| |
| Introduction | Every day we are
bombarded with "crises." Once you become aware of how often
this word is used
- misused - it
becomes predictable and funny.Why are there so many crises?
Every political bump is frantically announced, every disease
is a pandemic, and every quirk of human nature is a
disease. And all can be solved only by government.
Can this be true? Let's examine some
current events, maybe some below the headlines, and see which we should accept
and
which we should reject... | | |
U.S.
Ranked 37th
in Health Care |
This
story ran on CNN on 11/29/06 with absolutely no explanation.
It piqued my interest precisely because
of the lack of factual support. So, I did a Google
search and found this article:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
If you click the link
to "Source: WHO World Health Report," some interesting facts come out:
1. First of all, the WHO (World Health
Organization) has a bias you can check yourself on its site...
Socialistic, one-world control of
health care and health related" issues, such as birth control
(which equates to population control),
and government health "insurance" (tax-based health care).
The article cited supports this point
of view.
2. If you have the patience to read almost all the way down,
you can see that their rankings are
largely based on socialistic criteria, such as "fairness"
and availability
of health care to those who have a low capacity to
pay. In other words, how many Peters are robbed to
pay for Paul. Under these
criteria, to quote the WHO:
"Colombia
achieved top rank because someone
with a low income might pay the equivalent of one
dollar per year for health care, while a high- income
individual pays 7.6 dollars."
So, unless a Colombian doctor only charges a median fee of
about $4 a year per patient, the real cost
must be borne by taxpayers... a fact
totally omitted from this report! According to the WHO, if
health
care
is largely funded by taxation, minus the cut government takes
for its own uses, it is "free."
3.
So, is the ranking, and the alarming headline it produced,
worthy of our concern. I don't think so! |
| | | Propaganda
and the Iraq "War" | The
following
terms are used by all major
news
reports of the Iraq conflict. Here's how you can see for
yourself
their real purpose is to get a gut reaction out of you. The
terms
and concepts are
designed to
mislead us into being "for" a constant state of war with newly defined
"enemies:"
1.
"War" - The Iraq conflict is not a war, it was an invasion of a country
that could not and did not harm us. Under
the U.S.
Constitution, Congress is the only body empowered to declare war.
Instead, our so-called representatives shirked their
Constitutional
duty by delegating their war power to the President. This is
an
abdication of their duty under the separation of powers which protects
us from a dictatorship. So, what's happening in Iraq and
Afghanistan
is not a war, but an invasion of countries which did nothing against
ours. Calling it a war, though, helps to make it sound
justified, even
moral.
2.
"War on Terror" - Try to imagine this as a real concept, a
real
activity. How can one have a war on any inanimate concept?
Remember the "War on Alcohol?" That's what they called
Prohibition to "sell" it. The "war" on drugs" the
"War on
Tobacco." These are just wars on the people who use the
drugs,
tobacco, alcohol, etc. So, who is the "War on Terror"
against?
Anyone the government says is a terrorist!
Remember, with
the so-called PATRIOT Act, () they don't need to try you, nor do the
Constitutional protections apply against warrantless searches,
self-incrimination, nor speedy trial. All they have to do is
show
another government agency that they have reason to believe you are "in
league" with terrorists they have defined. And their list is
secret - you can't see if you are on it! Not 'til they knock
on
yourdoor - with a battering ram!
3.
"Insurgent"
- An insurgent is defined as:
adj : in opposition to a civil authority or
government [syn: {seditious},
{subversive}]
n 1: a
person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the
constituted authority (especially in the hope of
improving conditions) [syn: {insurrectionist}, {freedom
fighter}, {rebel}]
2:
a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger
force by sabotage and harassment [syn: {guerrilla}, {guerilla},
{irregular}]
So,
is the U.S. a "constituted authority?" If so, under what
authority but
the authority of armed invasion? The second definition does
seem to
fit, in that the people resisting the U.S. do use sabotage and
harrassment. However, what other weapons do they have?
If the U.S.
were invaded by, say France, wouldn't you use
harrassment and sabotage to fight them? I sure like to think
I would!
Note that as used in the news, "insurgent"
is really "anyone our soldiers aim a gun at."
I
think a definition which better fits these "insurgents" is "resistance
fighter" someone who is:
"a secret group organized to
overthrow a government or occupation force [syn:
{underground}]"
However, talking about Iraqis as
"resistance fighters" would put a negative light on the U.S.
4.
"Support the Troops" - Anyone who takes a position against the official
government line on this invasion is immediately labelled as "Hating America," or "Not Supporting the Troops."
Well, if the troops are being misused for an immoral,
unconstitutional
purpose, should we robotically approve anyway?
5.
"Un-American" - Anything that disagrees with the
Government's position.
| |
To be
continued...
|
| | Back to
Home Page |
Updated: May 30, 2008
|
|
