Analysis and Views on Iran War — 22 March 2026 - Selected Sources

Below is a list of sources and articles that I have found helpful in understanding the war in Iran - EW 

4 March 2026 — Diary of a CEO — Roundtable discussion — WW3 Threat Assessment: Trump Bombing Iran Makes WW3 More Likely! — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9dljIL4rBk&t=3528s

12 March 2026 — Diary of a CEO Podcast — Talks with a professor who has simulated a war with Iran for 20 years and predicts what will happen next — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcXfcXJvMXg&t=2s

16 March 2026 — The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working. Here is why Al-Jazeers Op-Ed piece — https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/3/16/the-us-israeli-strategy-against-iran-is-working-here-is-why

16 March 2026 — Ray Dalio post on why who controls the Strait of Hormuz will determine who wins this war — https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-comes-down-who-controls-strait-hormuz-final-battle-ray-dalio-ienne/

18 March 2026 — Sky News with Michael Clarke — Iran War Q & A — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE5kxwE7Ams&t=1107s

Obama – Precursor to a Dictator

Before there was Caesar, there was Sulla; before there was Hitler, there was Hindenburg, and before a dictator in the U.S., there was Obama. In this post, I put forward the concern that President Obama’s actions with immigration are dangerous not because of what they do to our immigration policy, but because of the precedent that his actions has set for a future leader. I will do this by noting two other leaders of Constitutional Republics whose actions laid precedents for later dictators, namely Sulla in the Roman Republic and Hindenburg in the Wiemar Republic.   

While virtually everyone has heard of Julius Caesar and know the story of how he took his army across the Rubicon far fewer people have heard of the first Roman general who invaded Rome with his army, Lucius Cornelia Sulla.  Most of the information in this section comes from Larry Reed’s excellent paper that lays out in fuller detail how Sulla set the stage for Caesar. 

Sulla was a Roman General who, because of his success in battle, was elected to the highest executive position, a consul. His rival, Marius, out-maneuvered him politically and received a coveted military assignment. Feeling that he had been wronged, in 88 BC, Sulla marched on Rome with his army, forced the Senate to convene and to declare that Sulla’s political opponents were enemies of the state. In 59 BC, Caesar followed the example set by Sulla and also decided to march on Rome with his army. 

Sulla expanded the power of the historical office of dictator which, under Roman law, was an elected position that lasted only six months in which a single individual was given absolute control over the Roman Republic. Sulla appointed himself dictator, and later extended the brief sixth month term to a position for life. Caesar was elected dictator, but also extended his position to a life one, following Sulla’s example.  

Sulla was a politician who felt that Rome needed to return to its more traditional ways in order to remain a Republic. After he took power, he instituted a series of what he believed were necessary political reforms. In short, Sulla took all his actions with the goal of preserving Rome. Unfortunately, he ended up handing Caesar a playbook on how to become a dictator of Rome.

Another example of a well-meaning leader who set up a republican government for a dictator was Hindenburg of the Wiemar Republic. When most people think of the name “Hindenburg,” they think of the famous zeppelin The person that the zeppelin was named after was Paul von Hindenburg, a WWI hero that was President of the German Wiemar Republic before Hitler came to power.

Hindenburg  wanted to help the struggling German economy. After realizing that the German legislature would not pass his proposed measures he declared the problem an “emergency” and signed his measures into law without the legislature. This power was granted to the President under Article 48  of the Wiemar Constitution which allowed the president to bypass the legislature in an emergency. The problem was that it was the President who got to decide when it was an emergency. 

Hitler built on this precedent of laws being solely enacted by the executive branch. The infamous Reichstag Fire Decree, which severely limited civil rights, was signed into law by Hindenburg without going through the legislature.  Later, the enabling act was passed which essentially eliminated the role of the legislature in creating laws. Hitler could then make the laws without the legislature.

In his 2014 state of the union address, President Obama talked about the various ways that he was going to act without the consent of Congress to address various problems.   These problems include a higher minimum wage, cutting red tape for certain projects and raising emission standards. After acknowledging his need to work with Congress on immigration reform in the state of the union address, Obama recently took unilateral action and effectively changed the immigration laws of this nation. He claims that his actions are temporary and will no longer be necessary when Congress passes an immigration bill. Such statements echo what Sulla or Hindenburg told their respective republics.  

Presidential rewriting of immigration law will not create a dictatorship in America. The tension between executive and legislative power is as old as the American Republic. What Obama IS doing is setting the stage for a future despot just as Sulla set the precedent for Caesar and Hindenburg for Hitler.  Those who applaud the actions on immigration law by President Obama need to ask themselves how enthusiastic they be if a Republican President decided to deport the 5 million people living here illegally. Because that is the precedent the Obama is setting. And if you believe, as I do, that our long-term liberty is best served when the checks and balances of government are respected no matter who is in power, then Obama’s recent announcement should give you cause for concern rather than for celebration.  

True Cause of Current Economic Mess

Common Reasons
A variety of causes have been thrown out as the cause of our current economic mess. These include the following:
1) Governmental policy encouraging home ownership for everybody, no matter their economic circumstances
2) Lack of government regulation over the mortgage and banking industry
3) Insurance on mortgages creating an incentive for bankers to give out bad loans
4) Too much money being created which helps caused a housing bubble

All these reasons have facts to support them, but in my opinion, the fundamental cause was DISHONESTY.

The buyers of houses who stated income they didn't earn to buy houses they couldn't afford were DISHONEST.

The real estate brokers and appraisers and other middle men who knew the people they were selling houses to couldn't afford the houses they were buying were DISHONEST.

The bankers who knew they were giving out bad loans but thought that the insurance would cover them were DISHONEST.

Predictably, the insurance company went broke.

If any one of these groups had been 100% honest, the current economic recession would not have been so great. More unqualified people would have not gotten into houses and the surplus of vacant homes would not have been so big.

A leader in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints summed it nicely when he said -

In most of the world, we have been experiencing an extended and devastating economic recession. It was brought on by multiple causes, but one of the major causes was widespread dishonest and unethical conduct, particularly in the U.S. housing and financial markets. Reactions have focused on enacting more and stronger regulation. Perhaps that may dissuade some from unprincipled conduct, but others will simply get more creative in their circumvention. There could never be enough rules so finely crafted as to anticipate and cover every situation, and even if there were, enforcement would be impossibly expensive and burdensome. This approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone. In the memorable phrase of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, “We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar.”

No amount of regulation, no amount of change in policy, no change in insurance, no limitation on the money supply can keep people from being dishonest and from financially hurting the society at large.

Currently there are some protestors who are against corporate greed. I would suggest that instead of complaining against corporate greed, they instead focus on the root cause of our economic troubles, DISHONESTY. They could set an example of being 100% honesty in all their dealings and call on the bankers do the same. That would be a good start toward economic recovery. And I'll start it off by hereby promising to be 100% in my all my dealings, especially business dealings.

Mosque in New York

The First Amendment to the Constitution says in part- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " There is currently a man who wants to build a mosque/community center two blocks away from the World Trade Center site. He has followed all the laws and zoning regulations. Some people are offended and think it's a bad idea and that he should move his mosque further away from the WTC site. He has also made some comments like "America was an accomplice to the events of 9/11" and he won't call Hamas a terrorist organization. (I and most people believe that they are)

I strongly feel he should be allowed to build the mosque where he wants for the following reasons-

The First Amendment
(1)- The First Amendment allows freedom of religion. Part of that freedom of religion is building places of worship subject only to local laws. He has complied with that. I get upset every time somebody protests a new Mormon temple when we follow the local laws. I want him to get the same treatment as any other religious building. The First Amendment doesn't say "prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless we really don't like your religion" or "unless you grossly offend the local population." To me, it's immaterial that so many people are offended by this Imam. I'm offended by many things, including gay rights protesters marching around temple square. Just because we are offended by somebody, doesn't mean that we can then deny them rights. If he is linked to terrorism or funded by terrorist organizations, then shut him down and throw him in jail. If not, then let him build the mosque already.

America IS that generous
(2)- Another reason is to show that America is not afraid of a mosque and that we have such freedom that we can allow somebody that we totally disagree with to build a house of worship. We are not threatened by it, we recognize that this shows how much we value freedom that we allow this "offensive" mosque to be built close to hallowed ground. Try doing that in Saudi Arabia or Eygpt or Pakistan or Iran. We are more generous, more secure in our freedom and greatness than those countries. What harm is a mosque going to do to us?

The Imam is really a good guy
(3)- It seems like this guy has been an Imam for while in New York. He was hired by the Bush Administration to do outreach work to Islamic countries. See here. He wrote a book to try to bridge the perceived gap between the West and Islam. It was called "What is right with Islam is what is right with America." That doesn't sound like a radical islamist to me.


Other Views
Here is a view from Pakistan
Here is a view from two 9/11 families and two opposing commentators
Here is a view from a conservative commentator

I disagree with the conservative commentator and the people who are against the mosque because the terrorists were not Muslims. They claimed to be, but they violated some major laws in Islam including the one that you can't commit suicide. It's like if Warren Jeffs, a polygamist, claiming that he's mormon and then people protesting a temple because of what Warren Jeffs did. Let me be clear, mormons are not polygamists, that practice ended over 100 years ago, and the idea that Warren Jeffs represents me or my faith in any way shape or form is preposterous to me. So preposterous that I don't feel the need to clarify that he is not mormon. I suspect that the Muslim community feels the same way about those 9/11 hijackers.

Definition of a Republic

Introduction
There is sometimes a confusion about what exactly is the definition of a republic. In April of this year, an article was published in the Daily Herald about a conflict between some concerned parents and the Alpine School District in Utah. (Warnock) Part of the concern was the use of the phrase “social democracy” as a mission statement instead of the word “republic.” (Ibid.). Likewise, the John Birch Society promotes a DVD that defines a republic as a government that follows the rule of law. I disagreed with their definition and e-mailed their organization. They sent me a timely and polite e-mail in which they strongly defended their definition. Thus, among some groups of people and organizations, there appears to be some strong feelings about the correct definition of a republic.

Surprisingly, such confusion is not new as there was confusion and different definitions of what constitutes a republic back in the founding era. This paper will examine some of those sources. First, I will look at some selected writings of John Adams and see how he defined a republic. Second, this paper will cite some of the Federalist Papers to see how they used that term. Lastly some other writers will be examined for their understanding of the word “republic.”

John Adams
John Adams understood both the origin and original definition of the word “republic” and what it had come to mean in his time. In his Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, Adams explains the origin of the word in Latin. (Adams 119). Republic is a combination of “res” and “publicus. ” (Ibid.). “Res” means wealth, riches, or property. (Ibid.). “Publicus” means public, common, or belonging to the people. Together, or “res publica,” the two words mean the wealth or property belonging to the people. (Ibid.). Adams then goes on to state the “the original meaning of the word “republic” could be no other than a government in which the property of the people predominated and governed; . . . It signified a government in which the property of the public, or people, and of every one of them, was secured and protected by law.” (Ibid.). He further reasons that “This idea, indeed, implies liberty; because property cannot be secure unless the man be at liberty to acquire, use, or part with it, at his discretion, and unless he heave his personal liberty of life and limb, motion and rest, for that purpose.” (Ibid.). And it also implies that the property of all men is secured by law, no matter if a majority of men want to take it away from him. The law protects him and his property and is equally applied to all. Having the law equally apply to every man, no matter his station, is called “the rule of law.” Indeed, this definition corresponds with Adams's own definition of “republic.”

In 1775, John Adams defined the essentials of a republic as a “government bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend.” (Adams 96). A republic's rule of law was again emphasized in Adams' Thoughts on Government, where he defined a republic as “an empire of laws, not of man.” (Adams 108). In another part of his “Defence of the Constitutions of the United States,” Adams states that his preferred definition is that a republic is where all citizens, from the highest station in life to the lowest, are “equally subject to the laws.” (Adams 119). However, later in life, in some correspondence with another founding father, Roger Sherman, Adams defines a republic as a government “where the sovereignty is vested in more than one person.” (Adams Three Letters). A possible reconciliation of the those two definitions is that where the sovereignty is divided, the rule of law is more likely to be followed, because the power of government is divided and each branch of government checks the opposing branch.

In addition to giving the origin of the word in His Defence, Adams also notes that the understanding of the word republic was changed by Marchant Needham, and from that time, a republic came to mean representative democracy. (Adams 119.). It had been used in that sense ever since then, “even by writers of the most mathematical precision, the most classical purity, and extensive learning.” (Ibid.). Marchamont Nedham was a pamphleteer during the English civil war and the events surrounding the English civil war in the mid-1600's. John Adams wrote Defence in 1787. so, for over 100 years, the word “republic” had been used to mean a representative democracy.

In summary, according to John Adams, the true definition of republic was a government that followed the rule of law, but that the common understanding of the word was a representative democracy. And it was that common understanding that was used in the Federalist Papers.

Federalist Papers
The Federalist Papers is a series of essays written in support of ratification of the U.S. Constitution. They were written by James Madison, Alexander Hamiliton, and John Jay. In Federalist number 10, Madison defines republic as “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place . . .” He goes on to explain that a main difference between a republic and a democracy is that in a republic “the delegation of the Government” is to a “small number of citizens elected by the rest . . .” (Federalist #10). Thus, a major distinction between democracy and a republic is representation of the citizens by a few elected officials in a republic. Madison again describes a republic as “a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people . . .” (Federalist # 39). This is describing a system where the people elect representatives to act for them in government. This looks like representative democracy, which was the common understanding of the word “republic” at that time.

One aspect in which a democracy and republic are similar is that in both, “the sense of the majority should prevail.” (Federalist # 22). Interestingly, Madison also noted the “extreme inaccuracy with which the term (republic) has been used in political disquisitions.” (Federalist # 39).

In short, the Federalist Papers treat the term “republic” as meaning a government with a representation elected by the people. In other words, a representative democracy.

Other Views
John Adams and the views expressed in the Federalist Papers do not include all the definitions of a republic that were current at the founding of America. Benjamin Rush defined republic as “a government consisting of three branches, and each derived at different times and for different periods from the PEOPLE.” (Rush 138). This seems to mesh with Adams's view that in a republic the power is divided. In Thomas Paine's Common Sense, he refers to the House of Commons as the republican part of the British government. (Paine 107). Paine's definition of republic seems to rest with representation of the people. In this he agrees with Brutus, an anti-federalist. (Brutus No. 1). These other views appear to buttress the contention that the common understanding of the word “republic” involves the people electing representatives, which is a democratic republic.

Conclusion
The term “republic” seems to mean different things to different people. To Adams, it means the rule of law. To Madison, it means representation. To others, the form of the government is what defines a republic. While these definitions are not mutually exclusive, they do not necessarily mean the same thing. A government could be set up so that there is no representation, yet theoretically everybody is subject to the law. An example would be a monarchy in which the king obeyed the laws. In contrast, a representative government could vote for laws that set certain favored classes of people above the law. This would violate the rule of law.

However, a representative democracy and equal application of law are not exclusive. In fact, I would argue that a representative democracy is the best form of government for keeping the rule of law. So, despite concerns from parents in the Alpine school district, or the stance of the John Birch Society, the two main definitions of “republic “ can go together. A possible synthesis of the two definitions of “republic” is a representative democracy in which everybody is subject to the law. The common understanding of the word “republic” is no threat to the our liberty and corresponds nicely with the understanding of that word in our founding era.

Works Cited

Adams, John. “Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States.” The Founders' Constitution. Ed. Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner. Vol. 1. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1987. 119-121. Print.

---. “Novanglus, No. 7.” The Founders' Constitution. Ed. Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner. Vol. 1. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1987. 96. Print.

---. “Thoughts on Government.” The Founders' Constitution. Ed. Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner. Vol. 1. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1987. 107-110. Print.

---. “Three Letters to Roger Sherman, on the Constitution of the United States.” Online Library of Liberty. Web. 9 July 2010.

“Brutus No. 1.” The Founders' Constitution. Ed. Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner. Vol. 1. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1987. 124-125. Print.

Hahn, Bill. “Re:Overview of America.” Message to the author. 1 Nov. 2008. E-mail.

“Marchamont Nedham.” British Civil Wars, Commonwealth and Protectorate 1638-1660. Web. 9 July 2010.

“Overview of America.” John Birch Society. 2006. DVD.

Paine, Thomas. “Common Sense.” The Founders' Constitution. Ed. Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner. Vol. 1. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1987. 103-107. Print.

Rush, Benjamin. “Benjamin Rush to John Adams - 21 July 1789.” The Founders' Constitution. Ed. Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner. Vol. 1. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1987. 138. Print.

Warnock, Caleb. “Parents accuse BYU, Alpine of Socialist Conspiracy.” heraldextra.com. Daily Herald, 11 April 2010. Web. 9 July 2010.

Thoughts on The Prince by Machiavellie

The Prince is filled with practical advice on how to conquer and maintain a state. The only standard is whether it is effective or not. This leads to a amoral book. Yet, I found some gems of wisdom and truth in this book, not because Machiavelli was looking to explain what is right or wrong in a moral sense, but what works and what doesn't work. This lends greater credence to those true and good principles that found their way into his book. This reminds me of Will Durant, an agnostic, who started to appreciated the role of religion, not because he was necessarily a believer, but because of his study of history, he saw the good that religion did.

One of the true and good principles in The Prince is the principle of preparation. He talks of how leaders should prepare for crisis and distress while the political climate is peaceful. He also notes how many princes neglect to do this. President Monson has said that when the time for action has come, the time for preparation is over. I have seen many times in my life where I missed out on opportunities because I was not prepared. It is a most humbling and bitter feeling.

Nations can prepare or not during times of plenty. The U.S. government did not prepare during the times of plenty for the current economic crisis. In contrast, I have heard that Chile did save up money when times were good to help weather this storm. What a state we are in when nations in Latin America can think more long-range than us!

Another truth that Machiavelli mentions is that it is better to be active than timid. He talks about how God or fortune will not do things for us, they can only provide the opportunities. This inspires me to be more active and seek to make my fortune instead of relying on a sense of entitlement that it will come to me.

In short, while The Prince is an amoral book, there is still truth to be found in it.

Federal funds=federal control

A lot of people are concerned about the Health Care Reform law that congress recently passed. I have heard people say that it is the end of our republic as we know it. To me, it's just another step in the slow progression towards federal control of our life. It's nothing more or nothing less. It seems to me that whenever the federal government funds an activity, they also end up deciding how you get to do that activity. A couple of examples of this federal control are funding for highways and funding for education. I see no reason that federal government for health care will end up any different.

Highway funding

From 1974-1995, the Federal Government controlled how fast you can go on freeways. If your state posted speed limits above 55, the federal government would withhold transportation funding for your state. In Nevada, they tested that law by posting a 70 mph sign. They found that the feds were serious and were willing to stop giving the State of Nevada millions of dollars of federal money for road repair and other transportation needs. Recently, Senator Chuck Schumer introduced a bill that would strip federal transportation funding from states that did not have a texting while driving law. Now, I am not against a law like that, but I don't see any provision in the Constitution granting permission for the federal government to pass that kind of law. It's up to the states to make that kind of safety law. Federal funds= federal control.

Education Funding

Funding for public schools is important, right? I agree that education is extremely important, but is it best served by funding from the federal government? With federal funding comes federal regulations such as No Child Left Behind. I have met quite a few teachers who HATE that law. I have heard that if schools don't meet the standards, then federal funding gets cut. Again federal funds=federal control.

Health Care Funding

Now we have a Health Insurance reform bill. Everybody will get covered, but I hear the price tag is almost 1 Billion dollars over 10 years. My understanding is that half (500 billion) of that will come from Medicare and half from new taxes. What will come with this new federal money? If past experience is any indicator, I predict that more federal regulations and control will come along with that federal money. After all, federal funds= federal control.

Prediction of the financial meltdown

In 1999, Senator Dorgan (Democrat -North Dakota) predicted that because Congress repealed a certain law, within a decade we will see massive taxpayer bailouts. See story here. According to the readers of the Motley Fool, a website dedicated to investing, repeal of this law is the single greatest cause of the financial collapse of 2008. Which law was repealed in 1999 that is being blamed for the financial meltdown? The Glass- Steagall Act.

The Glass-Steagall Act was passed in 1933 as a result of the Great Depression. It prohibited commercial banks, like the ones that average people use to store their money, from engaging in the investment business, like derivatives. See here. The banks didn't like those restrictions and over a period of about 20 years, the banking industry was able to weaken and finally repeal the Act. See timeline here.

There has been discussions recently about what new laws need to be in place to prevent another financial meltdown. For example. on the PBS news show Newshour, the experts discussed what new regulations need to happen. See here. While I disagree with what they say about limiting executive pay, I do agree that we need to re-impose the wall between commercial and investment banking. The reason for this is that while there are greater returns in investment banking, there are also greater risks. And it seems to be in human nature to be greedy and put the savings of others (commercial bank accounts) in risky investments.

From the savings and loan crisis to the Great Depression to Mr. Law creating the first stock bubble, a wholly unregulated financial system seems to lead to individuals acting on their greedy impulses to the extent that they bring the whole system down. Unrestrained greed brought the financial system down in the 1930s and unrestrained greed did the same in 2008. As Senator Dorgan said in 1999, that which is true in 1930 is true in 2010. We need to either re-enact Glass-Steagall or eliminate greed from all bankers and investors. Enacting the law is the obvious choice.

On a final note, here is a NPR marketplace article on whether banks have learned or changed anything from the financial crisis. Interesting article to listen to.

March 18, 2010- I need to take back what I said in this blog. I wrote Senator Bennett's office and asked them about the Glass-Steagal Act. They indicated that even if the act had been in effect, it would not have prevented the financial meltdown because 1) Investment banks such as Bear Stearns were not covered in the Act and 2)the toxic assets that hurt the commercial banks likewise were not prohibited by the Glass-Steagal Act. Both of these factors are, in my opinion, what brought us the financial crisis along with unrestrained greed. So it really wouldn't have made a difference even if the Glass-Steagall Act had been in place.

Ascent of Money

I am watching part 2 of the PBS documentary- The Ascent of Money. They talk about an interesting Scotsman named John Law. He fled Scotland because of a murder conviction and went to Holland, saw how they did finance, and then traveled to France and set up a financial system there. He established a company that held the colony rights to Louisiana and became rich selling shares in that company. Unfortunately, he spread false information on how easy it would be to form a colony in the swamplands of the South. And when word came back on how 80% of the colonists died in the first year, the stock lost 90% of its value, and John Law fled the country. This all happened back in the early 1700's. How little has changed since then!

The President talks to Students

Some conservatives don't want Obama talking directly to school children tomorrow, Sept. 8th. See here . Today, even after the text of the President's speech was released, I heard the commentator on the Glenn Beck show still argue against it.

Here is the text that President Obama is going to deliver to the students tomorrow. I don't understand the big controversy. I actually like it. He tells kids to try their best at school, don't make excuses for failing, and that success takes hard work. What's not to like? I see Obama as trying to use his influence to inspire schoolchildren to do their best and be responsible. I wish more people would say that.

Actually, Presidents H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan gave speeches to schoolchildren nationwide.

Here is President Bush's speech. He also preached self-responsibility. I don't think it's as inspiring as Obama's, but it's good.

Here is President Reagan's speech. He gave it near the end of his term of office. In it he praises the Founding Fathers and sets forth his view on the role of government.

I'm afraid that the conservative commentators missed the boat on this one. They might have legimately been afraid of what was in the speech, but after it was released, apologies from them to Obama were due. But I didn't see that happening. And look at the history of Presidents making speeches to schoolchildren. It's not new. That just shows me that conservative commentators are just looking for the quick political hit and don't care about putting events in context. Shame on them.

Health Care Reform and Questions

I have read Obama's Press Conference on his plans for Health Care. He makes some points that I agree with such as the present situation with health care is untenable. Under current law and projections, medicare and medicaid will bankrupt the Federal budget. I agree that everybody should have health care, rich and poor. We do need to find out what is driving the cost of health care. But I am leary of a solution that involves a huge change and lots of money and influence from the federal government. Obama himself said that many people are cynical of government because they haven't seen a lot of laws out of Washington that help them. Well count me a cynic because I am not convinced of his plan. Here are my reasons-

1. It is not in the power of the federal government to provide health care. Here is the list of the powers of congress according to the Constitution. I don't see health care for the general public.

2. Even if you do think that the federal government should be involved in health care, I want to see some results first. Why not implement the reforms in Washington, DC first or at the Veterans Administration hospitals, or even in how they pay for medicare and medicaid? Congress has full authority over DC according to that same section in the Constitution, let's start there and see what happens in two years. Surely we can wait two years before making such sweeping changes.

3. The health care cost-savings are not there. I am always skeptical of politicians who say that a government program will pay for itself or not cost too much. Obama himself talked about how much money is spent on medicare, medicaid, and prescription drugs. I don't trust savings that haven't appeared yet. I don't think anybody would give me a loan based on what I would save in the future. I need to see some actual savings first. Here is a Wall street article that raises questions about how much savings there could be in the system. studies done. (Thanks to my friend, Matt)

4. Massachessetts- what happened to there health care reform plan? And is it similar to the federal plan? And why has nobody talked about it?

5. No reform/tort reform for malpractice insurance? Shouldn't that be on the table?

These are some of the concerns that I have about the federal health care reform plan.

I.O.U.S.A.

I recently watched a video about the financial future of the Federal Government. It is called I.O.U.S.A. and is well worth the 30 minutes it takes to watch it. I like it because it is non-partisan, talks to intelligent people, puts things in historical perspective, and encourages a plan of action at the end. In short, it has it all.
The film focuses on four topics-

1)how the federal government needs to reign in entitlement spending,

2) we need to become a saver nation again,

3)the trade deficit matters, and

4)we need leadership.

I would highly recommend it to everyone. It takes complex ideas and presents them in an easy-to-understand format. At the end of watching it, I felt smarter. And I also felt vindicated by the video because I have been an advocate of social security reform for a while. This is what I said in March of 2005 on my previous blog- antityranny.blogspot

The attitude of the younger generation provides an opportunity to phase out social security. This will free up money and shift responsibility for retirement from the government to individuals and families. The 6% that workers now contribute will create a giant pool of money. That money could go to a variety of purposes. Maybe that money will become a new source of investment capital. Maybe people will go out and spend it on worthless consumer electronics. Maybe people will store it under the couch. I don't know. But I do know that right now I don't believe that social security will be around for me and if I can get that 6% of my paycheck right now, I am more than happy to take care of my own retirement, thank you.

Rules in times of Crisis

You don't have to look far to see trials and troubles in our nation. The troubles range from financial crisis to unemployement to people losing their homes. And according to the cycles of history, as discussed in the book- The Fourth Turning, this is only the runup to an upcoming severe crisis on the order of WWII or the Civil War. So I was happy to listen to a great and optimistic talk given by a man named Oliver DeMille. He was one of the keynote speakers at an education convention that I attended. He listed some rules for making it through and thriving through this next rough patch of history.

Here are the main points of the talk. If you want to listen to it in its entirety, you may purchase it here for $4.00. Dr. DeMille summarized his points from a book, Our Home by C.E. Sargent. (Available on google books for free) Evidently, Sargent was a civil war veteran and summarized what he learned from life in that book.

1. Embrace the new and now.
2. Spend evenings and Sundays with family.
3. Don't try to fit in with what others deem to be cool. Do your own thing.
4. Write out and follow your individual rules for life.
5. Raise your children to be adults, not bigger children.
6. Find meaning in trials and struggles. Be grateful.
7. Focus on the widows, orphans, grandparents, children, sick, unhappy.
8. Marriage is the central focus of life.
9. Initiative education and (10)entrepreneurship thinking is what is needed, not job skills or get rich quick schemes. Be willing to do the hard work of building an organization or business from scratch.
11. Produce wealth because there is a need for it.
12. Creativity and Inventiveness
13. Resilency-never give up, stay optimistic
14. Ambition in making sure that the right ideas win out.

AIG Bonuses

I don't think it is right for Congress to go back and try to tax money after the fact that you have already earned. There is a concept that the Constitution outlawed called an ex post facto law. That means that you can't create a law and punish someone for an act that was done before it was legal. And collecting 90% of someone's pay after the act seems to be punishing them.

In addition, this is a bill of attainder or a bill targeted at a group of people. A bill of attainder is illegal under the Constitution. (see Article I, Section 9, Clause 3) If Congress can target a specific group of people to tax, what is to keep them from picking another unlucky or unpopular group down the road? See this article under problems with the bill.

But wait, you may say, they are using our taxpayer money to give out these bonuses! Shouldn't we have a say in how they spend that money? Yes, you do have a say, a say at the voting booth. Your congressional Representatives and Senators represent you and they didn't see fit to put a restriction on bonuses up front. Besides, according to a government official that is in charge of making sure the money from the stimulus package gets spent how it is supposed to said that about 7% or 55 BILLION dollars will end up in fraud. So don't worry, we will have much better scandals and frauds to entertain us and make us furious and pass bills about. Those bonuses are small potatoes. They are just the warm-up of what is coming down the line.

I believe the real solution is to help America live within its means, let businesses go bankrupt, help your neighbors and move forward with hope and determination that we will pull through this. And not turn to the government to spend more money that it does not have.

History gives us many examples of government. My children are learning about two different eras, the middle ages and modern history. My son comes home with tales of lords, serfs and Vikings. He runs around fighting, warring on the unexpected peasants, defending lords and laughing hardly at the treasures he pretends to take. Many of the discussions are centered on the wrong of these actions, helping him understand how the rights of these people were not protected. In contrast, my daughter is learning about the American Revolution.
Throughout history governments have risen and fallen but during the time of the revolution there had never been a group of people who wanted to understand and protect rights of the people not the government. Who discussed and wanted understand the role of government. I was discussing our rights with my children while driving to school. Why did the people of that time decide to write the Bill of Rights? Good question for a nine year old. We talked about the King of England and the fairness of his actions as a ruler of the American Colonies. At last, we concluded with Patrick Henry’s quote, “Give me LIBERTY or give me death.” Feeling satisfied with our debate, we arrived at school and parted ways.
As the day went on I continued to think about our conversation, liberty, the rights of the people, these ideas keep returning to my thoughts. My readings, lately, have centered on the writings, ideals and forms of government the founding fathers would have access to at the time of the break from England. What a monumental task lay before them. What would you want if you could form the government that would protect and lead you?
Personally, I don’t think I would change the constitution. I have inalienable rights; these rights are in place to protect me from the government. The role of the government is not to provide life, liberty and health insurance but to provide for the common defense. Defense against the common cold is not what I think the founding fathers had in mind. My freedom is not being protected now; slowly these rights are being eroded by big government. As the haves and have-nots continue to battle a quiet war, our way of life is changing.
Who will stand and defend the people, Give us LIBERTY! “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. – Patrick Henry”. We should not make ourselves depended on the government, again serfs to a new lord. Maybe we will be lucky and the Vikings will relieve us of this treasure.
We too can stand and say to the tyrants of today, we do not want what you offer.

Sarah C.

Further readings:
Common Sense Thomas Paine
Treatises of Government John Locke
Writings of Hume