  One person may pay $2000 for an MRI while another may pay $250.  This is due to a negotiated rates.  The problem is... the one person who pays $2000 is only paying that because the person with the negotiated rate only payed $250 and must be subsadized. So what is the real cost of an MRI?
 
It is these forces and the removal of the free market that have created the system we have today.  A system where Doctors coming to your home to examine you in the 1950's was traded for today where you are pulled together with other sick people in a waiting room for an hour, exposed to who knows what while getting to see your DR for about 4.5 minutes.  Why did Doctors stop coming to our homes?  Because we stopped paying the bills... they didn't have to please us anymore only the insurance company and now they will only have to please Uncle Sam.  I am not attacking the Doctors here anyone with a 3rd grade understanding of business should know that profits will drive actions. Its not the Doctors fault.
 
According to the National Coalition on Health Care, the industry as a whole cost us over $2.4 trillion dollars in 2008. The insurance premiums payed alot of that, much was payed by co-pays and deductables but when it was all said and done the insurance companies had over $11 billion left over.  The question becomes... how much health care could have that $11 billion bought us?  Like I said before, the insurance companies deserve to make as much money as they can... the problem is the system.  Any so-called solution to this crisis that includes the insurance industry is no worse than the worst socialized system imagined by every conservative talk-show host. If the government is running it or if an insurance company is running it "coverage" is not health care and it will equally and continually break the free market in the health industry.
 
Don't forget that even if your employer pays for your health premiums, $6,000 to 12,000 a year, its money that would be in your weekly paycheck otherwise.  What would happen if your local Doctors and Hospitals suddenly realized that you were paying the bills and that you were the one truly deciding who you would see and what you would pay for?  I venture to say that not only would prices fall, Doctors would be providing services like home visits very quickly and those 4.5 minute face-to-face encounters would become more relational and life-long.  Hospitals would get far more creative in their offerings to you and your family when half the beds are empty because you are the one calling the shots.
 
There is a solution to this problem but I must warn you, it will never happen.  If the government really wanted to help "we the people" the first thing they would do is get the health insurance companies out of the equation.  If employers really wanted to help their employees they would take those premiums and put them back in our pockets.
 
I am not advocating a system that has no governmental involvement.  There is a role for government in health care.  That role is to provide the ability for the citizens of this nation to save money to be used for real health care, tax-free.  Additionally the government should create health savings accounts that are not tied to insurance coverage as they are today. Further those health savings accounts should role over year to year gaining value if not used and then passed to heirs upon death.  These health care savings account would be required to invest in an insured stable instrument.  The poor would get deposits from the government made directly into their heath savings accounts based on their income, so they too would have money for care. Remember, these monies could only be used for a qualified medical, assisted living, or nursing home provider.  The bottom-line is: a system must exist that puts the spending in the hands of the patient and it must not be setup in a way that compels people to spend-it or lose-it, like reimbursement accounts are today. Over the years and decades these accounts would build in value and the majority of people would be solely self-insured.
 
There are many details to be worked out... such as catastrophic care would have to be subsidized by the government somehow for the short-term.  The money of people who die without heirs would be reclaimed and distributed into the system to cover the poor and visitors.  Other pieces of this puzzle would be to either subsidize or eliminate the need for liability (malpractice insurance) for Doctors and Hospitals. Also to further reduce the cost of health care for the poor, allow Doctors and Hospitals to write-off, dollar for dollar, care given to the poor against their incomes.  The ideal situation would be Doctors and Hospitals paying not income taxes at all.  This would give the poor the best health care available. Taxes payed by the health care industry should go directly back into the system to fund health saving accounts ... not the general fund. 
 
It doesn't take a mathematician to see the power of the bell curve here and how it would eventually create a "free-market" centergy that would make health care worries a thing of the past. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Using Judges to Grab Power

Posted by Mark S. Rader on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:00:00 AM

Fully 1/3 of the historic Nuremberg trials, held after the surrender of Germany at the end World War II, were spent trying the Judges who cleared a path for Hitlers most horrific abuses of power.  These judges used their power re-interpreting the laws, and/or ignoring them all-together. The bottomline is that judges helped Hitler avoid completely the requirements of Germany's judicial system. These actions gave the Third Reich limitless power, and voided all accountability to any law. For 60 years, in response to Fascist fears, the elite in the United States have echoed the refrain that it "...could never happen here.". It is happening here and it is worth taking note the extreme differences each political party has on the role Judges should play in American governance.

Looking at the two primary parties in this nation, we can clearly see how each party views the role of federal Judges... specifically Supreme Court Judges. For the last 30 years it has become clear that under the right circumstances and with the right set of judges a relatively small political movement could actually bypass the legislatures and the electorates of all 50 states. They could even bypass the Congress of the United States in order to impose their will on every American.  This is exactly what the Nazi's did.

Battle-lines have now been draw between those who want Judges to simply enforce the Constitution and those who want Judges to mold the Constitution through liberal interpretation.  Obama has now nominated the first of perhaps three new judges in the next four years. This will have a profound impact on the future of the United States and the Constitution's separation of powers. Historically liberal judges are the one's who have an inflated view of the power of judges to improvise on Constitutional issues. Several times in recent history liberal judges have said publicly that the Constitution is not the only measure that federal judges should use in deciding constitutional questions. These judges believe that they should evaluate legal systems world-wide to decide the outcome and the current nominee thinks she should use her gender and racial experiences to "make policy". This is a very universalist attitude, but it is unconstitutional.

As the new nomanee, Sonia Sotomayor, walks through the process of her nomination, it is important that our elected officals understand what can happen when a judiciary moves out of control. The German example is sobering, especially if you consider the fact that the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House. The constitution forbids judges from legislating from the bench, but with liberal judges enforcing the Constitution they could easily misuse this power.  The Constitution require that judges enforce the Constitutionality of the law or action of the government.  Used properly, these powers should prevent a Hitler instead of supporting one.

Nominating judges that honor and respect the Constitution is very important. The reality is that Barack Obama has not proven he is willing to do that. Democrats support strongly the idea of using the courts to force social philosophies that they could not otherwise get approved using the democratic process available to them.  An example is Roe v. Wade and how many believe that it should have been a states rights issue, not a federal one. The Nazi Brown-Shirts were in the exact same situation in 1939
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Reality of Dr. George Tiller and Scott Roeder

Posted by Mark S. Rader on Monday, June 01, 2009 12:00:00 AM
Dr George Tiller, a noted fanatical late-term pro-abortionist, and Mr. Scott Roeder a largely un-noteworthy fanatical anti-abortionist met face-to-face on Sunday.  When the smoke had cleared Dr. George Tiller was dead and Mr. Scott Roeder was under arrest. I don't have a lot to say about this except that both of these men were cut from the same cloth. Both decided in their lives that they knew better than God what the outcome should be in another's life.
 
Playing God has always been one of man's greatest vices.  This tragic legacy left by both of these men is the perfect example of this reality.  Dr. George Tiller had killed thousands of babies who if fully born would have been perfectly healthy and would have grown to be perfectly healthy adults.  He did this for money, he made millions, and he did it for a twisted sort of fame that otherwise this un-extraordinary man would have never been able to garner with the force of his life or personality.  He was not a hero but an Adolf Eichmann of our age and his work was playing God each day as he got to decide who lived and who died.  Mr. Scott Roeder was also an un-extraordinary man who like the Lee Harvey Oswald's of the world would have been invisible to history had it not been for his decision to play God.  He is a man who thinks that God is so small that it takes a nobody from rural Kansas to tell God what another man's outcome should be.
 
The ethics of abortion go far deeper than these two men.  We must ask ourselves what kind of a society have we created when thousands of women decide in their lives that the BEST choice they can make is to abort their babies.  Doesn't freedom of choice go far beyond abortion? We must ask ourselves what is a government for the people and by the people doing to make abortion the least-best choice for most women? Are not we as a people playing God everyday? Are not these two men just extreme examples of who we see in the mirror?
 
A noted actor who played God in a few movies was asked by a member of the press; what it was like to "play God".  He responded, "I Don't play God. I am not that good of an actor."  Those are wise words for this and every generation. The reality is that both of these men were self-centered demagogues who see themselves as God and have proven themselves to be unworthy to the task and thousands of lives hung in the balance. We can only hope that Mr Roeder's outcome is just as final as Dr Tiller's was... but that is up to God.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Reality of Hate Crimes

Posted by Mark S. Rader on Friday, May 15, 2009 12:00:00 AM

Here it comes again... parsing hate the liberal way. H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement and Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed recently and now will move to the Senate for consideration. There are many things that are just odd about legislation of this kind but I will take a look at two pieces of this complex issues by doing something that someday might be illegal for me to do and that is question the reality behind the bill. Who is this going to protect and what are they going to be protected from?

For Who

The precept of this bill is that it extends "protections" to groups that need them. Some of the groups that are listed in the bill are groups defining themselves by their race, sexual behaviour, and/or gender identity confusion. Like so many legislation's of this type it is really not very comprehensive. Instead of being inclusive it is very exclusive in nature. I mean if we accept the precept that there are folks in our society that are not protected under current laws it seems only the American thing to do to make sure they get protected. Yet when we look at this bill we see that there are a lot of folks left-off this bill seemingly not deserving of like protections.

Here is a short list of people not included in the bill for protection: the mentally retarded, the deaf, the blind, the mute, those born with physical defects, those with Tourette syndrome, amputees, pregnant women, fat school children. I listed these groups because if anyone in our society needs protections under the law these do. These groups are at risk also of not always being able to defend themselves? So shouldn't one think that they too should be listed in this bill?

If we are talking about violent crime against the groups listed in HR 1913 how can we morally justify "special" protection for a perfectly healthy and normal man who participates in homosexual activity being murdered by someone who "hates" such behaviour, while at the same-time give no "special" protection to a pregnant woman who is killed and her baby cut from her stomach by someone who "hates" her because she can have babies while they can not?

Sadly both of these things happen in our society and this bill seems to say it's OK to kill that pregnant woman and cut her baby out of her stomach but it is not OK to kill a strong, healthy man ... Right? No that is not correct, any rational person realizes that both perpetrators would rightly be prosecuted equally under currently existing laws. Both of these individuals are already protected under our laws and only a fool would suggest otherwise. The reality is, however this bill has nothing to do with protecting anyone from violent crime but has everything to do with controlling individual thoughts, feelings and beliefs.

From What

HR 1913 is a bill fashioned after several legislation's that have already passed in other countries like Sweden and Canada. In both of these nations once the bills passed the political elites immediately began using these laws to attack and destroy those who speak out on issues they personally care about but are considered to be not politically correct. In Sweden a pastor was arrested and sent to jail for simply teaching passages from the Old and New Testaments that are critical of homosexual behaviour. In Canada a conservative thinker and author was prosecuted for his writings suggesting that many of the traditions and beliefs taught in Islam are discriminatory against some races and religions. Now both of these prosecutions were overturned but the point of this type of legislation is not to send people to jail but instead to destroy people financially and silence them politically.

Imagine if you will a time in the United States were you say or write something about your political or religious beliefs and are then prosecuted for what you said or wrote. Imagine how expensive it would be for you to defend yourself against the federal government and its resources. If you manage to get out from under the charge you will either be bankrupt or so deeply in debt that your family would never be the same. Your future and the future of your children would be forever changed. There is not doubt this will have a dampening effect on our freedom of speech and our freedom of religion in the nation.

Primarily conservative or religious thought and speech will be under attack. We will only be allowed to think, feel and believe what the government allows us to think, feel and believe. The reality is, the very definition of Liberty will forever be changed. Liberty will not be the right to think, feel and believe what we want. Liberty will become the right to abort our unborn children and our right to send dirty or sexy e-mail without our friends and family finding out. Laws like this are intended to drive our Liberties in to back allies and dark basements. the days of practicing our Liberties openly in the light of day will be over.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Reality of Obama's Reputation

Posted by Mark S. Rader on Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:00:00 AM

It has been less than 48 hours since Mr. Obama was elected President and we are already seeing signs that foreign leaders think he is going to be a light-weight and perhaps even a push-over. Sadly the worst fears and warnings vocalized by the Republicans during the election of Obama’s inexperience and Paris Hilton-esc “star-quality” are indeed showing signs of being truer than we might think.

Today the AP reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sent his congratulations to Obama on his election as President of the United States. They go on to report that this is”the first time an Iranian leader has offered such wishes to a U.S. president-elect since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.” At almost the same moment the AP also reported that the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who was at the time meeting with the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, had sarcastically commented to the Russian President that Obama “... has everything needed in order to reach deals with him: he's young, handsome and even tanned."  I am sure Obama supporters and indeed the AP would love to believe that these are signs of how easy it will be for Obama to start and maintain dialog with nations that we currently have strained relationships with, but I see them as something completely different.

Iran’s singular goal at this time is to develop nuclear weapons so it can dominate the Middle East, eliminate Israel, and ultimately force Sharia Law world-wide. Are we to believe that suddenly with Obama’s appearance Iran will change its mind? Or is it more realistic to believe that they feel now that Obama will not have the will or the ability to keep them from their singular desire?

In recent months it has become clear that Russia’s singular desire has become recapturing its Soviet Union glory days. It has already moved militarily against Georgia in an attempt to re-expand its borders. It is becoming clearer that Dmitry Medvedev is a puppet of Putin as he works to change the laws in Russia to allow for totalitarian government. Silvio Berlusconi’s comments are clearly a reference to his belief and I suspect that of the Russians that Obama is a light-weight and will be easy to manipulate.

Pay close attention. The reality is these are the warning signs. As for Russia and Iran they are clearly seeing a Chamberlin-esc Jimmy Carter and not a Ronald Reagan. Don’t forget the difference between the talk, talk, talk of 1979’s Jimmy Carter and the hostage’s welcome home under 1980’s Ronald Reagan.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Reality of Obama-Speak

Posted by Mark S. Rader on Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:00:00 AM

I have written before about my experiences as a Democrat Party campaign volunteer in the early 80’s and how the experience literally change my political prospective. I was taken-a-back primarily by the general disdain the “elites” who run the party have for those who disagree with them and those who are less educated than they are. Essentially I was changed by what I saw and how those in positions of leadership in the party believed in the necessity to lie to the so called “idiot mass”. These idiots, in the minds of the Democrat elite, are those who have not been educated beyond high school. As a campaign worker I was told more than once that these “idiots” can be told anything and they will believe it. I have to say that I was convinced that they may be right as I watched Bill Clinton use this philosophy to be elected and re-elected as Attorney General, Governor, and President.

This weekend it has become clear to me that this attitude still persists in the party. The issue that shows this most is the Obama campaigns handling of their stance on energy independence. After the Democrat convention Obama’s handlers suddenly realized that having an energy policy that depends completely on non-existent “green” technology, that are not even in the planning stages but just in the dreaming stages, was not going to sell side-by-side by a real plan using existing technologies to bridge the gap. So, true to form, the democrats decided they would lie and lie in a way were they can say they didn’t lie. They have done this by supposedly “changing” their position on the use of coal and nuclear energy. How do you change but still maintain your original position? You do that with semantics.

The first sign of this was before the first debate with John McCain when Obama began to state that he and Biden fully supports “clean” coal. Then later, during an interview on FOX News channel he stated that he was all for “safe” nuclear power. The left wingers in the Democrat party who are “green” to their core started getting upset and began to dog the candidates as they made political rounds. Then finally Joe Biden decided to speak freely with an environmentalist in a crowd who was asking why they changed their position. He stated that they had not changed their position one bit. He said listen “… there is no clean coal”.  Biden’s defensive comment rings true when compared to this week’s release of a recording of an interview done in San Francisco that was given by Obama back in January. In the interview he essentially said that it is his intent to “bankrupt” the coal industry. 

So how can they still be for coal and for nuclear but at the same time against them. Well look closely at their words: “clean” coal, “safe” nuclear. Those two words are the answer. You see Obama and his supporters do not believe there is “clean” coal or “safe” nuclear. This will be their defense when they do nothing in these areas. They will simply say we support it but unfortunately it doesn’t exist right now. Get used to it… if these two win today there will be a constant stream of lies coated in candy for use to swallow whole. The reality is, we are stupid and our actions continue to support this fact when the Democrats continue to get away with expanding the truth.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »