Government Healthcare?

Do we really want the people who buy $600 hammers to run our healthcare?  Do we really want the people who have the power to legally steal our homes and property to also make life or death decisions concerning our medical treatment?  Do we really want the recipients of the most expensive entitlement program ever (congress, the senate) determining what benefits WE get, when it inversely impinges on their THEIR benefits?

 

The US government is currently "shut down" meaning that non-essential services are not available. (Why do we even have ANY non-essential government services anyway?)  If they were running the healthcare system, at what point might they decide to shut down a hospital, or the labs, or only the 4th floor?

 

Private hospitals can go out of business, and they sometimes do.  But so far, they always seem to be able to find buyers on the private market before actually shutting down, and the actual service provided is never interrupted.  But if the government decides that a certain hospital is non-essential, and shuts it down for a few days, or weeks, there is no recourse, there is nothing anybody can do about it.  No private investor, no better managed medical team, no way to make that hospital not shut down, at least not as long as the government controls it.

Mormonism 101

Awesome synopsis of Mormonisn

Proof That God Exists

Astronomers and Cosmologists insist that there definitely must be life, even intelligent life, elsewhere in the universe.  They claim that it is simply mathematically impossible that there isn't.  The logic goes like this: 1) There are billions of stars in our galaxy; 2) There are billions of galaxies in the viewable universe; 3) There are, therefore, multi-trillions of stars in the universe; 4) Of the star systems that we can observe in our own galaxy, we have found a certain percentage to have planets, and a certain percentage of those are believed to be "Goldilocks" planets, perfect for generating and nurturing life. 5) Applying that percentage of a percentage to the trillions of stars, there are many billions of planets out there that are capable of sustaining life; 6) Finally, it is mathematically (near) impossible that there aren't a great many of those planets that have life, and sufficiently many that it would be ridiculous to say that not a few of them have intelligent life.  Therefore, life exists because we can't prove it doesn't and there are enough iterations out there that the improbable becomes likely.

 

Using nearly the same logic, it is easily proven that there must be a God.  The scale and scope of the universe alone dictates that nobody on earth can logically claim that there is not God.  In order to definitively say that there is no God, one must be able to take into account all things in the universe.  You must have explored all corners of the universe, have known all creatures, know their minds and abilities, and know their ultimate potential.  In short, in order to know that there is no God, one must first be a God.

 

Therefore, God exists because you can't prove he doesn't, and the universe is big enough to make His improbability a likelihood.

 

All that logic nonsense aside (you can't actually prove a positive through a series of negatives, you can only prove that the positive is still possible).  As a believer, I have felt the presence of God in my life.  I have seen His workings in the lives of those who are close to me.  I have felt the witness of the Holy Ghost teaching me truth about many things.  These are positive proofs to me that God exists.  And because God desires a personal relationship with each of us, He has deliberately made the proofs of His existence intensely personal in nature.  My proofs cannot serve as your proofs, because you cannot experience my personal proofs the way I did.  And because God has shown us that he respects each of us as an individual by giving us agency, each person must invite those personal proofs into his own life, God will not force them upon you.

Equal Opportunity = Redistribution of Wealth = Socialism = Failed Economy

If this audio clip doesn't freak out every single middle and upper class citizen in America, we are truly fat for the slaughter and deserve what we get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

I'm not saying McCain is much of a candidate either, and I really despise it when people say "I am voting for Candidate X because he is not Candidate Y" so I am not going to say vote McCain.  But I am going to say, please protect your right to accumulate wealth through fair economic policies and laws.  President Bush's first term is a testimony to the possibility that a president just might actually fulfill his candidate promises, for better or worse.  (According to Alan Greenspan's book Age of Turbulence, the 2000-2004 Bush administration pursued the fulfillment of campaign promises with religious fervor, even though some of them no longer made good sense to do, and he fulfilled rather a lot of them.)

Here are some Obama "promises" that everyone should really be worried he might actually try to make good on:

• Essential abolishment of the 2nd amendment.  He has publicly stated that one of his first orders of business will be to ban the sale of all centerfire rifles and pistols, increase the taxes on centerfire ammunition 500%, increase the taxes on all firearms 500%, and clear the way for industry killing liability suits holding gun manufacturers responsible for killings where the criminals used their products
• Redistribution of Wealth (per the audio clip).  The catch phrase the democrats are using is "Equal Opportunity".  It has nothing to do with opportunity, that is what exists at the beginning of something (the front game), how you handle that opportunity is what determines the outcome (the end game).  What the democrats really mean when they say "Equal Opportunity" refers to the modification of the end game.  Taking points away from the winning team and giving them to the losing team is no way to run an economy.
• Pretty much every other "social program" that Obama has talked about is essentially a redistribution of wealth scheme, they (the democrats) want to tax the successful people, and pay the living expenses of the unsuccessful people.  This I cannot accept, and I hope you are also repulsed by the whole idea.

This guy (Obama) is more than dangerous, more than just "democrat", he is the most liberal socialist presidential candidate in history with a "not-so-hidden" agenda to destroy economic success (among other things) in America!

People, socialism does not work!  The Soviet Union proved it, China is proving it, every socialist country in the world has either already failed or is quickly on the way to failing!

It was thought that Post WWII East Germany was doing alright with socialism, that the people were still enjoying about 80% of the standard of living as the people of West Germany.  Until the wall came down...it was discovered that the East German true standard of living was about 30% that of West German citizens!   These are people who started out culturally, geographically, socially, and religiously identical!  And after only 50 years of socialism, East Germany was a dried out husk, requiring billions of dollars of emergency investment, just to get their infrastructure and living standards up to minimum Western standards.   That is an extremely telling experiment right there.  Socialism does worse than "not work" it transforms talented, industrious people into useless zombie slaves that work only the minimum required to get their daily ration.

What is the purpose of assault weapons?

This movie: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&pr=goog-sl

puts it very clearly.  In undeniable terms, why we have the 2nd Amendment rights, and more particularly, why assault weapons should be allowed.
And this movie: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-32744296213691062&vt=lf&hl=en

puts it very clearly why the closing statement of the previous movie is a reality.  And why it matters to us, right now.

Iran seeking Nuclear Power...

Of course Iran is seeking Nuclear Power, they know from watching the rest of the world that nuclear power if far more efficient, clean and sustainable than petroleum power is.

Think about this...a petroleum exporting company wants to pursue nuclear power for their own internal power generation needs.  They have all the power generation capability they could possibly want for centuries to come (if they didn't export it all to us), at a very low cost to them, but they would rather use nuclear power. 

The conclusion is obvious, nuclear power is so cheap and efficient, that even countries with gazoodles of oil recognize that it is far more profitable to sell the junk to us, and use the money to not only fund a more sustainable energy solution, but also fund a whole array of military capabilities ranging from automated missile systems all the way down to grass-roots guerrilla warfare training camps (i.e. terrorists).

It isn't our fault that the only mass producible modern export from that entire region is crude oil, that is their problem.  But we can help solve their problem by refusing to buy that one singular export (by pursuing more nuclear power ourselves) and forcing them to wake up, grow up, and get industrialized!

Nuclear Power is Still The Best for NOW

No new nuclear power plants have been built in the USA since 1979, since the 3-Mile Island accident.  In that accident, no measurable radiation escaped the facility, and nobody in the community was hurt in the least.  In the 30 years since then, there have been no other accidents, and the nuclear power plants that were in operation at that time are still in operation today, producing 20% of our electricity.  That 20% displaces 370 million metric tons of greenhouse emissions EVERY YEAR! 

What about the nuclear waste?  Over those 30 years, the entire sum of waste nuclear fuel is 3000 tons, which is .0008% of the carbon-based emissions that would have been produced from either coal or natural gas power plants (for that same 20% of supply). 

What about the environment around the nuclear power plant?  From the outside, a nuclear power plant has no more impact on the environment than an inert lump of concrete.  There are fewer emissions from a nuclear power facility than there is from a pile of freshly dug up dirt.

What about the cooling water?  All natural substances contain radioactive material, in fact BEER contains 13 times more radioactivity than the cooling water from a nuclear power plant has.  The water coming out of a nuclear plant is no more radioactive than when it went in!

Let's get off our rumps America and stop letting the loudmouthed, uneducated fear mongering idiots hiding behind environmentalist agendas determine our destiny as a nation.  It is time for the silent majority to wake up, scrape off the sludge of apathy and demand more nuclear power plants!