WHICH POLICY IS MOST BENEFICIAL?

Some belief systems have followers so taken with their belief in them that there is no room for discussion or comparison. One such example is Islam. At the present time (mid September 2012) there is a demonstration in the Middle East in more than twenty Muslim countries that is an outward portrayal of hatred of Western Civilization that is part of the teaching of the willingness of the millions of followers of Sharia Law and the Koran to destroy and kill the infidels who do not accept their beliefs. We know of the hatred taught in the Mosques around the world. Of course, many Muslims want peace but bow to the intimidation of the large numbers of radical Muslims. Intent of living peacefully with any other belief system has little room for expression, and thus the results are the same as seen in the riots all over the world where Muslims are in a majority.

It is more than an exercise in academics to tolerate this system of life, politic, law and religion, and to complicate the picture, the United States accepted the UN proposal that it was against a UN Resolution even to say anything negative about Islam. To handcuff ourselves and our nation by accepting such a ridiculous rule in the light of blatant attacks upon our embassies, personnel and businesses in Cairo, Benghazi and elsewhere is totally unacceptable.

There is a similar closed-mind of belief by those who claim to be ‘liberal’ (or progressive) in this country. Any attempt to present a conservative thought or alternative position to those people is met with derision and anger and complete dismissal of any such possibility. It is like an irrational flight away from time-tested and truthful definitions and facts. Both belief systems are based upon central control of private lives.

One of the most glaring facts that the liberals brush off and ignore is the definition of wealth, which is the “honest accumulation of profit.” Profit is the difference between the cost of production of goods and services and the price received for their sale. Wealth definitely is NOT generated by the redistribution of its value forcibly taken from citizens’ and companies who correctly generated that value.

The large-government central-control system that has proved unsuccessful in Russia and now to greater and lesser extents in the various European nations up to now has been promoted in our schools and universities for decades as if no other system works. “Capitalism” is a dirty word in those erudite circles. The success of open free-market exchange in the first two hundred years of this country is incontrovertible.

This country was founded upon the basic principle of the ownership of private property, but to the liberal thinking, ‘redistribution of wealth’ by central (coercive) means is “social justice.” I define ‘social justice’ as nothing more than a euphemistic statement in an inaccurate attempt to justify the confiscating (stealing) of citizens’ honestly-earned private property to redistribute it to the ‘poor’ in the form of a entitlements. The only true equality of men (and women) is “equality before the law.”  The ‘liberal’ concept of egalitarianism is simply an erroneous concept. Coercion is never correct or just.

During the last three and an half years, Barack Obama’s program has included:
   1. raising taxes,
   2. creating almost a trillion dollars of ‘stimulus’ money to “help the economy,”
   3. taken over the General Motors automotive company and fired executives plus turning
       it over to the labor unions and owning twenty-five percent of its stock (with tax
       payers money,
   4. hindered  and hinders oil drilling,
   5. reduced coal mining and closed some coal mines,
   6. arbitrarily used taxpayers’ money to invest in now-bankrupt solar energy companies,   
   7. increased restrictive regulations against large and small businesses,
   8. saddled our nation with an irrational and private medicine-destroying “Obamacare,”
   9. by means of executive orders has disregarded and circumvented many laws
       passed by congress, particularly regarding children of illegal aliens,
 10. passed 2000-plus page laws which overturn aspects of the Constitution and            
 11. pursued a feckless and national security-reducing foreign policy.

During his presidential campaign in 2008, B. Obama fraudulently portrayed himself and promised many good-sounding programs but with an entirely different underlying intention of change.  He has succeeded in most of what he has wanted to accomplish, but looking at the above list of what he has wanted, it is quite obvious for all to observe, that his whole agenda has been destructive to our nation’s economy, structure and security. Therefore, it is rational to conclude that Mr. Obama wants a destructive program for our nation. “When you look; be sure to see!”

Clint Eastwood could not have more correct; the Big O must be turned out in November 2012.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, September 18, 2012.

IS  SOCIALISM  DANGEROUS?

Socialism is not only dangerous, it is destructive. It destroys individual liberty, incentive and innovation.  It abolishes ownership of private property. The United states citizenry understood this well until the ‘liberals’ of this country infiltrated our public school and university system and began miseducating our youth and stopped teaching the true greatness of our history. Worse yet, the Democrat Party has accepted this ideology now and is led by an avowed ideologue of this miscreant belief system and would “change” the nation’s greatness to fit his malfeasant intentions.

Want proof? On three separate occasions, the Barack Obama has revealed his deep convictions of his socialist ideology: 1. To the pre-election plumber he said, “It is a good thing to spread the wealth around.” 2. Recently, to the nation he proclaimed that innovators and entrepreneurs didn’t start their own businesses, ‘someone else assisted them’ over “existing roads and bridges” (government built infrastructure). 3. He has used the negativity of ‘class warfare,’ racial divisiveness, and has deliberately weakened the nation’s economic strength (over-spending) and weakened national security. B. Obama during his Senate years said he didn’t like the national anthem or the United States' flag.

I, for one, am thoroughly dismayed at the prospect of another four years of this man’s arbitrary misuse of the Executive Order to bypass Congress and its laws in order to further what he believes rather than govern for the benefit of the people.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, Aug. 13, 2012.

                                               Deliberate Deceit

In the years directly following World War II, the citizens of the United States clearly understood the dangers of socialism. Joseph McCarthy’s famous speech that there were 57 card-carrying soviet spies in the State Department was completely vindicated, which demonstrated the stealthy, deceitful means of believers in communism (socialism with guns) working under cover with clandestine means to achieve their ends.

Today, after forty plus years of socialist, liberal infiltration of our public schools and their gradual dilution and ultimate elimination of true US history, the negative hallmarks of socialism are little readily recognized or remembered. So, for clarity, I am listing them again here:
  1.   control of society by a central committee (or despot)
  2.   central government control of industry (the “means of production”)
  3.   abolishes ownership of private property
  4.   redistributes wealth (to cause ‘equality’ to all people)
  5.   controls lives and eliminates liberty
  6.   represses initiative, innovation and self-reliance
  7.   subjugates the individual to the interests of the state
  8.   promotes racial preferences (affirmative action)
  9.   promotes class envy
10.    subverts moral standards and education
11.    rewrites history and undermines the US Constitution
12.    relentlessly criticizes capitalism, capitalists and conservatism
           to promote socialism
13.    requires coercion (in some countries shuts people in concentration
           camps and even murder)
14.    Every open attempt to institute socialism has failed. Obtaining
            socialism can only be accomplished by deceit and gradualism.

In a word, understanding capitalism vs. socialism is freedom vs. central control or coercive subjugation (regulations) vs. personal liberty. There is a huge difference between private property control and central (government) control. It is only by gradual, fraudulent and subtle introductions of socialistic influence that inserts socialism.

Examples are many, but today, two are very much to be recognized; namely, 1. the methodical increase in welfare recipients (including food-stamps and workman’s compensation checks), and 2.  the other is “bailouts” (government takeover – a form of nationalization) of GM and a few large banks.

There are Republicans who are claiming that B. Obama “doesn’t know what he is doing.” I take strong exception to that position. Obama himself on August 9, 2012 in touting how he (and his regime) ‘saved’ GM ‘from bankruptcy,’ he stated “I want to do that for ALL industries” (takeover). Does one need greater proof of the true and deep intent of what Barack Obama designs for our country? It is true that he doesn’t know what he is doing in regards to capitalism.

In his pre-election campaign, B.H. Obama stated to the questioning plumber, “It is a good idea to spread the wealth around.”

Another blaring example of B. Obama’s core belief was his statement that innovators did not start their own businesses; it was help from someone else (government) who built the infrastructure that is to be credited. That is simply belief in and crediting central control.

If more ‘proof’ of the Big O’s certain intent is wanted, then considered the actions of weakening our economy, weakening our national defense and his abominable “class warfare” and divisiveness he is perpetually imposing on this country with his nonstop campaigning (rather than governing).

President Abraham Lincoln once stated that if this nation would be destroyed, it would be from “within.” A strong nation isn’t destroyed; a weak one can be.

I am sickened to hear Mr. Obama use words and statements that sound like he is for the tenets of capitalism, but he acts, by his Presidential Executive Orders and his over-spending and over-taxation, continuously to undermine them. That is his agenda for deceit and his aim to “change” all right. From every point of view, it is change to socialism (collectivism). To me, this is flagrant disrespect for the importance of the individual and the economic system (capitalism) and Constitution that formed and built this great country, and it is larcenous and destructive.

In my opinion, his impeachment for disregarding his sacred oath and his negative effect upon the healthy wealth-generating capability and security of the United States should be on the minds of all responsible citizens of this country. Second to that, he must be thrown out of office in November.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, Aug. 11, 2012.

What Is Criminal?

Taking property that belongs to another (without the permission of the owner) is stealing.  Stealing is a crime and has been so considered in all recorded civilizations. Depending upon the country, punishment can vary from a fine and/or incarceration to the loss of a hand.

Crime by dictionary definition, is the commission of an act that is forbidden by a public law. It is also a grave offense especially against morality.

Coercion: to compel by force, intimidation or by authority.
OR, another definition (based upon a more inclusive definition of property): Coercion is the attempted, intentional interference with the property of another.

Moral:  all personal and civil action without coercion. (Useless does not imply immoral.)

Property: an individual’s life and all non-procreative derivatives of his (her) life. This includes “primary” property (all original thoughts and ideas), all “secondary” property derived from man’s application of primary property and earnings, and “primordial” property or life, which is owned only by the individual; this precludes slavery and ownership of children.

Rule of Law:  In the words of New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano: “The goal of all laws must be the preservation of individual freedom. The idea that the laws that the government is charged with enforcing could restrain the government itself is uniquely Western. The values in America are set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and the government structures in America are set forth in the Constitution. These structures that promulgate, enforce, and interpret law are so fundamental that they cannot be changed retroactively or overnight by the folks who administer them. The Constitution provides for protection against the tyranny of the majority. No one is above the law, and no one is beneath it.”

To alter negatively, though subtly, people’s property ownership gradually and beguilingly on a large scale is nonetheless deceit, a form of coercive action. The most obvious method is the obtrusive pressure to increase taxation to support massive spending programs designed to enlarge government programs that support expansive public welfare programs. This is tyranny by the minority.

Another method to promote government influence is to promote such regulatory rules as to suffocate and reduce mainly small business activity, the backbone of American society. This has the secondary result of wide-spread job layoffs, and jobs are the main source of the citizens’ ability to accumulate their own property. Though not immediately recognized, this is another way to reduce individual’s self-support, and results in increased reliance on government support. When the majority of citizens rely upon government support, then the condition of socialism has been achieved, and that is the total opposite to free-market capitalism.  Socialism abolishes ownership of private property.

Gradual subjugation of self-sufficiency is the long-term objective and ambition of those dedicated to the egalitarianism of the central-control socialist government control of people and control of the means of production. The gradual accomplishment of these objectives is by stealthy deceit and fraud. Whenever the true goals of such a government system are revealed, people historically have rejected them, since no one wants knowingly to give up his freedom. In spite of the large dimension of the huge political alteration of the whole nation’s economic system, that does not make it correct, lawful or moral.

As so well described by David Limbaugh, Barack Hussein Obama is waging war:
1.    on our culture and values,
2.    on the economy,
3.    on our future,
4.    on oil and other energy sources,
5.    on business,
6.    on guns (Operation Fast and Furious),
7.    on the dignity of the Office of the President,
8.    on national security
[Ref.: The Great Destroyer, by David Limbaugh, Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington, DC, 2012.]

Fraud is a form of coercion. The head perpetrator of fraud today is B. Obama with his sycophantic liberal Democrat party plus the biased media supporters in order to “change” this great nation and impose his faulty idealism upon it. Add to his dismal economic record the offending and non-support of our national allies, and the resulting detrimental effects upon this country are monumental.

Fraud in any degree is criminal. Therefore, Barack Obama, who came to be elected by fraudulently misrepresenting himself and his real intentions plus his three and a half year record, is today therefore, criminal of massive proportion.  Where is the outcry for punishing his masterful lawlessness and for his patent disregard for the solemn Presidential Oath to uphold the Constitution and to support and protect the American people?

Mr. B.H. Obama MUST be defeated in the next election!

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, July 23, 2012.

MY SYLLOGISM REGARDING THE SCOTUS DECISION ON OBAMACARE

Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, made a point (June 28,
2012) of noting that he and the other justices “possess neither the
expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those
decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be
thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our
job to protect the people from the consequences of their political
choices.”

The following is my exercise in syllogistic reasoning:

Justice is the absence of injustice!
All acts of coercion are unjust!
Fraud is an example of coercion!
Obamacare was presented and ‘sold’ to the American public by fraud!
THEREFORE, it is unjust for Chief Justice Roberts to uphold this law.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, 28 June 2012.

Our “Love Affair” With Oil

For too long I have chafed over this arrogant liberal label, namely “The American Love Affair with Oil,” which is nothing more than a conceited attempt to cause disdain for the large use of oil and all it’s derivatives that has been one of the major reasons for the marvelous growth of the this nation’s economy and standard of living. Religiously believing in “alternate sources of energy” and under the guise of  “saving the planet,” the self-anointed environmentalists have manipulated good-intentioned but gullible congress-people and even state and local government employees, to say nothing of the large number of atmosphere-ignorant citizenry, to accept  the belief that such oil use somehow harms the planet earth. They bellow that carbon-dioxide emissions are destructive by having a ‘greenhouse’ effect that causes ‘global warming’ and that the high volume of exhaust emissions from internal-combustion engines and industrial plants, plus the ridiculous claim that cow intestinal-gas methane emissions, are major factors in this warming phenomenon. To disregard the sun’s role in the varying temperature changes of earth demonstrates a colossal disregard for known physical facts.

Put aside for a moment the voluminous scientific reports that carbon dioxide is beneficial to and used by all growing plant life of the earth and that there is no reliable evidence of such ‘green-house’ effect that harmfully results in increased planet warmth. Merely observe simply for yourself the fact that seventy percent of the earth is covered by water and that human populations cover only a well-estimated small percentage of the inhabited land mass or the poles. It is then immediately obvious that all the industrial output and exhaust output of civilization could not fill or even alter the vast atmosphere of the globe at any time. With the weather movement and nature’s alterations of the earth’s air mass, the emissions are altered, dispersed and precipitated back to the ground (and water) level continuously. Puny man’s machine output can alter local inhabited conditions and should be cleaned on that basis, but to extrapolate that to global effects is patently and observably unsound and illogical.

The great industrial use, the massive transportation movement of goods by land, sea and air by trucks, trains, boats, ships, and airplanes; plus the need to move people to and from their employment and support of their lives in automobiles are all factors that are simply too large even to try to supply all those needs by the woefully inadequate development of ‘alternate energy’ sources to date. This is not a love affair; it is a need affair.

The claim that alternate sources of energy must now be found to change the ‘destructive’ effects of petroleum use is lame. Alternate energies asserted are solar, wind, and geothermal. With religious fervor the “green”-thinking politicians coercively and furtively take it upon themselves to use tax-extracted private monies to use what (in their estimation) should be invested in developing such ‘other’ energy sources but with wasted resources and miserably unsuccessful results. Their efforts are entirely devoid of market considerations of usefulness and desirability of consumers. Their efforts are entirely outside of the realm of proper governance.

This leads to the question, why are such extensive efforts made to influence people and governments to take ‘corrective action’ to reduce the important use of petroleum products? I can think immediately of three reasons: 1. to make money (example: millions by Al Gore in perpetrating his claimed hoax); 2. for political control of populations and industry by taxation for this belief; and 3. for political power to subjugate free and independent people. None of these reasons was the purpose of establishing this country, and none of these reasons contributed in the growth and development of true capitalism in the United States.

To assert that one can love the power of petroleum use is correct, but to claim that the dependence upon oil is a “love affair” is an arrogant misstatement and misuse of the English language.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, June 8, 2012.

OBAMA’S OVERT AGENDA

So far during this year 2012 in the US Presidency of Barack Obama, it is sadly observant that the man occupying the White House is spending his public moments campaigning for a second term rather than governing the country. His theme is a thoroughly negative and falsely accusative attack upon the Republican Party and its front-running candidate, Mitt Romney, because he (Obama) cannot claim positive results on any of the ‘liberal’ programs and enormous spending he and his liberal party have backed and passed for the last three years.

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 Mr. Obama gave a speech in Washington at a luncheon sponsored by the Associated Press. Peggy Noonan reported it clearly in the Wall Street Journal, April 7. In that speech he made some considerably accusative and abusive statements about the Republican Party that actually apply to the Democrat Party and its statist platform rather than his opponents.

To illustrate this point vividly is an example of one of the underhanded techniques employed by the communists, which I learned from a man in Berlin in 1951. To illustrate the method of the communist mind with which this man had had experience, he told me that at a large banquet the communists would steal the prized silverware off of the elaborate banquet tables, but before anyone noticed, they would accuse some innocent party, which would cause great confusion and false inquiries and investigation. This would give the real thieves time to get the silver back to Moscow where the banquet organizers would never see it again. The effectiveness of such subterfuge upon basically unsuspecting, open and aboveboard people is huge, at least the first time.

Mr. Obama pronounced that his central campaign theme is that the Republican Party is a “radical and reactionary” force arrayed in defense of the “rich and satisfied.” The President and his party portray themselves as struggling to protect the yearning ‘middle class’ and to “preserving” the American future. Astounding, since the “American future” according to the Democrats is a statist (socialist) future which America never has been. There is NO ‘preservation’ here. Their real meaning to the electorate in 2008 was the “change” to statism Mr. Obama envisioned by the deceit of his implied “change” for the good (fiscal responsibility). His real objective was to ‘change’ the country to a statist society.

Middle income earners are not a “class.” This whole ‘class’ designation is part of the Marxists’ and Mr. Obama’s class-warfare strategy that includes redistribution of wealth. But an important question is why at the press conference did he feel he had to profess that he does not back “class warfare” and “redistribution of wealth”? That is an interesting but basic question.

Yet, for the last three years he has attacked “the rich” and the “big corporations” as the bad aspects of the country. However, since the inception of this country and its free-market capitalism for two-hundred years, people have aspired to acquire wealth and improve their standard of living; they have changed places frequently in and out of wealth possession, but in this country they are still classless. Assignment of ‘classes’ and class envy was the technique of Marx, Lenin and the Communists. Regardless of B. Obama’s protestations, this is pure class warfare.

Undaunted nonetheless, Mr. Obama proceeded to say that the GOP “will brook no compromise.” In truth, ‘compromise’ to the Democrats means agreeing with them, but the Republicans refuse (correctly) to compromise with statist (socialist) concepts. That makes Obama’s assertions meaningless.

As his speech progressed, Pres. Obama’s inversions of English vocabulary advanced unabated. His colossal lack of appreciation of true economic principles was obvious when he stated that when the GOP will “brook no compromise,” and he insisted that it (the GOP) was “peddling” economic rostrums. Since when are balanced budgets and fiscally responsible spending economic rostrums?

He continued his verbal onslaught by stating that the GOP has “a radical vision” and wants to “let businesses pollute more,” “gut education” and lay off firemen and cops. He continued, “This is now the party’s (GOP’s) governing platform.” He has claimed for a long time that the use of coal and petroleum products cause pollution and must be ultimately discarded for “renewable energy.” He completely rejects the absolute need to fuel with petroleum the automobile, trucking, rail and airline machines of this great country at the present time. He must accept this fact, at least, until private enterprise becomes capable of developing alternative energy sources, not government’s (Obama’s) arbitrarily using tax revenue to support the ultimately failed sun, wind and alcohol energy sources.

And he continues to claim that his and his fellow Democrats’ massive spending has nothing to do with cutting back civil programs of education and local fire and police protection. Claiming that the civil problems are a result of the GOP ‘platform’ is nothing more than stealing the silverware and claiming someone else did it.

To insist that the Republican leaders lack “humility” and that the GOP’s concern about the deficit is “laughable” are preposterous even to state. Disagreeing with the Democrats fits their definition of lack of humility. To themselves the Democrats’ disregard for the deficit is not “laughable.” The attributes displayed by the Democrats is comically and deceitfully being blamed on the Republican Party by this Democrat President.

To add to these accusations a vaguely-menacing criticism of the Supreme Court regarding his Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is unprecedented and worrisome to many Constitutional scholars and even to prominent Democrat lawyers.

It is my inescapable opinion that Mr. Obama’s overt attack and expectations are a result of his confidence in the:
     1. large numbers of civil-union members who are loyal to his generosity and will
            vote for him
     2. the large numbers of ‘dumbed-down’ citizens since the 1960s who have been
             taught the rewritten and falsified US History and no longer taught Western
             Civilization in the public schools and who will vote for him,
     3. the large number of middle income families now receiving food stamps and
             unemployment checks who are estimated to vote for him,   
     4. large numbers of free-education and welfare-receiving illegal aliens who will  
             vote for him to continue the handouts, and
     5. the Acorn-inspired double-voting people who are encouraged not to show IDs
             at voting booths (not to mention dead voters and pets).

Therefore, in my understanding, the best explanation for this open attack upon the Republican Party, responsible citizens and the traditional economy of our free society appears to be that he is convinced of the finally estimated superior numbers of recipients of government-sponsored welfare and other public favors and largess to vote for him and support him in his belief in socialism for the United States.                                                                                                                        

To mount such a negative and accusatory campaign, as he is doing, has to be his reliance on the huge effect of the favoritism of the statist mentality and short-term success of such bounty mounted in this country over many years for the believers in and the scheming to spread the fraudulent philosophy of socialism.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, April 9, 2012

GRATITUDE

It is important for an individual always to be cognizant of things he cannot do or provide for himself, so that when things are done for him or given to him, it is proper that he recognizes it with a sign of gratefulness. Traditionally, a simple verbal “thank you” is sufficient, and it is good sign of politeness and good manners. Returning of favors and even giving tokens of appreciation are appropriate, though gifts are usually not a necessity. Traditionally and appropriately it is good manners to simply acknowledge someone’s recognition of a favor to reply “You’re welcome.”  

Lately, in restaurants and in many places a common response to ‘thank you’ has been “no problem.” Now, what does that mean? I am aware that in Spanish the response to “Gracias” (Thank you) is “De Nada,” which literally translated is, “It’s nothing.” In German, one often can hear to “Danke schoen” the answer, “Bitte schoen.” (Thank you and “”Pretty please”) in return; although “Kein Problem” (No problem) is also heard. Perhaps that is the origin of ‘no problem,’ yet German is not that large an influence in English as is English in Germany.

I believe a casual convenience is gradually creeping in to everyday conversation with the overlooking of traditional civility, and I think this is the basic reason for the change in tradition; i.e., it is a trying to make things ‘easier’ and less exertion that is underneath this simple response. As the government enlarges, more people expect it to provide ‘things’ (health care, food, unemployment checks, etc.) because they are ‘entitled.’ This attacks the basic work ethic so necessary for the success of the individual in the true system of free-market capitalism, and because of expectation, the idea to be grateful is lost. We who grew up earlier miss the traditional civility that used to be traditionally daily fare.

Another situation, but seemingly not as readily understood, is the giving gratitude to those who earned and deserve it. For instance, the familiar exclamation, “Thank God!” is so frequently heard when someone escapes a severe hurt or just misses an injury or just caught up with the bus (or other conveyance) they almost missed. In reality, God had nothing to do with it, so what is wrong with exclaiming, “Thank goodness!” or simply, “Just made it!” or some other adequate statement?

More to the point, I heard as a child being taught to give a prayer of thanks at the dinner table is what most prayers were said at the table, “Thank you Lord (or God) for the food and the hands that prepared it.” Thanking God for the food misses the object where the real gratitude should lie; namely, dad, mom or both. But God didn’t plant it, didn’t nurture and grow it, nor did he transport it to the market or present it for sale. The parents or caretakers procured it and prepared it. True, God made the earth, but he didn’t expend any labor to produce or prepare the food. What I am emphasizing is the accuracy of gratitude to those whose efforts and labor put the food on the table and then to be accurate in recognizing to whom we must look for expressing our gratitude in other situations as well.

To ask God to bless the food is very appropriate, but gratitude to the correct source for obtaining and preparing it is proper teaching, so that children recognize the true responsible persons to receive their gratitude. This will carry over into the polite manners children and all good citizens must learn for all circumstances where gratitude should be acknowledged.

Laxity in speech is rampant, but good manners are important in interpersonal relations.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, March 18, 2012.

HONOR AND TRUTH vs. THE ART OF LYING

Is honor important? Is trust important? Why has lying taken such an important role in contemporary politics and life? These questions are central to the discussion I am about to make. In Ameritopia Mark Levin explains how the whole concept of central government control (Utopianism or socialism) is based upon deceit. 

I am fortunate to have experienced punishment for lying, which taught me that ‘honesty is the best policy.’ As I developed to manhood I have grown to understand that a man’s honor is one of the next most important entities in life. To trust in honest character used to be widely the basis of success of interpersonal relationships and the foundation of good business and market relationships, and this was taught to me strongly. I believe it still is important to many individuals, but in this country where once a man’s word was his bond in the successful societal structure, it has changed. Today, that emphasis is all too often ignored and ‘everything must be in writing’ is the only trusted medium the law recognizes. In personal honest relationships, I still believe that trust is the most important aspect.

Statism breeds dishonesty, not good character; it encourages ideology, not reason. It relies on fraud, propaganda, dependence, intimidation, and force. Violence can and does erupt when avenues for free expression and civil dissent are cut off.

Freedom, individual responsibility and equality before the law, under conditions of liberty, are the foundations of this great nation. From superficial observation of contemporary politics to deep and intensive study of the world’s political organizations and nations, the socialist (Marxist, collectivist, ‘progressivist,’ statist, utopian) mentality relies on deception (and too often, also coercion). The extent to which that thinking has been a part of the history of civilizations is astounding. What is also astounding is the extent to which the statist mentality has penetrated into the United States of America today. And, this entity is central to the left-wing liberal party of the Democrats.

   

The US is basically an honest nation, and it opposes fraud. Yet it has been tricked into believing that the “change” and “hope” proclaimed by Mr. Obama would be for its benefit. Statism is advanced through gradualism rather than revolution; it can deceive and disarm an unsuspecting population, which is largely content and passive. The seeds of statist thinking in government have been building for a long time, particularly since the presidential terms of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In his campaign for the presidency in 2008, B. Obama spoke frequently, yet vaguely, of “change.” Audiences believed he meant “change to fiscal responsibility,” but to himself he meant “total economic system change” (away from capitalism to socialism). His rhetorical deliveries with his teleprompter were very convincing, using words that sounded encouraging like returning to positive fiscal responsibility, etc.

Certainly, when reflecting on the Congress of 2008, one must also include the many Republicans who did not keep their promises of holding down spending, and this helped many students and adults to believe the glowing rhetoric of Mr. O.

Statism (big government) substitutes glorious predictions and unachievable promises for knowledge, science and reason, while at the same time laying claim to them all. Socialism ignores, rejects, or perverts the teachings and knowledge that have come before -- that is, man’s historical, cultural and social experience and development. Mr. M. Levin convincingly points this out.

Statism (central control of production and of people’s lives) finds a receptive audience among the society’s disenchanted, disaffected, dissatisfied, and maladjusted who are unwilling or unable to assume responsibility for their own real or perceived conditions, but instead they blame others or “the system” or their surroundings.

Well known is Obama’s arm twisting and fraudulent extolling the program of the unconstitutional Obamacare. His speech sounded and sounds so positive and even respectful of American traditional structure, but his actions are consistently to the opposite. He, with his teleprompter, is one of the cleverest political liars this country has ever experienced, and there are millions of welfare recipients, union members, and illegal aliens who believe his promises. The accumulation of these “bought” voters might even outnumber the responsible citizens of this country when it comes time to vote.

                                                                                                               

In reality, Obama was cleverly misleading people’s hopes that here was a man that would return them to positive growth once more, away from the mounting debt of the “fiscal irresponsibility of the Republicans.” All his hopeful appeal, we can now see, was to get into power in order to accomplish his cleverly-hidden agenda of installing big, central government control (the concepts of socialism) in America under the guise of ‘election mandate.’ This is the only conclusion one can reach from observing his actions; e.g., of executive orders, of regulations, appointment of czars, appointing of liberal men to high economic and law posts without experience in the private sector, and his frequent disregard of the Constitution and the nation’s security and weak foreign policy by delay and inaction.

A full list of Mr. Obama’s pronouncements vs. his actions is far too voluminous to present here, but the following are representative enough to make the point.

                                SPEECH                                                           ACTION

1.   Campaign promises of fiscal frugality          1. He has overseen the

                                                                               largestaccumulation of debt                   

                                                                                greater than all  the preceding

                                                                                presidents put together.

                                                                             

2.  Promises energy independence                     2. Continuously denies development of

                                                                                known deposits of coal, petroleum and

                                                                                natural gas

3.      Arbitrarily uses government money to        3. Arbitrarily put over half a billion

develop ‘alternative energy’                            dollars into one failed solar

                                                                        company and millions into

                                                                               other failed companies

                                                                                [That is not a function

                                                                                ofconstitutional government.]     

 4.    Promised to ‘bail out’ car companies          4. Caused government to take over

                                                                                 GM and make unions part owners

                                                                                 and even fired some corporation

                                                                                 CEOs 

                                                                                   

 5.   Promised to keep military strong                 5. Proposes drastic military spending, and

                                                                                 has decided to try to weaken our

                                                                                 nuclear arsenal to only three    

                                                                                hundredwarheads  

                                                                               

 6. Claims he wants to create jobs.                     6. Arbitrarily placed moratorium on                                                                                   gulf oil drilling and put 87,000 

                                                                                  workers out of work; and

                                                                                  vetoed the Keystone pipeline

                                                                                   from Canada to Texas

                                                                                  refineries and thus 20,000 direct

                                                                                  plus 118,000 ‘spin-off’ job

 7. Wants “fairness” in American society           7. Uses the Marxist mechanism of

                                                                                 ‘class warfare’ to try to

                                                                                  redistribute people’s rightful

                                                                                 private earnings to the ‘poor’   

8.      Claims, “This administration has done         8. Has snubbed Prime Minister

           more in terms of the security of the              Netanyahu, and publicly

           state of Israel than any previous                   pressured Israel to commence

            administration.”                                              negotiations  with the

                                                                                   Palestinians based on the                                                                                    1967 borders (and more)  

                                                                                                                                                                    

9.      He promised “transparency,”                       9. Has worked behind closed

         “bipartisanship,” “no tax-increases                    doors, has worked only with           for the middle class.”                                                                        

                                                                                      Democrats,and continues

                                                                                      to raise taxes       

                                                                                                                                  

The internet is full of examples of Obama’s power grabs and disregard of traditional respect for the rule of Constitutional law. What is ignored, by his sycophant major news media, is his anti-liberty philosophy that he so amply displays and his greater interest in his re-election than the benefits of both the free-market economy and a strong foreign (and military) policy for the country. His actions are glaringly in opposition to the presidential oath he took with his hand on the bible in January 2009.

Disparaging and diminishing the successful and accomplished people becomes an essential tactic in the philosophy espoused by Mr. Barack Obama, and that is simply “class warfare” pressed onto a classless society. Repetition of misleading statements is necessary to get uninformed people to believe propaganda and even to disarm the thinking of others. Tyranny, broadly defined, is the use of power to dehumanize the individual and delegitimize his nature. Through persuasion, deceit, and coercion, the individual must be stripped of his identity and subordinated to the state. Equality under socialism is equality in misery.

True equality, as understood by the American Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates though his own labor and to be treated impartially before a just law.

The long-time scheming to lay the groundwork for the gradual transformation of our republic into a collectivist state similar to that of Europe has been well thought-out and executed. It has been by stealth and dishonest pronouncements and speech. It is disgusting and disheartening; but nonetheless, it must first be understood, then it must be opposed and stopped.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, California, March 9, 2012.

                                                                                   

                                                                                   

                                                                                  

                                                                                  

                                                                                 

                                                                                  .

                                                                                 

Starting in the early 1960s, a seemingly harmless, though bothersome, anti-authority and anti-hygiene “hippie” movement in the Haight-Ashbury District of San Francisco began. It was brushed off as an immature rebellion of misinformed young people who were free to express themselves.

Lyndon Johnson who came to power directly as a result of the assassination of Pres. John F. Kennedy, established the “War on Poverty.” This meant that tax revenues would now be used for the purpose of underwriting this man’s beliefs. He was supported by many like-thinking members in his Democrat Party. The government then in a massive move to redistribute government money in the name of “charity” to help ‘poor’ people and families, began a program that has become huge in its scope, yet after many hundreds of billions of dollars it has only resulted in creating a vastly larger number of welfare recipients who are still poor. Still, the poor vote for those who provide the ‘charity.’

Local, state and federal regulations for years have had a restrictive effect upon established and start-up businesses; but more so in the last three years and is the result of the majority of Democrats in Congress for most of those years. At the same time, unions have increased their use of union dues for political purposes of supporting the Democrats’ program for expanding “social justice” regardless of the desires of their members. In the last three years the government’s support and funding of ‘civil’ unions (e.g., S.E.I.U.) have greatly increased their influence and political power. This also represents large blocks of favorable votes.

With the election of a liberal, left-wing Democrat President in 2008, the astounding program of increased revenue spending and the abnormal push to support and fund the unethical program to enhance the “American Dream” of home ownership for the millions of low income people to “own their own homes,” expanded in earnest. This erroneous and economically aberrant program made government tax revenue money available to millions who had no way or hope of ever being able to repay those loans. The increasing negative results on the whole country has been to create an astounding, unsustainable national debt, which has evolved into a recession that is so deep that estimates of recovery can only be made in years, even if drastic cuts in federal spending can be instituted. This is observable in spite of the deceitful liberal claims to the contrary.

During this great economic downturn, an escalated unemployment has resulted. Ostensibly to combat this, the progressive President has established a vast increase in the food-stamp distribution plus unproductive great amounts of extended unemployment compensation to millions of “middle class” people. To pay for this largess, the dishonorable excuse of “class warfare” again is used by the White House and liberal lawmakers for tax increases on “the rich.” Increasing taxes is propagandized and pushed, to say nothing of the irresponsible, printing of money.

If one stands back and perceives the integration of

1.      the intentional alteration of education and the establishment of one-sided, left- 

      wing indoctrination of several decades of students by so many of the converted  

             hippie population into liberal professors and teachers;

       2.  the purposeful increase in union power and influence; and

       3.  the millions of added government-dependent middle-income people and

            families;

then one can easily conclude that the deceitful organizational abilities of socialist groups and liberal politicians over these last forty years have created a planned mechanism of vote influencing and blatant vote buying.

Recently even, there has appeared rogue attempts to institute anti-Constitution programs before our very eyes (government mandates of insurance companies to provide “free” contraception plus the Obamacare requirement to purchase health insurance).

These programs and actions engender favorable voting and are all a deliberate design to outnumber the votes of responsible and independent citizens. The whole program has the structure and effect of a persistent, long-developing and schemed conspiracy-type agenda.

The Democrat influence and pushing for the gross, awarding citizen status to the millions of mostly non-loyal illegal aliens is another attempt to greatly increase the number of Democrat-favorable votes from the ever-growing numbers of illegal welfare people.

Independent, free people do not clandestinely organize to foist their economic system on anybody. They have not had to before. That is why the fraudulent socialist program is so successful (so far). Unsuspectingly it has been creeping in slowly. This Democrat socialist-patterned agenda is accomplished gradually by subtle, secretive means of organization and deceitful propaganda. This conspiracy is frighteningly huge and disconcertingly successful in changing the very nature of thinking in the minds of so many of the citizens and politicians of this great nation.

In order to address this immense problem, conservatives must recognize this huge “progressive” program and the extent of its reach and stop the relatively trivial but injurious Republican attacking each other in their battling for the nomination in the present presidential primaries and concentrate on mounting an effective opposition to the present overwhelming onslaught of socialist “change.”

Perhaps the most important action to counter this ‘progressive’ calculation is for conservatives to proclaim conservatism and promote painstaking exposure of this Democrat agenda in order to nullify the liberal, left-wing intent.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, Feb. 16, 2012.

WHY HATRED OF TIM TEBOW

People all over the country are aware of the attention recently of the young Denver Bronco quarterback who openly mentions his religion and gives thanks to God for his athletic talent. That’s humble enough. Tebow certainly wishes ill to no one. Michael Medved (WSJ, Jan 14-15, 2012, A13) sited several sources of organized negative activity and actual hatred (TebowHaters.com), which is surprising and disturbing. Why are they adamantly pursuing such negative attacks? What do they expect to gain? Is it vanity or attempts to justify their own less than honorable pursuits?  I believe this represents a small minority of people with a distorted concept of respect for others, whether for anti-religious reasons or envy of wealthy persons. Thankfully, the majority of Americans still mind their own business.

In the same article Mr. Medved mentions a quote from one of his friends regarding the “Romney clan”, “All those handsome, perfectly controlled, wealthy teetotalers with their gorgeous wives – I wanted to vomit. There was something unearthly about it. Like some weird superior race on the planet Krypton.”

To some nerdy, undisciplined person, good character, self-control, ‘clean and handsome with gorgeous wives’ is “unearthly?” Have they not heard of positive outlook, good conscience, self-control, good health, no VD or drugs or “strong drinks,” desire for education and looking forward to earning one’s own way for a comfortable and secure life? It is hard to believe that such tripe could even be uttered in regard to positive upbringing of good citizens and desirable families. Such negative thinking is a distortion worthy of idiocy.

Ah, the vagaries of free speech!

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, Jan. 14, 2012

THE UNINCLUDED TAXPAYER

Increasingly one reads the deplorable, irresponsible and weakly-attempted justification in government spending; namely, “the taxpayer is on the hook for the difference,” or “it’ll soak tax-payer dollars,” or “the taxpayers lose again.”  The “tax-payer” designation is bandied around in such a way as to imply a helpless sympathy about an ‘inevitable and unavoidable’ political expenditure, usually of very large proportion. This is supposed to legitimize the action as though it were not only good but regrettably necessary.

The momentously-huge government outlay of almost four trillion dollars in the mere three years of the Democrat political dominance under the Obama regime has been phenomenal if not abominable. What makes it even more unpalatable and unwieldy is the call for ever-higher taxation to attempt to pay for it all at the expense of the present and the future generations of tax-payers. Who could have thought thirty years ago that the degree of political arrogance could reach the huge proportion of ideology-driven self-aggrandizement that we see today? Admittedly, the momentous wealth generated by this great nation has produced enormous tax revenue that could seem ‘endless’ to the undisciplined individual(s) put in the enviable position of expected responsibility for the nation’s security and beneficial stewardship of its prosperity. Still, the enormous, unrestricted borrowing against future revenues from necessarily high, if not impossible, taxation is unforgivable.

The further distortion of the American tradition of free-market capitalism and individual responsibility by the faulty ideology of collectivism is the severe attack by Obama upon private property and those who have achieved high incomes by hard work. These are the destructive concepts of class warfare and wealth redistribution of Marxism, which are so effectively hurled by Mr. Obama and his cohorts. Thus, the tax-generated wealth of this country is now being used to attack its very structure and citizens by clever subterfuge and with deceitful and erroneous pronouncements of the state of employment and destructive business-restrictive regulations that actually hinder the country. The deceit is artfully presented to benefit the so-called ‘middle class.’ This country has been a classless society until Mr. O has chosen to call “middle class” the middle-income majority part of our society.

Sadly, the tax-payers (you and I) are taking a totally undeserved attack and beating at the hands of an undesirable and proven historically-failed philosophy as propounded by a man driven by that very ideology.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, January 13, 2012

ENTERTAINMENT vs. LEARNING

It seems today we are surrounded by new electronic gems that allow some form of faster communication from simple wireless phones to phones that receive and send emails, and from which we can ‘text’ or ‘twitter’ and take photos (both still and video). We also have extensive wireless items including laptops, iPads, iPods, and new hand-held phone capabilities. Add to this, movies in movie theaters, in Netflix, and on TV. On TV alone there are now hundreds of 24-hour channels on which one can watch news, sports of all kinds, soap operas, quiz games, and any manner of entertainment as well a few educational and history channels. Kids and many young people are fascinated by and busy with the overabundance of action games. There is such a plethora of time-consuming material, one may wonder, how does one find time for productive activity, education, meals, shopping and work or time to think? A person must use a lot of goal-directed will power to use one’s time wisely.

The passive nature of the vastly time-consuming diversion coming in from so many directions could leave little, if any, time for original creativity.  Today, so very much is visual and digitalized that there is inexhaustible material to occupy our time and minds away from creative thinking. This means, if we give in to the ease of being entertained, our minds can become passive. I believe there are likely many who now follow the easy and fun-time consumption. Lack of in-depth thinking is likely one reason why so much opinion can be swayed and influenced by “good-sounding” political ideas and promises.

The standard of living in the United States has become very comfortable with available water, toilets, transportation of all kinds, houses and apartments plus clothing and other necessities. True, there are homeless and the need for charity and food kitchens, yet the easy government entitlement programs together with the vast surrounding diversion available, combine for large numbers of people to become dependent and easily influenced.

The political scene is now front stage filled with vague but wonderful-sounding promises presented by politicians in their attempts to garner votes and ultimately political office. Critical thinking is so necessary today because of the seriousness of the recent alterations in the liberties, which were visualized and earned by our founders and forefathers in the up-to-now success of the true free-market capitalism and its wealth creation.

Responsible citizens can only hope that enough thinking ability remains in our citizenry that best decisions can be made by enough people to differentiate the vague political promises vs. reality in the up-coming political campaigns.  Hopefully, capable and experienced people with a healthy understanding of the proved and strong economic, moral, and societal basics of our successful nation can be elected to lead us into greater financial stability and national security after the November 2012 elections.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, Jan. 3, 2012

IS NEGATIVITY A PLUS?

The present prolonged political build-up to the November 2012 presidential election is replete with negative accusations and ‘digging up’ missteps and non-events in order to bring discredit to opposing-party candidates or even same-party competing office seekers.

It is astounding in this country to observe the colossal negativity of the left-wing Democrat party supporters and like-minded media commentators who openly believe in collectivism and big government control over the society and its financial system. Their behavior to support the attack upon the successful, entrepreneurial system that developed this great nation is extensive and loudly vocal and is having a devastatingly advance in its reduction and suppression of productivity and employment opportunities of our economy. It has been propounded by language that sounds like the vocabulary of capitalistic growth and opportunity but with the terrible observable results in the socialist systems of nations past (Communist Soviet union and its satellites) and the socialist influence on many of today’s European nations.

This all leads to the negative campaign against all who favor conservative ideals and supporters of the Constitution and free-market mechanisms. The Democrat performance has been so dismal that they cannot rationally support the depressive results of their policies and the devastating pressure on the banking system in the huge “affordable housing” debacle and its global economic effects, so they resort to personal destructive attacks on people and business institutions that are actually responsible for the high standard of living enjoyed by all (even the “poor”). There is just no basis for a rational defense of their position and its outcomes. They are thus reduced to the position of negative assault upon what they see as opposition to their ‘vaunted’ position. That position is held by a very large number of politicians, media, and indoctrinated students in our present public education system.

President Obama and his Democrat cohorts in government and much of the media claim that their program is “American.” What they mean is that they project what, in their view, America should be; not what it is nor what it took to become what it is. The “change” envisioned by candidate Obama was vastly different from what he deceitfully implied in his speeches that were designed to exploit the fiscally unsound programs voted by the previous regime in Washington DC. His program and his presidential power have been devoted to the proposition that the country he grew up in has been wrong and must be changed so all are more “equal” in possessions, and the “rich” must be reduced and their ‘excessive’ earnings (at the expense of others) be redistributed “more equally.” Still his speeches continue to sound encouraging and as if he favors growth and creation of jobs. The frightening aspect of his actions is the wide extent of such nationalizing thinking and acceptance of it in the US today.

The degree of attack upon all who are “conservative” and believe in individual responsibility (Tea-partiers and conservative people now seeking office) is disturbing because of the huge amount of it. A new verb has emerged; namely, to “Bork” or to “be Borked.”  It grew out of the conjured-up character assassination of Judge Robert Bork who had been nominated for a Supreme Court position by President Reagan. Judge Bork’s rejection by the powerful liberal contingency in Congress was the basis for the new verb. The Liberals just could not allow a judge to be nominated who disagreed with affirmative action and abortion and who might influence the court to be more conservative.

Another, more recent perpetrated attack by the liberal media on Republican (conservative) candidate for president, Herman Cain, are the vague accusations of sexual harassment by “unnamed” accusers. This is worse than atrocious, but it has a potentially very negative effect

The early negativity is taking two main directions. First, are the fervent personal character attacks. Second, are the hysterical, stirred-up mobs of, and violence by, demanding students and anti-establishment dissidents “Occupy Wall Street” and occupying main streets in many states, notably in Oakland, California, where so many of these unruly people are destroying property, urinating in the streets and illegally occupying private and public property. It appears that much of the organization and encouragement of this activity is coming from high Democrat places including Acorn, which is now urgently shedding sheaves of documents after being exposed.

These methods of distraction are effective in diverting attention away from facing debate on facts and results of the basic Democrat large, but unproductive and destructive, big-government agenda in this long election campaign.

In summary, there are two basic philosophical systems at loggerheads today. The one, which has historically failed in all instances of use in nations past and present, but, through indoctrination and deceitful propagation, still enjoys the support of a very large number of people who call themselves “liberal;” and that is collectivism or rightly titled, “socialism.”  The other is the economic system of capitalism in a free republic, where individual freedom exists under conditions of liberty. It doesn’t have to indulge in monstrous negativity.

My answer to the question of this paper’s title is, no.

It is discouraging and appalling to me to observe the amount of repugnant political attacks instead of concentrating on debating positive achievements and plans that will produce support of political candidates in the important 2012 election.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, November 5, 2011.

OPPOSING DEFINITIONS

It is an astounding phenomenon that the Congress can embark on an ever-expanding spending binge, involving borrowed and uncollected revenue, and then piously declaring that taxes must be increased to cover the liabilities.  Citizens’ complaints are then usually fended off by declaring the contenders to be “biased” or “racial” or “conservative” (with a sneering demeanor) as if citizens are all wrong or off base or ungrateful. Oh my, how the government leaders’ emphasis has changed from serving and doing the people’s will to serving their political party’s agenda.

The Democrat and the Republican definitions of “taking the country back” have diametrically opposed definitions.  The Democrats insist that the “progressive” (collective) concept is the best means of societal organization and must be “taken back” to it. The Republicans reject the coerced socialist changes brought on by the present regime and truly want to restore the altered result and intent of the founding fathers’ system of individual freedoms and free-exchange capitalism.

We should be reminded or made aware of six-time presidential candidate for President of the US, Norman Thomas’ quotation from a speech he made in 1944:

    “The American people will never knowingly accept socialism. But, under the name of  
    ‘liberalism,’ they will accept every fragment of the socialist program, until one day
    America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Norman Thomas went on to say, “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our program.”

My immediate thought on the matter is: How arrogant and thoroughly dishonest to promote an historically-failed system on this great nation by means of deception and subterfuge! Sadly the gradualness employed and the stealthy infiltration of the school (and higher education) system has been astoundingly successful in brain-altering such a high percentage of this country’s youth and young adults.

To observe today the demonstrations and riots of the degenerate thinking-into-action of so many misguided and miseducated people is discouraging and disgusting at best.

Ah, the prescience of Benjamin Franklin’s statement: “We have established a Republic, if you can keep it.”

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, Oct. 10, 2011.