How we can bypass Hollywood to fund our own movie projects

Are you fed up with liberal-left bias of Hollywood and the entertainment industry?

Are you tired of throwing your shoes at the TV?

Now there’s a way for conservatives to get their movies funded without having to go through the Hollywood gatekeepers.

It’s through a process called “Crowd Funding.”

The pioneers of how to do this on the conservative side are filmmakers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer.

Their latest project is a movie they are making about the abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell: America’s Biggest Serial Killer.

They are seeking to raise $2.1 million to make this movie.

If successful, this would make this the biggest “crowd funded” film ever made.

You can contribute to this important project here: www.gosnellmovie.com

This will not be a documentary – as their other projects have been.

This will be in the form of a detective horror story in the tradition of Seven (which starred Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, and Kevin Spacey).

Ann McElhinny says they will be hiring a top screenwriter, director, and actors.

The purpose of the movie is to show every American what an abortion really is.

Dr. Gosnell was convicted of murdering three babies who had been born alive my mistake in botched abortions. He killed these live babies by using scissors to sever their spinal cords.

The movie also aims to bypass the media blackout of the Dr. Gosnell serial murder case.

Dr. Gosnell is now serving consecutive life sentences for killing these live babies.

The logical contradiction, of course, is that if the baby had been killed a few minutes before birth, this would have been legal. Yet, the unborn baby would experience the same about of horrifying pain as the born baby experienced having her spinal cord severed with scissors.

Biologically and physiologically there is no difference between the newborn baby and the unborn baby a few minutes earlier. And there is no difference in the pain they suffer in being killed.

Ann McElhinny and Phelim McAleer are hoping the average viewer of their film will connect dots in their own mind to arrive at this conclusion.

If killing a baby a few minutes after she is born is murder under the law, why isn’t it murder under the law to kill that same baby when in the mother’s womb a few minutes earlier?

Another point the project makes is to highlight the bias of the media and entertainment industry.

While the trial of Dr. Gosnell was going on, the trial of Jodie Arias was also taking place.

Arias was on trial for killing one person. Her trial received blanket coverage on the media and 24/7 coverage on CNN’s Headline News channel. There has already been a movie made about Jodie Arias.

But hardly anyone has heard of Dr. Kermit Gosnell – who was convicted in 2013 of killing three babies with scissors after they were born, but who is believed to have killed thousands of born babies during his 30-year killing spree at his abortion clinic.

There was a media blackout of the Gosnell story. His conviction of these heinous murders of little babies was barely mentioned in passing. But the Jodie Arias trial received blanket media coverage.

McElhinny and McAleer have had “crowd funding” movie successes already, the best known being an award-winning documentary they created titled FrackNation about the enormous potential of fracking to make America energy independent.

That movie cost $212,000 to make, which they raised with donations by using a website called Kickstarter.com

Pro-Abortion Left Still Almost Manages to Block This Movie

What Kickstarter.com does is allow people with a dream to raise money for their creative projects – many of them independent films.

Unfortunately, Kickstarter rejected the Dr. Gosnell Movie project unless McElhinny and McAleer removed the description of how Dr. Gosnell would kill these born babies with scissors – even though this is exactly what he was convicted of doing.

“Abortion is sacred to the liberal-Left,” explains McElhinny. “It’s one thing to make a movie about Fracking. But if you make a movie about an abortionist who was convicted of being a serial killer, they can see what we are doing. This is sacred territory for the liberal-Left. They won’t stand for it. Abortion is the Left’s Holy Grail.”

Ann and Phelim Find Another Path

So McElhinny and McAleer took their Gosnell movie project to a rival site called indigogo.com that also enables “crowd funding” for independent movie projects.

Indiegogo did not block the project, as Kickstarter did. Perhaps the project slipped under their radar.

In just six days up on the site the Gosnell Movie has already raised $350,000.

So you can see how this might be a powerful method to raise money for your movie project.

The average contribution so far for the Gosnell Movie is about $70.

So this is also a way for the average American to have a direct impact on what America sees on the movie and TV screen and strike a blow against the Hollywood monopoly on entertainment — which is on the brink of no longer being a monopoly.

Of course, they still have a long way to go to raise the full $2.1 million budget. And they only have 45 days to do it. If they fail to raise the full $2.1 million budget they’ve set, all money is returned to the donors.

Those are the rules of the site.

It’s an ingenious system because it requires users of this site to set realistic budgets for their projects. And it guarantees the project will happen.

You can track in real time exactly how many contributions have come in minute by minute by going to www.gosnellmovie.com

The transparency of the process is what gives supporters confidence.

That’s the power of the “crowd funding” concept.

So McElhinny and McAleer set the bar high by setting a $2.1 million budget for their movie about Dr. Gosnell and his murders.

But they are also determined to make this a high-quality production that the average movie-watcher will want to watch.

“If the movie is not riveting to non-political young people, we’ll consider this project a failure,” says McElhinny. “We won’t change hearts and minds by preaching at people. We’ll change hearts and minds by telling powerful stories that make our points for us.”

That’s how Jesus communicated his message — not by scolding us, but by telling memorable stories, parables.

Every conservative and pro-life American should support this important project by going to www.gosnellmovie.com

This project is a model for how conservatives, Christians, pro-life Americans, and pro-freedom Americans can bypass the leftist Hollywood gatekeepers to raise money for our own movies.

We are losing America in large part because the liberal-Left dominates the movie and entertainment industry, so are shaping the popular culture.

McElhinny and McAleer are blazing a path that shows us how to fight back.

Contribute to their important project by going here: www.gosnellmovie.com

Democrats say ObamaCare is a success. If this is success, what would failure look like?

Democrats are saying ObamaCare is now a success because the Obama Administration says 7.1 million Americans have signed up.

Never mind that this is probably a phony number. Anecdotal evidence from the states and insurance companies indicates that 20 percent are not paying their premiums.

But let’s, just for the sake of argument, give the Obama Administration their number of sign-ups.

Why would this even be an indicator of success?

Americans who don’t have health insurance are required now by law to enroll in the ObamaCare exchanges.

So this is like saying 7.1 million Americans paid their taxes and hailing that as a success.

We now have to prove to the IRS that we have health insurance that meets ObamaCare requirements. Or we have to pay a penalty of up to 1 percent of our income and get into a mud wrestling match with the IRS.

Penalties then increase 300% over the next three years.

I wish I had the IRS on my side forcing people to buy the product I sell.

In addition, the Obama Administration is spending hundreds of millions of dollars (perhaps billions) on advertising to promote ObamaCare.

The fact that they only have 7.1 million sign-ups (their number) is an unmitigated disaster in a nation of 317,000,000 people.

But consider this.

The primary purpose of ObamaCare was to insure the uninsured.

When selling America on ObamaCare, President Obama repeatedly told us there were between 35 million and 50 million Americans without health care insurance.

So now we have 7.1 million ObamaCare sign ups (according to Obama’s numbers, which we know are phony).

We know the about the same number of Americans(6-7 million) lost their health insurance because of ObamaCare.

How many of the new ObamaCare sign-ups are these people?

And how many sign-ups are people who did not have health insurance previously?

Goldman-Sachs estimates that 1,000,000 ObamaCare sign-ups are of people previously uninsured.

A RAND Corporation study estimates that about one-third of the sign-ups are people who were previously uninsured.

Ouch!

So what we have is a giant shell game.

70-80 percent of ObamaCare sign-ups are from people who already had health insurance that was rendered null and void by ObamaCare.

So now we all have the privilege of paying for other people’s contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs, vasectomies, and possibly even sex-change operations.

In addition, we have the privilege of paying 39 percent higher premiums on average than we had been paying with our previous perfectly adequate health insurance plans, plus much higher deductibles.

What most people want and need is health insurance that covers a catastrophic situation.

If you get into an accident or get cancer or some other deadly disease, you want coverage.

If you need an extended hospital stay or have a catastrophic very-expensive health event, you want coverage.

You then pay for routine check-ups and care out of your own pocket.

This kind of catastrophic health insurance is relatively cheap. Of course, it could be a lot cheaper if we allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines and if we cap medical malpractice awards.

Once you hit your retirement years, you get Medicare, plus whatever supplemental health coverage you want to pay for. It was a pretty decent system. A few minor tweaks could have addressed the problems.

Another big benefit touted by ObamaCare supporters is that pre-existing conditions are supposedly covered, though there’s some doubt about that.

So far, just 107,139 people with pre-existing conditions are taking advantage of the provision in the law for people with pre-existing conditions even though this provision has been in effect for nearly three years.

So, apparently, there’s not a big demand for this aspect of ObamaCare. Or perhaps it’s not as much of a problem as we’ve been told. Or perhaps ObamaCare is not actually covering people with pre-existing conditions.

At any rate, the pre-existing condition problem could be solved cheaply, without upending 18 percent of the U.S. economy and destroying the world’s best health care system.

I’m happy to subsidize their health care coverage.

So what did ObamaCare fix?

Nothing.

Actually, ObamaCare destroys a lot that was good about American medicine.

Doctors are now quitting medicine in droves. Health insurance premiums have skyrocketted. Many doctors and hospitals refuse even to participate in the ObamaCare exchanges, so you likely can’t even keep your doctor or hospital. Research and development into new life-saving medicines and treatments is grinding to a halt. We now have a panel of government bureaucrats (the IPAB) deciding whether or not you get the life-saving medical care you need — yes, the Death Panels Sarah Palin was talking about.

We continue to see horror stories about people being denied their cancer treatments because of ObamaCare — cancer treatments they were receiving until ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is calling these people liars.

But, like lemmings charging over a cliff, Democrats have decided to rally around this fiasco.

Are stocks a good investment?

We keep hearing breathless reports in the news of the stock market hitting record highs.

So people have been stampeding into the stock market hoping not to miss the latest boom (bubble) in stocks.

Everyone’s feeling good when reading their IRA and 401k statements that arrive in the mail each month.

But these record highs do not take into account the declining value of the dollar.

The dollar has lost 40% of its value since 2000.  Actually a lot more than 40 percent. That’s just going by official CPI numbers.

But the inflation rate is in reality much higher than the phony official average annual inflation rate of 2.7%

Anyone who goes to the grocery store knows that the real inflation rate has been more like 8% per year on average.

The cost of a gallon of regular gas for your car was $1.83 when George W. Bush left office.

The price of gasoline is not included in the official inflation rate (CPI).

But for the sake of my argument here, we’ll just use the official inflation rate of 2.7 percent per year.

The key point here  is that the reported increase in stock prices are in nominal dollars, not real value.

If you invested $1,000 in the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 2000, it would be worth $1,015 today – a whopping 1.5 % return on your investment over 14 years — if you use the official inflation rate of 2.7% per year (which we know is phony and grossly understates the real inflation rate).

If you invested $1,000 in an S&P 500 index fund 2000, this would be worth $890 today, an 11% decline.

If you invested $1,000 in the Nasdaq average at the peak of the dot com bubble in 2000, it would be worth $630 today – at Nasdaq’s supposed near-record high. This represent a 37% loss over 14 years.

Ouch.

And that doesn’t count management fees charged by mutual funds and brokers.

Assume a 1.5% management fee per year for the typical index mutual fund (if you’re lucky to find management fees that low). That knocks another 21% off your returns (or lack thereof) over this 14 year period.

And there are transaction fees even if you manage your own portfolio.

So if you are in the growth-oriented Nasdaq index, you’ve lost more than half your money over the 14 years.

So much for the advice we get to just “Buy the indexes and hold. Everything will be okay over time.”

Returns are even more bleak when you consider the volatility of the stock market. Volatility equals risk.

Who wants to risk everything (ala 1929) for the wonderful benefit of breaking even or losing money over a 14 year period?

Imagine if you get into the market now and the market loses 20% or 40% of its value, quickly – a likely scenario (because the recent stock market run-up is built on nothing but hope, not real numbers). How long would it take for the market to rise back to this level to get you back to even?

You might never break even in your lifetime.  There’s certainly no reason to think the economy will get better from here on forward.

People who put their money into the stock mark at its peak in 2000 are still waiting to break even 14 years later.

By the way, the stock market over time pretty well mirrors the overall economy.

The economy has been stagnant since 2000. So it’s not surprising the stock market has produced nothing since then.

The stock market boomed during the Reagan years through 2000 — when the economy was booming.

The economy is far from booming now. It’s hardly growing at all.

So don’t expect much from the stock market — unless you have a crystal ball and can time it perfectly, or just get lucky.

To me, stocks appear to be fools gold — not much better than casino gambling.

What I’ve outlined here is what would have happened to you if you had simply invested in the largest stock indexes — which most financial planners consider the safest way to invest in stocks.

But what if you had followed the recommendation of many Wall Street gurus who were recommending investing in Borders Books and At Home in 2000?

Those used to be the hot stocks.

Here are some other stocks that were super hot not long ago for companies that no longer exist: MCI-World Com, Paine Weber, Lehman Brothers, EF Hutton, Drexel-Burnham-Lambert, Enron, Pets.com, Webvan, eToys, Commodore computers.

If you invested in these companies, your $1,000 investment would now be worth zero.

Do I have a better investment to recommend?

Not really.

Perhaps invest in yourself.

My rule of thumb: “I tend to make money in my own business and lose money in everyone else’s.”

The Conservative Alternative to ObamaCare

Democrats in Congress are panicking even more now than they were before in the wake of David Jolly’s victory over Alex Sink in the special election for the Florida 13 Congressional seat.

Jolly is a political novice who had never held elected office. Sink almost won the governorship of Florida in 2010, falling short by a single percentage point in a Republican wave year. Sink outraised Jolly 2-to-1. Florida 13 has been trending Democrat. Obama won the district in 2008 and again in 2012.

Democrat leaders were 100% certain Sink would coast to victory.  But Sink lost.  Jolly won.

The only thing Jolly had going for him was that he promised he would vote to repeal ObamaCare.

Sink’s message that she would work to “fix” ObamaCare did not cut the mustard with voters.

Americans want ObamaCare ended, repealed, undone, buried, blown up — not fixed.

MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews has now conceded that the GOP will win majority control of the Senate.

The question now is: By how much?

To win the Senate with seats to spare, Republican candidates must be for more than just repeal of ObamaCare. We need to highlight our alternative to ObamaCare.

We can’t pretend the old system was perfect.  It was just a lot better than ObamaCare.  But the shortcomings of the old system could have been fixed easily with a few minor tweaks.

There is one goal of ObamaCare that is worth keeping: And that’s to address the problem of people with expensive pre-existing conditions not being able to get affordable health insurance.

ObamaCare does not actually even fix this problem.

But it could be fixed, easily and relatively cheaply. These people would go into a high-risk pool and would receive a subsidy to cover the difference between what a health insurance policy costs for most folks and what a policy costs for those afflicted with expensive, relatively rare preexisting conditions.

This can be done through a tax credit and/or tax deduction on the federal income tax.

Problem solved.

Republicans need to highlight this solution because the pre-existing conditions argument is ObamaCare’s only argument.

Other features of the GOP health plan should include:

1) Expanding IRA-style health care savings accounts to include everyone.

2) Making all health insurance and health care costs tax-deductible for individuals, so that people are not forced to stay in jobs they don’t like to keep their health insurance.

3) Allowing health insurance companies to compete across state lines to bring health care costs down. This has certainly worked well for electronics and other products.

4) Capping malpractice lawsuit awards, which will also bring health care costs down. (Lawyers are not a popular group)

5) Restoring the $800 BILLION ObamaCare stole from Medicare.

6) We already have Medicaid for the poor. But the working poor could be given a refundable tax credit to offset the cost of buying health insurance.

This plan would fit on a single sheet of paper, in contrast to the 20,000 pages of regulations that have been added to the 2,700-page ObamaCare law.

We then ask voters to choose between this simple one-page plan and the ObamaCare monstrosity.

How to achieve sweeping Republican victories on November 4th

David Jolly’s victory over Alex Sink in the special election for the Florida 13 Congressional seat vacated by has sent shockwaves through the Democratic Party – especially Democrats running for reelection in conservatives red states and districts.
Sink almost won the governorship of Florida in 2010, falling short by a single percentage point in a Republican wave year.

By contrast,  Jolly was an unknown, under-funded lobbyist for the oil industry. Sink outraised Jolly 2-to-1. Florida 13 has been trending Democrat. Obama won the district in 2008 and again in 2012.

Sink should have crushed Jolly, but didn’t – because of ObamaCare.

The voters sent a message.

MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews has now conceded that the GOP will win majority control of the Senate.
The question now is: By how much?

Sink’s message to voters was “Keep ObamaCare, but fix what’s wrong with it.”

Jolly’s message was: “Repeal ObamaCare, and replace it with something that works.”

“Repeal and replace” trumped  “Keep, but fix.”

Republicans should learn from this race.  Jolly’s message is the winning message.

To win the Senate with seats to spare, Republican candidates must be for more than just repeal of ObamaCare. We need to highlight our alternative to ObamaCare.

We should admit that there is one goal of ObamaCare that is worth keeping: And that’s to address the problem of people with expensive pre-existing conditions not being able to get affordable health insurance.

That was a legitimate problem.

It’s also an easy fix. These people would go into a high-risk pool and would receive a subsidy to cover the difference between what a health insurance policy costs for most folks and what a policy costs for those afflicted with expensive, relatively rare preexisting conditions.

This can be done through a tax credit and/or tax deduction on the federal income tax.

Problem solved, cheaply.

Republicans need to highlight this solution because the pre-existing conditions argument is ObamaCare’s only argument.
Other features of the GOP health plan should include:

1) Expanding IRA-style health care savings accounts to include everyone.

2) Making all health insurance and health care costs tax-deductible for individuals, so that people are not forced to stay in jobs they don’t like to keep their health insurance.

3) Allowing health insurance companies to compete across state lines to bring health care costs down.

4) Capping malpractice lawsuit awards, which will also bring health care costs down. (Lawyers are not a popular group)

5) Restoring the $800 BILLION ObamaCare stole from Medicare.

6) We already have Medicaid for the poor. But the working poor could be given a refundable tax credit to offset the cost of buying health insurance.

This plan would fit on a single sheet of paper, in contrast to the 20,000 pages of regulations that have been added to the 2,700-page ObamaCare law.

We then ask voters to choose between this simple one-page plan and the ObamaCare monstrosity.

Chris Christie scandal shows the danger of big government, no matter which party is in charge

The Chris Christie scandal shows the danger of big government, no matter which party is in charge.

We now know that Chris Christie’s deputy chief of staff Bridget Kelly and other assorted Christie cronies abused their power as government officials to punish Christie’s political opponents.

The apparent target was Mark Sokolich, the Democrat mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey, who refused to endorse Christie for governor.

Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” Kelly famously wrote in an email to the political appointee who had the power to close down two lanes on a Fort Lee access ramp that funnels traffic onto New York City’s George Washington Bridge.

As a result of these unannounced lane closures that lasted several days, people had to sit four hours in traffic jams. At least one elderly woman died while in an ambulance that was stuck for hours in gridlock. And emergency vehicles could not respond to 911 calls in a timely fashion.

So, most likely, others died as well as a direct result of this breathtaking political vindictiveness by Bridget Kelly and other Christie cronies in positions of power to carry out the lane closures.

This is not how a civilized free society is supposed to work.

We still don’t know what Chris Christie knew and when he knew it.

My own view is he should resign over this even if he did not know.  By surrounding himself with top aides in the mold of the evil Bridget Kelly (along with all the others who were in on this destructive escapade), he has shown he is unable to govern. Leadership comes from the top.  The governor sets the tone for his administration.  The people who work for Christie take their cues from him.

If Christie did know what was going on, he should be prosecuted and sent to prison.

Of course, this is exactly the behavior we see with the IRS scandal — where President Obama’s political appointees and assorted leftists at the IRS are abusing their power to target the Tea Party, other conservative groups, and political opponents of Obama with punishing audits.

Whether Democrat or Republican, political appointees and bureaucrats will abuse their power — which is why principled conservatives want to limit government power, limit the power bureaucrats and political cronies like Bridget Kelly have over our lives.

Now we have the specter of ObamaCare — where political cronies and bureaucrats will be making life-and-death decisions over who gets the medical treatment they need, and who won’t.

Who’s to say that a leftist ideologue in the HHS-ObamaCare bureaucracy won’t deny a liver transplant needed by a Tea Party leader?

Who is to say leftists in the ObamaCare bureaucracy won’t check party identification on voter registration rolls before giving the green light to medical treatment?

This is exactly what’s likely to happen with government-run medicine — government-run anything.

Richard Nixon had his “enemies list.”  Nixon was looking at ways to use the Federal Communications Commission to punish the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) for criticizing him.  Nixon also used the IRS to target his opponents, as did JFK and FDR.

Whatever government runs becomes politicized.

Private companies do not set out to deliberately inconvenience their customers because they are driven by the profit motive. So they are eager to serve. And businesses could not care less about the political affiliations of their customers.

But political appointees and government bureaucrats are not driven by the profit motive. They are driven by the quest for power and the prospect of feeding at the government trough at taxpayer expense.

Some government officials, of course, want to use their power for good. But others like to use their power to push people around — even to punish people they don’t like.

Chris Christie’s deputy chief of staff and assorted cronies got caught because they were stupid enough to reveal what they were doing in emails and text messages.

Political appointees and bureaucrats in government abuse their power all the time, everyday. It just doesn’t usually make the news.

Bureaucrats don’t need political motives to abuse their power.

Many abuse their power simply because they can. They are unhappy with their life and they take it out on whoever is unfortunate enough to be in their crosshairs, whoever happens to be standing in front of them at the moment.

Everyday we read news stories about out-of-control cops who beat someone senseless for no good reason.

Don’t get me wrong.

I’ve met many excellent government officials, many great cops. No doubt most are honestly trying to do a good job and serve the public the best they can.

But it doesn’t take many bad apples in government to make life a nightmare for many of us.

As Lord Action famously described the problem of government this way: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Of course, we need government because we need law and order. We also need government build roads and infrastructure, regulate commerce, take on big projects that can’t be handled by the private sector, provide for a social safety net, and to defend the nation from foreign enemies.

James Madison, the primary author of America’s Constitution, stated the great problem of political science this way in Federalist #51:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

What James Madison and America’s founders tried to achieve when writing our Constitution was to establish a government that was very strong where government must be strong, but also limited in scope.

The purpose of the federal government is described in the Constitution’s preamble — to “secure the blessings of liberty.”

So James Madison and the founders set up a federal government with specifically enumerated powers.

The Constitution’s Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In other words, most of the governing in America was supposed to be handled by state and local governments — on the principle that government governs best when it’s close to the people. Also on the theory that if government in one state or locality is behaving badly, we would have the ability (the freedom) to move to another state without having to flee the country. There would then be free-market competitive pressures on the states to have good government and to be attractive places to live.

The central government’s role was supposed to be limited to national defense, general law and order, establishing a currency, and regulating interstate commerce.

If the federal government actually followed the Tenth Amendment, our federal government would be about a third the size it is now.

The Constitution’s framers also sought to limit the power of the federal government by dividing power equally between the branches. Congress and the President are supposed to be co-equal branches of government, with the Supreme Court (and other federal courts) making sure laws are followed and that laws passed by Congress are Constitutional.

But most of the governing was to happen at the state and local level, with the federal government stepping in only as a last resort — to quell rebellion, to end slavery, to safeguard the vote, and those sorts of big issues.

America’s founders knew human nature. They knew those in positions of power would abuse their power — not all, but enough.

Adolph Hitler was just one person. But he was certainly able to do a lot of damage when he had the reins of power, as did Stalin, MaoNapoleon, Caligula, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and so many other tyrants.

The vast majority of people throughout world history have lived under tyranny.

The little tyrant of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un, summarily executed his uncle along with his uncle’s inner circle  – apparently making the decision while in a drunken stupor.

He had the power.  He murdered his uncle because he could.  He was annoyed with his uncle, or something.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Power often turns the people who have it into monsters.

Chris Christie’s deputy chief of staff is a little Napolean.

She was willing to use her power in government to hurt the mayor of Fort Lee in any way she could. She probably would have been happy to put him in front of a firing squad if she could.

She closed down two lanes of traffic on one of the busiest stretches of road in America because she had the power to do so, without any concern for the damage she was causing. At least one person died as a result. And she needlessly inconvenienced hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people — plus damaged the economy of the entire New York City area by closing those two lanes of highway for no reason other than spite.

This is the effect power can have on people’s minds.  The ring in the Hobbit is a metaphor for this.  If you put the ring on, you acquire near limitless power, but also become evil.  Power often transforms otherwise decent people into lunatics.

Adolf Hitler might have been a perfectly upstanding citizen had he been, say, a shopkeeper . . . instead of Germany’s top government official.  He was a hero on the battlefield in World War One. It was the power that fueled his megalomania and murderous insanity.

This is why we need limited government. It’s why we need smaller government. It’s why we need all kinds of safeguards to keep government locked in its cage and tethered to its post  – to make sure government only does what’s it’s supposed to do. It’s why the out-of-control government we have now in America (at all levels) is so dangerous.

It’s why America’s founders were so right, and it’s why the Constitution they wrote was so brilliant.

Of course, it’s not a perfect document. Politicians have found ways to get around the Constitution (mostly by ignoring it) to grow government to a point where it’s now completely out of control.

Do you really believe all this data being collected on every American by the National Security Agency (and other government agencies) will never be used for nefarious purposes by those who have access to all this data?

What’s to stop an NSA analyst from using this data to see what an ex-girlfriend is up to — or perhaps just to ruin someone’s life?  What’s to stop a President and his political operatives from using this giant NSA database as an opposition research operation?

The Chris Christie Bridgegate scandal is just the latest example of government officials abusing their power because they can — to vindictively punish people they don’t like, or for no reason at all.

The lesson is: We need to return to the Constitution. We need to UNDO ObamaCare — arguably the most serious threat to liberty in America’s history.

But we must go way beyond that.

We need to scale our federal government back down to Constitutional size — which is probably about one-third the size it is now.

“Pajama Boy” is the Product of Team Obama’s Sophisticated Market Research

This ad shows you the state of the 20-something American male today

It’s hard not to laugh at Pajama Boy — this  metrosexual young male in his PJs, sipping a cup of cocoa, eyebrows carefully plucked, and doing — well — nothing.

Pajama Boy is apparently the archetype young male who Team Obama hopes to reach with its massive marketing campaign to get young males in their 20s enrolled in ObamaCare.

Team Obama is spending millions of dollars on these Pajama Boy ads.

They clearly know something about the state of the young male in America.

Can you imagine trying to win World War Two with Pajama Boy?

Can you imagine getting anything done with Pajama Boy?

Can you imagine actually hiring Pajama Boy to do a job?

But how can we doubt Team Obama’s marketing savvy?

Obama’s not so good at governing, but he is very good at campaigning. The Obama campaign made the Romney campaign look like the Stanley Steamer by comparison in terms of sophistication.

Team Obama knows how to poll. Team Obama knows how to conduct market research.  Team Obama knows its target market.

And Team Obama knows that Pajama Boy is not just a small sliver of the electorate — not just two or three people out there.

Team Obama came up with these ads because they know Pajama Boy represents a large segment — a plurality, perhaps a majority — of males in their 20s.

Pajama Boy is apparently typical of millions, perhaps tens of millions, of young male adults out there.

These are young men who live with their parents until well into their 30s. They lounge around in their PJs all day and apparently sip hot chocolate while surfing the net, watching TV, playing video games, or just sleeping until Noon.

The concept of actually holding down a job and launching out to make their way in the world strikes the Pajama Boy crowd as, well, ridiculous.

I’m in the advertising business. If you really want to understand where American society is, all you have to do is watch the advertisements.

Advertisers are scientific, super-sophisticated.

We don’t create ads we like. We create ads that work — based on careful market research.

Pajama Boy is the product of Team Obama’s market research — lots of polling and focus group testing.

Team Obama created the Pajama Boy ads because this is the state of the 20-something male in America.

Personally, I have not owned pajamas since I was about 8.  I find pajamas too restrictive.  I don’t like how pajamas get trapped under my body when I roll over in my sleep. I then have to sit up in bed, straighten out the PJs, and then roll over into my new position. So I abandoned my pajamas.

But that’s just me — probably neither here nor there. Probably too much info.

By contrast, here were the male images I grew up with:

America has changed a lot since I was a kid.

Thank God  Pajama Boy does not represent all young males in America.

Here’s my step-son David. He’s served two tours in Iraq and two tours in Afghanistan.

At the age of 29, he was just promoted to Major.  David is not in tune with the Pajama Boy program. So there’s still hope for America.

What a Conservative Social Safety Net Would Look Like

This Article is Also About Effective Conservative Messaging . . . So We Don’t Keep Having Repeats of the 2012 Election

When I talk with liberals, most are shocked to learn that I support a social safety net.

They assume that, because I’m a conservative, I must support some kind of Darwinian “survival of the fittest” economic system.

That’s how President Obama usually describes our public policy views — every man for himself.

I explain that I am a conservative, not a libertarian.

Conservatives certainly believe in a social safety net because we believe in a humane civilized society.

But there is a strong perception (perhaps a majority perception) that we are opposed to any kind of social safety net. Mitt Romney’s 47 percent comment played into that perception in a major way.

It’s my view that comment cost him the election. That 47 percent includes those on Social Security, Medicare, veterans, our fighting men and women, policemen, fire fighters, and many who traditionally vote Republican.

So the 47 percent comment was devastating to the Romney campaign. He was writing off 47 percent of the electorate. Or at least, that became the perception.

The issue now is: How do conservatives fix their messaging problem?

My own view is that it’s not just a messaging problem, it’s also a bit of a substance problem.

Conservatives are strong when they are talking about opportunity and the wealth-creating power of free-market capitalism.

But most 70-year-olds, quite frankly, don’t care much about economic opportunity for themselves. They want to know their medical bills will be covered and their Social Security check will continue to arrive so they can pay their rent and continue to eat.

A single mother with three kids is not thinking about the great economic opportunities that might be out there. She’s not wondering: Should I buy a franchise, or start my own business?

She’s wondering how she can continue to hold down three jobs and raise her kids in this economy of part-time jobs.

The truth is, only a small portion of the population is even capable of actually starting a business — perhaps 5 percent of the population, at most.

Most people are not entrepreneurs, don’t have the temperament for it. Most people are not risk takers.

I am an entrepreneur. I happen to have the temperament for it.

I have built three successful businesses. I love getting paid according to what I actually produce. I actually like the risk of potentially not getting paid at all if I make bad bets. This risk, this uncertainty makes life exciting.

But most people are not wired this way. Most people don’t have an entrepreneurial temperament.

Over the years and decades, I have interviewed hundreds of prospective employees.

I have asked many of them this question . . .

Would you rather earn a fixed salary of $40,000 per year?

Or would you prefer to earn a percentage (say 15%) of the money you help bring into the company, with the potential of earning $500,000, $1,000,000, or more per year?

95 percent (or more) will choose the fixed salary of $40,000 per year over the realistic potential of earning $500,000, 1,000,000 or more.

They will choose the $40,000 salary over even an excellent chance to earn many times that amount based on measureable production.

Most people just don’t want their incomes to be directly linked to actual results.

Most people, let’s face it, want to be taken care of, at some level. They at least want to know they won’t end up on the street with their children.

Women, more than men, tend to be safety conscious — which is why there is now at least a 10 point gender gap in elections between how men tend to vote and how women tend to vote. This gender gap is enormous among single women. So, apparently, single women feel more vulnerable than married women, so feel they are in more need of government protection.

Safety is much more important to women than to men, but it’s important to almost everyone.

I don’t for a second think single women were voting on the Sandra Fluke contraception issue.

Women want a safety net. So do most people.

Conservatives make a big rhetorical and strategic blunder when they sound like they oppose a social safety net.

What we oppose is the kind of welfare state we have now that has created a culture of dependency and a permanent underclass.

No one in America should be starving and homeless. No one wants to throw their grandma out into the snow or allow her to die because she can’t afford medical treatment.

We’re certainly a rich enough country to take care of those who are not in a position to take care of themselves.

The question is: What would a conservative social safety net look like?

A social safety net should first and foremost be aimed at protecting those who cannot work.

They are either too young, too old, too sick, or seriously disabled.

Who doesn’t want to protect these people?

This is a big reason for the failure of the Mitt Romney campaign for President.

He kept talking about entrepreneurs and “job creators.”

It’s certainly true that entrepreneurs and business leaders produce all the wealth.

He’s absolutely correct about that.

But with that message, he was talking to about five percent of America, at most.

Most people are not Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Most people are not capable of even running a hotdog stand.

What most people want is some sense of security in life. Most people don’t expect to get rich, aren’t even trying to. They are living paycheck-to-paycheck.

They are just happy to know there is a floor — a minimum living standard — through which they can’t fall.

This is why insurance companies are so profitable. Insurance companies are built on the fear people have that bad things happen — because bad things often do happen.

People know that insurance is a bad deal most of the time. They know they are probably paying more than they should for insurance. But they want insurance anyway, to protect themselves from disaster.

The social safety net is a form of insurance. People want it.

Insurance provides peace of mind.

People lose their jobs, lose their heath, have accidents, and have catastrophic disasters. People want to know that the society will step in to help them, if needed.

It’s worth noting that there’s not much of a gender gap among married women. But Republicans are losing big among single women. And it has nothing to do with contraception or abortion.

Unmarried women feel vulnerable. They don’t have a husband to lean on. Many are single moms with children.

Instead of looking to husbands and their families for support, single women tend to look to government

The Republican emphasis on helping entrepreneurs and “job creators” does not resonate with most single women.

All that changes when women get married — when marriage and family become their safety net.

Republican candidates do fine among married women . . . because married women feel more secure.

But as long as Republicans keep sounding like they are for “survival of the fittest” economic and social policies, they might as well write off single women, minorities, and all portions of the electorate who feel vulnerable.

It’s certainly true that entrepreneurs and business leaders create all the wealth. We want America to be the world’s most business friendly country. We don’t want to chase wealth and business out of the country with excessive taxation and onerous regulation. We want America to be attracting money and business, not repelling money and business. We want America to be a repository for the world’s wealth — a place where investors put their money . . . because that’s how nations become wealthy.

But a message that emphasizes helping five percent of the population — “job creators” — is not a formula for winning elections.

This is why it’s a mistake for conservatives to align themselves too closely with libertarians.

The Ron Paul-Ayn Rand Virtue of Selfishness” approach to public policy is a non-starter with 80 percent of voters.

Ron Paul and Ayn Rand certainly have put forth some great ideas — especially their explanations on why free-market capitalism is the surest path to prosperity .  .  . and why socialism and centralized economic planning by government always fails.

The free market is the engine that produces the most general prosperity.

But the free market also cannot solve all problems.

Obama was not entirely wrong when he said of the businessman: “You didn’t build that, someone else did.”

That was clumsy phraseology.  And I’m certainly no Obama apologist.  I think he’s a socialist, not much of a fan of America, who is moving America very much in the wrong direction.

How can you like something you say you want to “fundamentally transform“? (Which is what Obama promised he would do to America in 2008)

But there is truth in what Obama was saying.

He was making the valid point that successful businesses cannot not be built without roads, without infrastructure, without law and order, without education, without financial markets, without a currency . . . anymore than NFL football games could be played without rules, without stadiums, without referees, without a governing body.

For the Romney campaign and the national GOP to make Obama’s “You didn’t build that”  remark the centerpiece of their their campaign strategy to defeat Obama for reelection in 2012 was pretty dumb.

Obviously a civil society is required for businesses to flourish.  That requires government. Reasonable taxation is the price we pay for civilization.

But liberals also have a big political liability because they very often sound like they oppose capitalism. Most Americans like capitalism. Most Americans oppose socialism. Most Americans understand that capitalism allowed America to quickly become the richest nation in human history.

Most Americans don’t want to mess with the “goose that’s laying all the golden eggs” – free-market capitalism.

Most Americans also believe government has gotten too big, too meddlesome. Every Gallup poll taken over the decades shows that about 40 percent of Americans describe themselves as conservatives; just 20 percent describe themselves as liberal. The rest are somewhere in the middle. So America is a center-right country.

Americans love freedom, love capitalism, love America and all America stands for — the “land of the free.”

America is a place that allows you to be anything you want to be. In America, there is no ceiling on achievement.

But most Americans also want insurance — assurance that, should something really bad happen, there is a floor through which they cannot fall.

But What Should a Conservative Social Safety Net Look Like?

Few would argue against the need to protect those who cannot work. They are either too young, too old, or disabled.

But what about the able-bodied working age who just can’t find a job, or won’t find a job?

A recent survey by the U.S. Department of Labor finds that 34.3 percent of working-age Americans say they don’t want a job.

That of course is up to them. People are free to work, or not work. That’s their choice.

But then these folks should not expect taxpayers to pay their living expenses — at least not without requiring something in return.

The premise behind a conservative safety net is: “We will help the helpless, but not enable the lazy and the clueless.”

The type of social safety net we should have is one that encourages able-bodied Americans to get off it.

Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law that required able-bodied Americans on welfare to work.

Millions of Americans left the welfare roles for jobs as a result.

President Obama canceled that the work requirement for those on welfare. The result: a 50 percent increase in the number of people on Food Stamps, and one third of the country on some form of “means tested” welfare.

The difference between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama is that Bill Clinton saw it as an important public policy goal to wean people off welfare, while Obama’s primary goal has been to put more people on welfare, to addict as many Americans as possible to government assistance.

If I were to design America’s social “safety net” policy, it would look like this:

1) Assistance to the Unemployed Able-Bodied Adult

The unemployed would receive a maximum of nine months of unemployment insurance payments.

It’s significant that almost everyone receiving unemployment benefits manages to find work during the last month or so before their benefits run out. So many use their unemployment checks as a way to have an extended paid vacation.

So here’s the solution . . .

If after nine months, the able-bodied continue to need public assistance to survive, they would have to report to a facility that would look like an Army barracks and would be run something like a boot camp.

Residents there would be put to work, just like a “work release” program that prisons use for non-violent offenders. They would be expected to pick up trash along the side of the road, do whatever work is needed around the community, or go out to find work, or get schooling so they can qualify for work.

They would be expected to be back in the barracks after work. This would be a Spartan existence for them. They would have clean facilities and good nutrition, but very little freedom.

Their day would be highly structured, with regular testing for drugs. They would be required to attend evening educational programs focused on developing marketable skills. There would be no TV, no ping pong, no fun and games. Daily exercise would be mandatory and highly structured by a drill sergeant-type.

Some people might choose to live this way for the rest of their lives.  Most able-bodied people will surely want to find a way to get out of the barracks, get their freedom back, and move back into the productive economy — which they are free to do at any time.

But so long as they are on public assistance (living in the barracks), every minute of their time would be scheduled.

By the way, this is how deadbeat dads are treated. If you are a “deadbeat” dad not paying your child support payments, you are jailed. You are then put in a “work release” program where you either find a job and go to work each day, or the jail gives you a job picking up trash on the side of the road, or whatever other job needs doing.

The government then confiscates your paycheck, which is then used to feed your kids.

You then get out of this situation when you persuade a judge that you’re ready to start paying your child support. Most find a way to start paying their child support again.

This barracks-style welfare system, by the way, would just about eliminate the dysfunctional drug and prostitution economy that’s created a permanent underclass in America. People engage in these underground, black-market activities to earn cash that’s not reported to the IRS so they can keep their welfare benefits rolling in.

This “tough love” barracks system of welfare for the able-bodied ends all that nonsense, and would likely put the drug gangs out of business.

If you are an able-bodied adult, public assistance must become a last resort, an emergency situation — not a way of life . . . and certainly should not be used by Democrats as a way to buy votes. If you are long-term unemployed, we’ll find things for you to do. We’ll structure your day for you.

It’s important to emphasize here that this program would be VOLUNTARY. Entering this program would be a condition of the able-bodied, working-age American continuing to receive public assistance after nine months of receiving unemployment compensation.  People would be free to leave the program at anytime.  But their public assistance pay would end also.

So there is nothing incompatible here with liberty.  It’s a program that would be available for those who want to participate in it.  But no more getting paid by taxpayers for sitting on the sofa watching TV if you are a working-age, able bodied American adult.

Surely there are large-scale TVA-style public works projects these people could be working on that would help the country. We used to have a government that was capable of tackling big projects — such as building the Hoover Dam.

Maybe we need a canal built or some levees to prevent another Katrina-type disaster.

By the way, this Barracks-style welfare program that requires work in exchange for public assistance probably won’t be cheaper than the system we have now. But it would be far more effective in lifting people out of permanent poverty.

And welfare should all be handled almost entirely at the state level — with perhaps some block grants from the federal government to assist in areas of the country that have extreme poverty. There should be almost no federal administration of welfare on the principle that government works best when government is close to the people. Most of the governing in America should take place at the state and local level.

2) Crack Down Hard on Disability Fraud

The Barracks-system of welfare described above is for long-term unemployed able-bodied adults who need government assistance to live.

So this “tough love” welfare system would certainly create an incentive for people to fake back injuries and the like so they could go on long-term disability. Clearly, we would have to step up enforcement of laws against disability fraud — increase penalties, and the like.

Again, this becomes easier if we shift responsibility for all welfare and poverty programs back to states and local governments — where local officials are on the scene and are in the best position to police disability fraud.

Social Security

Social Security and Medicare are designed to protect those who are too old to work from falling into poverty. These are not welfare programs because we pay into these systems all our lives and expect these systems to be there when we reach retirement age.

Most Americans see Social Security and Medicare as successes. Most people don’t want to see grandma forced to eat dog food to survive.

Social Security now faces financing problems for two principal reasons:

FIRST, politicians have been using the Social Security Trust Fund for other government expenditures rather than to ensure the long-term health of the system; and

SECOND, people are living much longer today than they were when Social Security was enacted.

Both are simple problems to fix.

Politicians must be stopped from using Social Security as a piggy bank to fund the rest of the federal government.

Even Al Gore campaigned in 2000 on the idea of passing a “Social Security Lock-Box Law” that would stop Congress from doing exactly this.

I doubt Gore was serious about his proposal. It was probably a campaign gimmick. But it’s a good idea.

We also need to index the age at when people begin to receive Social Security according to increasing life-expectancy.

When Social Security was first passed in 1935, the life expectancy for the average man was 58, for the average woman 62. Social Security benefits kicked in at age 65 — which, back then, was considered extreme old age. The purpose of Social Security was to assist those in extreme old age who were no long physically able to work.

Only 54 percent of Americans in those days lived long enough to receive any Social Security benefits. And most of them would only receive benefits for a few years.

So financing this system was not a problem.

Today, average life expectancy has reached 78 years of age. The average baby born today will likely live into their 90s.

Obviously, Social Security can’t pay benefits to people for 30 years.

Age 60 is the new 40.

Scientists now believe that with some genetic tweaking, it’s possible in the not-so-distant-future for humans to live for 500 years. They’ve achieved this with genetic tweaks to worms. Now they are trying this with mice.

Clearly, we must continue to raise the retirement age as life expectancy increases.

Right now, retirement age to receive full Social Security benefits is 67. But you can start receiving benefits at age 62 if you want to accept 30 percent less.

The retirement age for Social Security should be raised to age 72 immediately and then indexed to average life expectancy. That would take care of the Social Security financing problem.

Medicare

The best way to protect and preserve Medicare is to repeal ObamaCare.

Like Social Security, Medicare is designed to provide good medical care in our old age — when we most need it. Health insurance for younger Americans can be purchased relatively cheaply.

But ObamaCare steals $716 billion from Medicare over the next ten years in order to pay for ObamaCare.

Because of ObamaCare, doctors and hospitals are now scheduled to be paid just 33 percent for Medicare patients of what private insurers pay for the same treatments — again, because of the need to fund ObamaCare.

As a result, doctors and hospitals are increasingly turning away Medicare patients.

There is nothing about ObamaCare that’s working.

It took a pack of lies to sell ObamaCare – which passed in the Senate by a single vote.

But what’s really dooming ObamaCare is cost — the sticker shock of the monthly premiums people are experiencing right now who have been thrown into the ObamaCare exchanges. According to a 49-state study by the Manhattan Institute, ObamaCare is causing an average increase in premiums for individuals of 41 percent.

How is this happening?

Well, because whenever government takes over an industry (in this case one-sixth of the U.S. economy) costs always go up, while quality and service decline. So now we have the equivalent of the Post Office managing our health care — except worse . . . because it’s the IRS that will be the enforcer of ObamaCare.

But also because ObamaCare requires all of us to have health coverage for items we don’t want.

As a 55-year-old male with kids out of the home, I have no interest in paying for insurance that covers maternity care, pediatric care, birth control pills, contraceptives, abortions, vasectomies, or a sex-change operation. But now, because of ObamaCare, I am required to have health insurance that covers these things.

So ObamaCare is a total catastrophe on every level.

ObamaCare is a disaster because it attempts to micromanage 18 percent of the American economy — a task we learned from the collapse of the Soviet Union that government is incapable of doing.

Social Security and Medicare are different. All these programs require government to do is write checks. Government can do that simple task.

Now that ObamaCare is such a self-evident disaster, liberals are saying what we really need is “Medicare for All” — which is single-payer health care, with the government as the single payer.

No, that’s not what we need.

Government should step in where the free-market isn’t, or can’t.

90 percent of Americans are covered by private health insurance. Why dismantle that?

Medical expenses and health insurance costs are low for young healthy people.

Medical expenses and health insurance on the private market become unaffordable for most when they enter the final years of life. It make sense for government to make provisions for that reality.

Social Security and Medicare have done an effective job at keeping the elderly from falling into poverty.

The big reform I would make to these programs is that our contributions to these programs should go into personalized IRA-style savings and investment accounts — accounts that could not be touched by politicians. This is the Chilean model Herman Cain talked about in the 2012 primary elections.

This is an excellent idea.

We also need to index the age people become eligible for Medicare to account for increased life expectancy.

But the big point is: conservatives must be careful not to sound like they oppose Social Security and Medicare.

These programs are popular with voters. If I were to re-launch these programs — start over — I would make some changes and adjustments to make them work better. But the programs are here. People have paid into these programs all their lives on the expectation that these programs would be there in their old age. People have built their lives around these programs.

For conservatives to sound, sometimes, like they oppose these programs is political suicide. We are conservatives not radicals. We are conservatives, not libertarians. Conservatives certainly have bedrock principles (rooted in America’s Constitution and Declaration of Independence), but we also deal with the world as it actually is. We look at reality. We might prefer that a particular road was not in that location, but it’s there. It makes no sense to move it.

Social Security and Medicare have become American institutions. Most people believe their parents and grandparents should be protected from falling into poverty after they’ve lived beyond working age. On the whole, Social Security and Medicare have achieved what they were supposed to achieve.

It’s worth noting that both Social Security and Medicare were enacted with strong support from both political parties — unlike ObamaCare which could not garner a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate.

Obama could have crafted health care legislation that would have attracted Republican votes, but he chose not to. He chose to craft legislation that could not even attract the vote of a liberal Republican, not even Olympia Snowe (who loved to vote with Democrats) — because Obama is a radical. Any legislation that any Republican could vote for is not radical enough for Obama.

But the Republican message can’t just be to oppose ObamaCare.

Polls consistently show most Americans oppose the current ObamaCare law.  ObamaCare only has 39-41 percent public support. But polls also show most Americans don’t want the law entirely repealed.

I believe that’s because most Americans believe there were things wrong with the old health care system.  The old health care system needed some fixes.

Conservatives and Republicans need to present an alternative to ObamaCare.

Nine Health Care Reforms That Make Sense

After we repeal ObamaCare, here would be my nine-point plan (tweaks) to fix the old U.S. health care system, which was the best in the world:

1) If really needed, expand Medicaid to address the uncovered poor (easy to expand an existing, well-established program).

2) Make health insurance tax-deductible for individuals (like it is for businesses).

3) Allow insurers to compete across state lines (competition always brings costs down, improves quality and choices)

4) Expand Health Care Savings Accounts (Tax-deferred, like-IRAs)

5) Cap Medical malpractice lawsuit awards (a big upward driver of health care costs)

6) Subsidize those with expensive pre-existing conditions. This could probably be done through Medicaid.

7) Those who show up at an Emergency Room without health insurance would be treated, but then sanctioned criminally. Probably pay a fine or do community service. Multiple offenders risk jail time (like deadbeat dads). That takes care of the Emergency Room problem. It’s a requirement that everyone have some kind of health insurance done the right way.

8) Medical costs and doctor visits should be tax-deductible to encourage illness prevention.

9) Restore the $716 billion that was stolen from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare.

These reforms could fit on a single sheet of paper — in contrast to the 2,700-page ObamaCare law, plus more than 20,000 pages of ObamaCare regulations that have been added to the law so far.

There.

Health care problems fixed.

We bring overall health care costs down by phasing out third-party payment systems as much as possible (including employer-provided insurance) and by making individuals responsible for the lion’s share of their own health care coverage. Then watch health care costs drop.

Flat screen TVs, personal computers, and cell phones used to be prohibitively expensive for most people. Now almost everyone can afford them, even people on welfare. A flat screen TV used to cost $20,000 when they first hit the market. Now they cost $600 — for a good one.

When the market is allowed to operate freely, without a lot of government interference and mandates, costs always come down — often to almost nothing. And we get lots of innovation — new products, new discoveries.

This is how human progress occurs. This is how free-market capitalism helps everyone become better off, including the poor — as even one of my favorite rockers Bono says: “Aid is just a stopgap. Commerce, entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid.”

We then take care of the elderly with Medicare (when health care really can become prohibitively costly). And we provide for the poor with Medicaid — most of which is administered by the states.

All this was happening under the pre-ObamaCare system.

We had a mostly good health care system. It just needed a few tweaks, some minor adjustments — much like the NFL makes relatively minor tweaks to the rules of pro-football every now and then to make the games better.

There was no need to completely reorganize 18 percent of the U.S. economy with ObamaCare.

The Bottom Line

For conservatives to win national elections consistently, emphasizing the prosperity made possible by free-market capitalism is certainly important, but is not enough.

People want freedom and prosperity. But they also want security.

And most are willing to sacrifice some freedom and prosperity for a bit more security, especially women.

That’s just reality.

Security is actually part of freedom and prosperity.

If people feel more secure, they feel more free, more prosperous, and are usually happier.

Aren’t you happier when you feel more secure?

Until conservatives address the “security” part of what people want more directly, we will continue to have trouble winning national elections.

STARK CONTRAST: Nelson Mandela was a uniter and a healer. Barack Obama is a divider and a well-poisoner.

Nelson Mandela passed away today at the age of 95.

The difference between Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama is just stunning.

Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years by the white apartheid government of South Africa.

The minority white government labeled him a terrorist.

Apartheid ended. Nelson Mandela was released from prison and became leader of South Africa.

Many pundits (including me) assumed there would be a bloodbath — that Nelson Mandela would use his power to exact revenge against white South Africans. I expected that he would exterminate the white minority, chase whites out of the country, confiscate their property, shut down their businesses.

I assumed that he would quickly set himself up as a dictator and that South Africa would become another  Hell hole, like so many other African countries.

By all accounts, Mandela was a socialist of some kind — a man of the Left.

He got along well with the likes of Fidel Castro. Many of his statements indicated he was at times sympathetic to Communism.  He joined the Communist Party in South Africa in 1961, but seems to have left the party in 1962. And he said in court testimony that he had never become a Communist.

Nelson Mandela was on the U.S. government’s terrorist watch list. And the African National Congress, which he led, was classified by our government as a terrorist organization.

His ex-wife, Winnie Mandela, was a radical Leftist who advocated killing whites.  She cheered the barbaric practice of necklacing those who did not march in lockstep with the Communist Party line. She said  ”The Soviet Union is the torch-bearer for all our hopes and aspirations.”

She also said: “With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country.”

Nelson Mandela and Winnie Mandela parted ways.

She was a radical. He turned out not to be.

Nelson Mandela probably had soclialistic instincts.

He and Barack Obama would probably consider themselves “peas in a pod” in many respects, ideologically and philosophically.

But Nelson Mandela turned out to be a truly great man. In an act of Christ-like super-human forgiveness, he seemed to harbor no bitterness toward whites for the 27 years he spent in prison.

If he was bitter (who wouldn’t be?), he never showed it. Instead, he put South Africa’s future ahead of whatever anger toward whites that he must have harbored.

Mandela’s Economic Miracle

Far for chasing whites out of the country, exterminating whites, and confiscating their property and businesses, Nelson Mandela encouraged whites and their businesses to stay in South Africa.  He did not move South Africa toward socialism and Communism, as many of us expected he would. Instead, he encouraged entrepreneurship and industry.

As a result, South Africa’s economy grew strongly under Mandela — an average of 3 percent growth per year between 1995 and 2003. This was double the average 1.5 percent annual growth rate under apartheid from 1980 through 1994.

From 1994 to 2008, incomes for black South Africans increased by 93 percent, but incomes for white South Africans also increased by an impressive 62 percent, according to University of Cape Town economist Murray Leibbrandt.

So if Mandela was at one point some kind of a Communist or socialist, he certainly did not govern that way.

As a result, South Africa remains by far the most prosperous country on the African continent. It became even more of an economic superpower on the African continent under Mandela than it was under white apartheid rule.

It’s worth noting also that Nelson Mandela kept much of the apartheid homeland system in tact, much reviled by American liberals.

The main substantive change Mandela brought to South Africa was that blacks had as much right to apply for jobs as whites.

Had he attempted to dismantle the semi-autonomous “sovereign” homelands of Bophuthatswana and Kwazulu, he knew that would have triggered a civil war.

There had been a history of bloody conflicts between the African National Congress and the Zulu Inkatha Freedom Party, but Mandela was able to forge peace through negotiation and compromise.

Though Mandela’s party was the African National Congress, the rival Zulus came to trust Mandela.

This was on a level with getting the Palestinians to trust the Israelis.

The Contrast With Obama

Nelson Mandela was a uniter and a healer.

Contrast Nelson Mandela with Barack Obama — who is a divider, a well-poisoner, and a “sower of discord.”

The great poet Dante had a special place deep in Hell for “sowers of discord.”

They were way down there in Circle 8 in Dante’s Inferno.

Whenever possible, Obama injects race into politics. His standard playbook is to demonize his political opponents . . . and even entire industries. He not only demonizes Republicans, he demonizes the insurance industry, the coal industry, the oil companies — just about the entire private sector.

His 2008 campaign machine even savaged “Joe the Plumber.”

Obama refers to his critics as “enemies.”

Obama described his brief stint working for a business as working “behind enemy lines.”

Obama’s hatred of Republicans is so total that he carefully crafted health care legislation so that it would not garner a single Republican vote in a 435-member U.S. House of Representatives and a 100-member U.S. Senate — not a single Republican vote. Not even Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, both of whom vote with the Democrats about half the time on major legislation.

Both Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins would have loved to have voted for ObamaCare, if they could have possibly justified it. Surely, he could have also brought along the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham if he had made any effort at all.

It would have be very easy to throw Republicans a few bones and to have attracted  some Republican votes for ObamaCare.

Why not do that if it costs you absolutely nothing?

Obama chose not to.

He had control of both chambers of Congress. So he wanted to make sure Republicans received absolutely nothing they wanted in the ObamaCare legislation — not even tort reform (which everyone supports, except lawyers).

Obama wanted legislation that would not and could not garner a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. That takes some doing. That takes careful thought.

This is not how you govern effectively.

Always, when governing, you want to do everything possible to bring the other side into the tent — even if you don’t really need to.  Why not make your major piece of legislation bipartisan if at all possible?

If your legislation cannot get a single vote in Congress from the other party, there’s a good chance that it’s bad legislation.

Ronald Reagan was able to get 70+ votes in the Senate for his tax-cut plans in 1981 . . . because he reached out to the less ideological Democrats.

He did not spike the football when he won the Presidency.  He did not tell leaders of the other party: “We won, you lost,” the way Obama did.

Reagan did not do any victory dances. He did not give the middle finger to the other party. Instead, he immediately reached out to the other party, without compromising on his principles.

Obama doesn’t even talk with Republicans. He attacks Republicans in every speech. He accuses Republicans of wanting dirty air, dirty water, and of wanting to throw grandma out into the snow. He says Republicans don’t care about children who have autism. He calls Tea Party people “Tea Baggers” (a sexual term).

He (his campaign) actually accused Mitt Romney of killing people.

In every speech, Obama tries to portray Republicans and conservatives as evil. He even sicks the IRS on his political opponents.  One gets the sense that Obama would kill his political critics if he could.

That’s certainly not how Nelson Mandela behaved.

Mandela kept the white minority in South Africa in the tent. He did not assail them as evil. He made it clear to them that they would be welcome in the new South Africa. Whites would have a place at the table.

As a result, South Africa continues to prosper.

Under Obama, the U.S. has gone in the opposite direction. Not only is our economy stuck in the mud and going no where, but America has become more racially divided than ever.

Mandela wanted South Africa to work, to be successful, to be prosperous.

Obama just wants to push his narrow socialist ideological agenda, no matter what the results.

Apparently, he doesn’t care that ObamaCare is a total disaster.  He’s determined to see the ruinous law through to the finish, no matter what harm it brings. No adjustments. No compromise.  Certainly no discussions with Republicans on how to fix ObamaCare.

There are ways to fix most of what’s wrong with ObamaCare. But Obama won’t listen

Obama could score amazing political points by changing course, by making adjustments, by listening, by fixing what’s not working.

But he won’t . . . because he sees his critics as evil.  He won’t even entertain the possibility that his critics might have some ideas worth considering.

It’s too bad Barack Obama learned nothing from Nelson Mandela’s example of how to govern a country.

Nelson Mandela fostered good will and trust. Barack Obama fosters ill will and distrust.

Nelson Mandela was modest and humble. Barack Obama uses the word “I” more than any President in American history. For Barack Obama, it’s always all about Obama.

I truly love Nelson Mandela, even though we probably disagreed on a lot of issues.

He was a great man — one of the greatest in world history . . . because of his actions, because of how he actually behaved when he had all the power.

He certainly could have set himself up as a dictator. He chose not to. He could have become the world’s richest man by seizing all the diamond mines and business assets of South Africa.  He chose not to.

I was dead wrong in my predictions about what Nelson Mandela would bring to South Africa.

But who could have predicted he would turn out to be the saint he turned out to be?

Who could have predicted that he would put all the personal anger he must have felt aside for the 27 years he unjustly served in prison . . . to do what’s best for his country?

Nelson Mandela was a true patriot.

Nelson Mandela is the model for how to bring people together. He is the definition of leadership.

I put him on the level of Mother Teresa and George Washington in terms of being a true force for good in the world.

What a stark and jarring contrast to Barack Obama’s smallness, pettiness, and nastiness.

ObamaCare is working perfectly from Obama’s perspective –to destroy the health insurance industry

And ultimately to destroy capitalism

Commentators and pundits have it all wrong when they say ObamaCare isn’t working.

ObamaCare is working perfectly from Obama’s perspective — as a weapon to destroy the health insurance industry . . .and ultimately to destroy capitalism.

Most assume that what Obama wants is for the healthcare.gov website to work and for all the numbers to add up.

Most assume that he expected young and healthy people to quickly sign up for ObamaCare, happily pay much higher premiums with higher deductibles in order to subsidize the sick and the elderly . . . because that’s what’s required for ObamaCare to mostly sustain itself financially.

If that doesn’t happen (which it won’t) private insurance premiums on the ObamaCare exchanges will skyrocket. Then no one will want the health insurance being offered — or won’t be able to afford it.

Most assume that would mean disaster for ObamaCare.

But that’s not Obama’s thinking.

That’s what Obama wants. He wants premiums to skyrocket for private health insurance on the exchanges.

He will then say this is proof that private health insurance doesn’t work.

His people are already blaming the health insurance companies for cancelling people’s policies –even though the cancellations are mandated by the ObamaCare law.

This is right out of his Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals playbook: create as much chaos as possible and collapse the system.

Obama’s not an idiot.  He can add up numbers.  He can connect the dots.  Do not underestimate Obama. Do not dismiss Obama as incompetent.  He’s highly competent.  Look what he did to Mitt Romney.

One year before the Election, Obama’s job approval rating stood at 45 percent on the Real Clear Politics average of polls. But he ended up pulverizing Romney in the Election — by four points.  The Election wasn’t close.

The Obama campaign made the Romney campaign look like a Model-T.

Make no mistake. Obama is highly intelligent. He knows exactly what he’s doing.

Obama obviously knew the ObamaCare exchanges would fail, that this entire ObamaCare system would fail — that it can’t possibly succeed.

The 2,700-page ObamaCare law (now with 20,000 pages of regulations added to it) is an illogical, self-contradictory mess doomed to implode, taking our entire health care system down with it.

ObamaCare is failing by design.

He and Michelle must be howling with laughter every night over dinner at how perfectly his scheme is working.

He probably can’t believe we’re this stupid — to think the goal of ObamaCare is to make health care better and more affordable for Americans.  How could anyone, except a complete fool, think that?

Mostly what’s happening on the ObamaCare exchanges is people are being funneled into Medicaid.

Many say this proves ObamaCare is a disaster — that all these millions of new people that will be funnelled into Medicaid will  cause both federal and state government spending to explode and deficits to skyrocket.

Again, Obama doesn’t care. In fact, this is exactly what Obama wants.

The more people he can put on Medicaid, the better from Obama’s perspective.

Obama has always said that what he really wants is single-payer socialized medicine. He has called this ObamaCare system a transition to that. He has said it might take us 15 years to get to single-payer socialized medicine. But we’ll get there eventually, he’s said.

What is Medicaid?

It’s single-payer socialized medicine. The more people he can funnel into Medicaid, the better from Obama’s point of view. Ideally, he would like no one to enroll in private insurance, even on the ObamaCare exchanges.

What he wants is “Medicaid for all.”

Obama loves to create dependents on government.

Americans on food stamps is up 50 percent under Obama. He’s advertising in low-income areas to get more people hooked on food stamps.

He has spent billions of taxpayer dollars distributing free “Obama Phones” to his constituents.

We  now have 10.8 million Americans receiving disability benefits — which is about the population of the entire state of Illinois and more than the population of Greece.

The more people he can hook on free stuff from the government, the better, in Obama’s world.

He wants more people on food stamps, more people on welfare, more people in public housing, more people on public assistance, more people working for the government — as many as possible. And he wants to shrink the private economy.

He once described his brief stint working for a  business as “working behind enemy lines.”

ObamaCare is not about providing quality, affordable health care to all Americans. It’s about income and wealth redistribution. It’s about his 2008 promise to “fundamentally transform” America — by which he means “fundamentally transform” America into his Hugo Chavez-style socialist vision.

Is it possible that Obama’s dysfunctional healthcare.gov website is dysfunctional on purpose?

Well, what’s the result of healthcare.gov not working?

The result is it’s nearly impossible to sign up for private health insurance on the ObamaCare exchanges?

Isn’t this exactly what Obama wants?

He’s made it no secret that he sees the health insurance industry as evil. He has spent his entire public live demonizing the health insurance industry.

His goal is to eliminate the private health insurance industry completely. What better way to do this than to make it impossible to buy private health insurance? — which is exactly what’s happening now.

How long will these private insurance companies put up with this chaos (and lack of business) before they get out of the health insurance business and go into other fields?

Not long. They aren’t going to wait three months, or six months, or a year for the ObamaCare exchanges to work. They have to make money now. So it won’t be long (perhaps another 90 days or so) before there is no more private health insurance available — certainly none at an affordable price.

Next year, Obama’s own Health and Human Services projects that 80 million employer-based health insurance plans will be cancelled. That’s in addition to HHS projecting 14 million individual policy cancellations — for a total of 93 million health insurance policy cancellations.

Again, this is exactly what Obama wants. He will then just blame the evil corporations and the evil private sector for these cancellations.

Then we’ll have little choice but to go to single-payer socialized medicine — Medicaid for all.

Won’t that be wonderful?

There are  many other side-benefits to ObamaCare from Obama’s point of view — none having to do with providing affordable quality health care for all.

ObamaCare imposes enormous costs on business — the enemy, in Obama’s mind.

The more burdens he can place on business, the more our free-market economy slows and stumbles.  He can then point to this as further proof that capitalism doesn’t work, that what we need is more socialism.

So ObamaCare is achieving exactly what Obama wants to achieve on every front.  What he wants is to sabotage and collapse America’s capitalist economic system.

Back to Obama’s dysfunctional healthcare.gov website.

Is it really conceivable that Obama’s people did not know how to build a functioning website for $634 million in taxpayer money?

The Obama 2012 reelection campaign was the most high-tech, the most technologically sophisticated in history.

The Obama campaign made the Romney campaign look like a horse and buggy by comparison.

Obviously, Obama’s people know how to build a website that works.

So the question is: Why didn’t they build a site that works for the $634 million?

THE ANSWER: He does not want healthcare.gov to work. He does not want ObamaCare to work — if by working we mean making our health care system work better.  He does not want our mostly capitalist economy to work. He wants to collapse the system.

Obama is a Marxist ideologue.  He’s a true radical. And he’s playing for keeps.  Remember, he’s out to “fundamentally transform” America.

His pastor of 20 years was the America-hating Jeremiah Wright, for Pete’s sake.  Obama’s political career was launched out of the livingroom of the self-described America-hating terrorist William Ayers. His mentor growing up was Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis. He taught Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals at the University of Chicago — called this book among the most influential books in terms of shaping his thinking.  He was a “community organizer” for the radical VOTE FRAUD organization ACORN.

His former White House Communications Director (Anita Dunn) is a self-described Maoist.

These are the kinds of people Obama surrounds himself with.

This is who Obama is.

How can he like something he says he want to “fundamentally transform?”

What if I said to my wife: “Honey, I love you. Here’s how I want to fundamentally transform you”?

I doubt she would take this as a sign that the marriage is going well.

ObamaCare is doing exactly what it was designed to do: And that’s to destroy America’s health insurance industry and health care system (18 percent of the U.S. economy), which is one giant step toward destroying capitalism in America.

Login to Join Discussion!



Categories