Vocabulary for Communication

Dictionaries are written to provide definitive meaning to words so that correct understanding and communication can occur. It is important that what is spoken or written conveys the thought intended and is understood by the listener or reader. When to one person a certain meaning of a word or concept is different from the meaning intended, then accurate communication doesn’t happen.

Accurate transference of information is important for faithful intent properly to be conveyed. Should deceit be the purpose, then the concept of honest intent becomes unimportant.

Good family and interpersonal relationships rely on good communication. The same is true for reliable education and business connections and effective government.

The field of politics is entirely a different arena. Too often (most often?), the spoken political promises aim at making questionable objectives sound acceptable and believable in order to justify clandestine and self-aggrandizing, if not crooked, schemes. For instance, the recent Democrat candidate for President spoke of making his legislative proposals both “bi-partisan” and “transparent.” He also campaigned on reducing the national debt and concentrating on support for our winning the war in Afghanistan and “Improving the American image abroad”. He emphasized that he would not raise taxes (except on “the rich.”) and would eliminate ‘earmarks.’

Since B. Obama took office he has proceeded to exclude all Republicans from consideration of bills. He has met with his appointed czars and planned his proposed bills behind “closed doors.” As for the national debt, he and his cohorts, already in the first eleven months of office, have quadrupled the debt that existed at the beginning of his presidency.  The massive spending programs and debt can only be addressed with huge tax increases on all levels of society and for generations to come. Over five thousand ear marks were attached to the first “stimulus” bill he signed. He “dithered” for four months on a request from his own appointed General Stanley McChrystal for forty thousand troops to wage the war in Afghanistan successfully. These actions alone indicate the intent of the subterfuge of the words of the number one politician now in Washington.

The heap of intended assertions of what B.O. planned to “change,” if elected, are numerous, and because the previous majority of GOP members had strayed from their conservative promises, a voting majority of people voted for that ‘change.’ Too few citizens bothered seriously to attribute the signs of the socialist ideology to Barack O, since he sounded so “centrist.” The aspects of governmental central control are so egregious that they must be described in terms of acceptable free-enterprise-type terms in order to make them sound desirable. It is possible that after all the evasive speech that Obama has used he might insert an important statement of fact; then, like the little boy who cried “wolf,” it will be too late to believe him.

Let there be no misunderstanding of the central core of the socialist philosophy. It is suppression of the individual to the state and control of all aspects of people’s lives and business. It must therefore, suppress and destroy the strengths of individuals’ religion and morals, suppress the composite of the citizens’ control of government, and destroy the concept of capitalism.

Anti-capitalism is world-wide in socialist countries. As an example of world-wide anti-capitalism, Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez at the recent Copenhagen Climate Conference railed against the “silent and terrible ghost” of capitalism. He said, “Capitalism is a destructive model that is eradicating life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species.” So much for a despot trying to destroy a positive concept to further his own despicable purposes!

Not enough is being openly discussed on the proposed health bill’s items that countermand the Constitution. Two pages of them were recently enumerated by a constitutional attorney who read the over-two-thousand pages of it. These items have nothing to do with health care but are inserted into the bill in order to control the private lives and dealings of citizens.

Sadly, the present vigorous effort to proceed with the present bill to “reform” the present health system is shown by polls to be opposed by over 61 per cent of the American people. Yet it is being pursued by the Democrat leaders and majority in government because they want it. What happened to representative government?

The obtrusive blatancy of this full-court press to pass the Democrat-planned control is astounding. It should disturb our whole people as much as it does me and those like me who want to retain our individuality, personal property, and liberty.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, December 19, 2009.

GLOBAL CLIMATE

The large gathering of nations in Copenhagen to create a system of political control over industrial “carbon” output is an exercise in futility when viewed from the perspective of observation of the vastness of the whole earth’s atmosphere and the relatively small size of the combined industrial plant distribution across the globe.  Even considering the industrial nations combined plant size compared to the non-industrial nations, one can readily see, when looking at any school library globe of the world, that small concentrations of industrial areas compared to huge continents of relatively uninhabited land and the huge atmospheric content above them just cannot be filled with the output of the smokestacks of present industry.

But that is only part of the vast atmosphere of the whole planet. Consider the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which are between two and six thousand miles wide and almost twelve thousand miles from north to south, plus all the other oceans and bodies of water as well as the immense uninhabited land masses, to say nothing of the extensive north and south poles. To insist that the comparatively puny quantity of the combined nations’ industrial carbon output could affect the whole planet’s atmosphere, and thus the global temperatures, is ludicrous beyond words.

Of course, concentrations of local industrial plants and refineries as in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and industrial cities of the United States plus big, developed concentrations of coal- and oil-burning manufacturing production of other continents can certainly have local effects that require “cleaning up” there, but to assign a global effect goes beyond observable verification.

Understanding the push to command and control industrial productivity of developed nations and redistribute wealth of those “have-nations” to “have-not-nations” can readily be attributed to junk science-backed political agendas.

David L. Wood, Long Beach, CA, Dec.11, 2009; word count, 302.

                                                         IMPORTANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL

 Men can live creatively when cooperation is a matter of free election, a mature   preference for the uncoerced man.  –John Chamberlain

 

The United States of America was founded upon the basic principle of the importance and freedom of the individual. The American rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable.


The market is the characteristic institution of capitalism and is what results when free choice is applied to the disposition of property, but respect for the composite of individual decisions is lost in the fervor of advancing left-wing convictions. The attempted imposition of a coercive plan of major “change” in today’s health care system is happening right now.


In 2006 in Arizona, Dr. Eric Novack proposed an amendment to the Arizona Constitution:  “No law shall be passed that restricts a person’s freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type. No law shall interfere with a person’s or entity’s right to pay directly for lawful medical services, nor shall any law impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan.”  It lost in 2008 by an extremely small margin, but is on the ballot again in Nov. 2009. Dr. Novack’s proposal states the antithesis of the Democrat medical reform bill.


Democrats’ health bills depend on forcing individuals to buy insurance or face severe fines or imprisonment. Where in the Constitution is it written that the government can require people to buy any good of service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States? George Will recently wrote, “This is nothing more than determination of the Democrat Administration to impose a command-and-control federal health care system.”

The grand tradition of centuries of development of the complex ethical system of medical care, the doctor-patient relationship, and the “Do no harm” principle of integrity are in certain danger of being superseded by a non-medical, political system of medical decision-making by non-professional lay committees, managers, or czars. Life-and-death and medical decisions are to be based only on cost factors rather than human need. Accuracy of diagnosis and treatments by medical professional men and women with years of education for those purposes will be sacrificed for political power over individuals. It is unthinkable! In fact, any form of that planning is totally unacceptable.


This great country was founded upon the worth of the individual and his (her) basic God-given rights delineated by the Bill of Rights. To be besieged by those who believe in the subservience of the individual to the “state” is next to unbelievable. Placing “cost” above “the value of life” is a collectivist justification for rationing of medical care. Who but a liberal (‘progressive’) could think that way? Everyday citizens do not think that way. To every person the value of life is important, and when it comes to preserving that life, all measures become important. Solving how to do that devolves upon the individual and his(her) doctor. Under ideal conditions the insurance mechanism has been the best means available for covering risks for those who understand to think ahead and provide for unplanned contingencies.


Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of Rahm Emanuel, has been appointed health-policy advisor at the Office of Management and Budget. Shockingly, he has stated that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath “too seriously,” . . . “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others.” He believes that doctors must alter their outlook beyond the needs of patients and consider “social justice.” With my classmates I took the Hippocratic Oath at my graduation from USC, but there was nothing in it about “regardless of the cost or effect on others,” nor was there any mention of “social justice.” That is distinctly born of Dr. E. Emanuel’s philosophical belief, not the humanitarian purpose of the original oath. He writes that “Savings will change how doctors think about their patients.” That fits right in with the ObamaCare plan where “cost” will reign as the impetus for all future nationalized medical payments. Such a distortion of Hippocrates’ purpose is odious and loathsome and can be born only of a mind that intends to develop external and despotic control over people.

The best alternative and possibly the best solution is magnificently simple: get out of the way, back off, and remove the imposed barriers and mandates. The millions of individual decisions will add up most efficiently to solve the situation. Still, there are children and incapacitated adults who do need assistance, yet unencumbered charities have been adequate in the past and enormously less expensive.


Merely to place cost assessment upon age is indefensible and unjustifiable. Some of the greatest contributions to civilization have come from people in upper age. Look at Winston Churchill who at 66 inspired his British nation to stand up against almost insuperable odds and defend itself against the WW II German Forces. The head cardiologist at a prominent hospital in Long Beach is still actively in practice, contributing much to his hospital, his patients, and his community. He is in his eighties, and one of his patients, who is a very successful inventor and developed the Holter Monitor, is 96 years-old and is still managing his company successfully. Examples like these are all over this country, and they totally belie the disingenuous Rahm Emanuel notion that younger age has more to contribute than experienced older age. In the United States, individuals of all ages are important, not groups.

In the present House and Senate forms of the propositions to “reform” today’s health care system of the United States, there is nothing that is a positive contribution to the benefit of our citizenry. Introducing government’s intrusion (Medicare and Medicaid) into Medicine in the first place (1965) has hampered the profession of medicine unnecessarily.


Real non-coercive improvement in today’s medical delivery system could be achieved by aggressive tort reform, by removing government mandates in insurance policies, by removing restrictions of insurance policy sales across state lines, by removal of government imposed restrictions on personal payment for treatments and office visits, and by government’s reimbursement for its mandated emergency-room care across the country. These real entities are not even mentioned in the massive bill.


I love the profession of medicine that I have experienced since graduating from our USC School of Medicine in 1958. I shudder at the potential individual degradation that would occur with passage of the proposed Democrat Medical “Reform” bill being propelled against the desires of the majority of doctors of medicine and US citizens.


David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, November 19, 2009.

DANGEROUS AGENDA

So many current articles and arguments are being written as if the Democrat liberal Senators and Representatives were surely responding to reason and logic of basic principles of proven and successful free-market principles and honesty. This trust that “reason will win” represents an almost wistful but naïve belief and hope that Congress somehow still follows the unwritten code to uphold the will of the people. The present “will of the people” (by polls) is strongly against the present push by the left-wing Democrats to force their religion of collective socialism “down the throats” of the citizens of the United States.

The present Democrat party leaders are so convinced that since they “won” they are entitled now only to be led by their philosophical system that they no longer have to waste their time in governing by what the country majority wants, which is freedom of citizens to make their own choices. It is side-stepping the Constitution, and the Democrats have announced intentions to suppress free speech and ownership of guns and to nationalize the profession of medicine like it has the major automobile and insurance companies of this nation.

How often did we as children hear our parents remind us that “Beauty is as beauty does.”? Paraphrased one might write, “Honest is as honest does.” How about, “Actions speak louder than words.” Or, “What you do rings so loudly in my ears, I cannot hear what you say.”(Russian)  Another appropriate maxim from a well-known Mormon leader, Brigham Young, asserts, “Honest hearts produce honest actions.” Each of these cogent proverbial sayings relate that what one does is for all to see, while what one says is for those who believe (or want to believe) without comparing or checking the actions that result from those pronouncements. In other words, after the assertions, intent is registered in the subsequent, related actions.

The campaign promises of “transparency,” “bipartisanship,” and “no tax increases for middle-class Americans” are just three of the many promises by Barack Obama in his pre-election campaign, which he has assiduously broken. So soon as he ‘won,’ he has proved the falsehood of his promises by working feverishly and rapidly to produce programs of enormous cost and control, all by secret writing and planning (behind locked doors) and not only without Republican support but also without any inclusion of input by any Republican. The necessary tax increases to carry out his horrendous program are so blatant that even fifth graders can understand them.

Barack Obama and his left-wing, liberal cohorts in the Congress have followed a radical liberal agenda in spite of the opposition of the outnumbered Republicans and the overwhelming rejection by a majority of Americans as measured by non-partisan polls. The on-going pronouncements to ‘sell’ the Democrat programs are inaccurate, misleading, and downright deceitful. It all reflects the subterfuge of the election campaign in which the Obama declarations were made to sound centrist and “center-right” in order to delude and deceive the voters who have demonstrated in the past that they have defeated clearly-stated socialist programs. This technique of say-anything-to-get-elected was clearly spelled out in the writings of the communist writer, Saul Alinsky, who was admired by B. Obama.

The growth and power of this great nation have demonstrated the strength of the free-enterprise system and the rule of law for the first two hundred thirty years of the United States and its capitalism base. The increasingly-obvious radical left-wing socialist agenda is the antithesis of the founding principles of individualism and ownership of private property defined in the Constitution. This collectivist way of thinking is foreign to our nation, and it has created an administration that is a “domestic enemy” of our Constitution and this country. Four decades ago communists were hunted down here.

The US is an honest nation, and it opposes fraud. Yet it has been tricked into believing that the “change” and “hope” proclaimed by B. Obama would be for its benefit. What benefit is it to have the present citizenry and their many progeny generations saddled with a national debt that has been increased in nine months to a level greater than all the previous administrations since George Washington put together? What benefit is it to vastly increase the size and power of government over individual citizens? What good is it to fraternize with foreign enemies of the country and weaken the national defense? In a word, it is all thoroughly appalling. It is not Obama’s privilege totally to alter the successful system of the United States in order to accommodate his erroneous but deeply believed collectivism.

Hopefully the majority of people in this country are becoming aware of what I have just described, and hopefully also they will be moved to do something about it for their own good and survival: FREE, like how we grew up.

David L. Wood, M. D., Long Beach, CA, October 30, 2009.

THE BASIS OF TRUE GREATNESS

It is astounding today that in this great country of the United States of America a failed philosophy of socialist egalitarianism could ever have taken hold of so many minds of so many intelligent people and transformed them into envious, dependent humans with the expectation of government support and its appropriation of individual decision making by changing morals, changing economic methods, and reducing respect for institutions that built this society and for people who have honestly worked for their own ownership of property and self-support.

In 1776, a War of Independence was fought to free the then New England Colonies from a system of repression of their mother country, England, for the right to pursue happiness and physical security in a land of liberty under the just rule of law to own the property for which they had rightly worked. The hearty little country the colonies fought to establish chose to utilize the successful economic principles of capitalism to produce wealth and the blessings of individual effort that resulted in the magnificent nation we know today. It is observable that the composite of all the individual citizens through two and a quarter centuries has produced a country more powerful and with the most advanced standard of living than has ever existed in known history.

Those who have been indoctrinated to believe the contrary system of coercive redistribution of wealth and forced central control of individuals and the means of production by powerful and large government have chosen to adopt a system of belief that flies in the face of human nature and natural, safe ownership of private and personal property. It is human nature always to seek gain and to try to avoid loss.

To illustrate and clarify the concept of property to begin with, consider the human baby or toddler who has toys. Forcibly to take away such toys results in frustration and anger in that child. This illustrates the innate and natural sense of possession. The next step in appreciation of owning property begins with owning clothing and having a room that is theirs (even if shared with siblings). When taught to work for wages whether at home or in a workplace, the earned wages belong to the little worker. Ultimately, one must learn how to earn one’s own support, which results in the developing and accumulating one’s own property.

From the beginning, the individual soon becomes aware of the need to protect what rightfully belongs to him/her. Locks on doors, the need for self-defense, and learning the laws of the community and country all contribute to that awareness. Police, sheriff departments, and national armies contribute to that security and protection.

So what is property? It is important to understand a few accurate definitions regarding private property. True and accurate definitions, developed by observation and experience, must be understood, accepted and mutually respected for their appreciation and utilization. These add reliability to the importance of life.

So, let us begin by a simple all-encompassing definition: Property is the individual man’s (and woman’s) life and all non-procreative derivatives of his (her) life. Ownership of property is the basis of liberty.

There are three categories of property taught by astrophysicist and philosopher, Andrew J. Galambos, which lend accuracy to thinking and action.
 
1)    Primordial property is life itself. Only the individual owns his life, which excludes
slavery. Children are not property; they have property rights of their own. Parents are their guides. And, men do not own women.

2)    Primary property, thoughts and ideas are the first derivatives of an
      individual’s life (sometimes referred to as “intellectual” property). Thoughts 
      belong to the individual who originates them. [Parenthetically, it is practical to
      consider ideas as successfully-communicated thoughts.]

      All personal actions result from personal thoughts. Ownership of thoughts means 
      ownership of actions, and thus the individual (not society) is responsible for that
      individual’s own actions. By recognizing and accepting the ownership of primary
      property, intellectual freedom arises and inspires expansion of knowledge and
      production.

3)    Secondary property is derived from thoughts and ideas and subsequent actions. This includes inventions and the production, utilization, and enjoyment of material, tangible goods of all kinds such as architecture, the means of transportation, and all consumer goods.

          Further extensions of man’s life and actions lead to voluntary transactions and
          contracts.

Precise and workable definitions lead to accurate thinking and predictably productive action and applications. Honesty and integrity are also essential to successful and lasting development of property.

Ownership of private property is the basis of capitalism, liberty, freedom, and justice; and it is the foundation of the United States of America’s Constitution.

Compiled by David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, Aug. 31, 2009.

ON THE VALUE AND MEANING OF LIFE

During this 2009 congressional summer vacation, traditional Representative and Senator Townhall meetings have witnessed large numbers of anxious, worried older (and many younger) citizens attending to express their grave concerns regarding the many sections of the proposed ObamaCare nationalized medical plan. Of greatest concern are the sections of the H.R. 3200 Bill concerning the “end-of-life” counseling and panels, the poorly-concealed descriptions of rationing, and the bureaucratic, non-professional committees deciding what care and medications can be given by doctors. This projected total disregard of personal decision-making by patients with their physician’s advice is projected to be superseded by non-medical personnel based only on pre-programmed cost structures.

The basic reason these anxious, older citizens are worried is that each respects his (her) own life and each wants that life to be as healthy and long as possible. Individual insurance assumes the individual risks potentially faced by that person (or family), so that no group or government must assume payments. “Cost” is not the prime factor of medical decisions; it is “need.” The bureaucratic threat to deprive these folks of their personal importance and decisions and have those decisions overridden by the bold and liberal concepts that would happen if this preposterous bill were passed, is enough to inspire and move these people to their self-preservation action.

It is interesting to observe the late Senator Edward Kennedy, in his last year of life with a brain tumor, expend every effort to obtain all medications and the best treatments available (regardless of cost) to attempt to prolong his life. For decades he audaciously had worked to procure a universal medical plan for all (except for himself and his fellow elites) that would restrict the availability of those entities based solely on cost as determined by some unknown, totally disinterested and non-medical hirelings. Such bureaucratic hirelings would follow guidelines developed to discriminate the value of individuals based on arbitrary evaluations of age and an arbitrary philosophical assignment of “value” (again by age) to the collective society.

Placing “cost” above “the value of life” is a collectivist justification for rationing of medical care. Who but a liberal-‘progressive’ could think that way? Everyday citizens do not think that way. To each the value of life is important, and when it comes to preserving that life, all measures become important just like with Edward Kennedy. Solving how to do that devolves upon the individual, and the insurance mechanism is the best means available for those who understand to think ahead and provide it.

Understanding today’s high costs of insurance and medical care, requires one to understand the role of government’s Medicare underpayments and the decades-long attempts by doctors and hospitals to make up for the bureaucratic underpayments by shifting charges more to private insurance companies and patients. It is an unfortunate but understandable circumstance and not a good one. The reported near-bankrupt condition of Medicare proves the impossibility of providing necessary (and wanted) medical care to all people, including those in the country illegally.

This great country was founded upon the worth of the individual and his (her) basic God-given rights delineated by the Bill of Rights. To be besieged by those who believe in the subservience of the individual to the “state” is next to unbelievable, but it is real that a whole cadre of public-education-indoctrinated people in this country adheres to that anti-incentive philosophy on the mistaken belief that everyone should possess the same amount of property and wealth as everyone else. To achieve that condition, wealth from “the rich” must be transferred coercively to “the poor.” In a short run, this can be done forcibly, but in all instances in history that this has been instituted, that system has failed. The simple, observed reason for it is that it goes against human nature and moral action.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of Rahm Emanuel, has been appointed health-policy advisor at the Office of Management and Budget. Shockingly, he has stated that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath “too seriously,” “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others.” He believes that doctors must alter their outlook beyond the needs of patients and consider “social justice.” I took the Hippocratic Oath at my graduation from medical school, but there was nothing in it about “regardless of the cost or effect on others,” nor was there any mention of “social justice.” That is distinctly born of Dr. E. Emanuel’s philosophical belief, not the humanitarian purpose of the original oath. He writes that “Savings will change how doctors think about their patients.” That fits right in with the ObamaCare plan where “cost” will reign as the impetus for all future nationalized medical payments. Such a distortion of Hippocrates’ purpose is odious and loathsome and can be born only of a mind that intends to develop external and despotic control over people.

The best alternative and possibly the best solution is magnificently simple: get out of the way, back off, and remove the imposed barriers and mandates. The millions of individual decisions will add up to solving the situation. Nonetheless, there are children and incapacitated adults who will need assistance, yet unencumbered charities plus careful government assistance programs have been adequate in the past and enormously less expensive.

It would appear that the actions of today’s politicians show determination to force controls over the population with the implication of avaricious intent on power. Well, couldn’t it be just as plausible that the political leaders of the left-wing thinking truly believe that their manner of management is the most efficient and sincerely hold that their philosophical approach is the best? Such a benign explanation would eliminate the accusations of malice of forethought and intent. Nevertheless, the outcome is the same; the respect for the composite of individual decisions is lost in the fervor of advancing left-wing convictions. Noble reasons cannot justify coercive management.

I wish to explain more of the misguided belief system of Ezekiel Emanuel. Here are a few of his quotations:
    “Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This
      approach seems incorrect.”

    “The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old
      girl.”

    “Allocation by age is not invidious discrimination.” “Treating 65-year olds differently
      because they have already had more life-years is not ageist.”

    “The ‘complete lives system’ (authored by E. Emanuel) produces a priority curve on
      which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial
      chance, whereas the youngest and the oldest people get chances that are attenuated
      (reduced).” “. . . (it) empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine
      scarcity makes saving everyone impossible." [This can only prevail when government
      pays.]

    “Procedurally, the civic republican and deliberative democratic conception of good
      provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of
      health care resources. (This conception) . . . suggests the need for public forums to
      deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be
      socially guaranteed.” “ Conversely, services provided to individuals who are
      irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and
      should not be guaranteed,” . . . such as “patients with dementia.” [Such managing
      thinking is applicable to pets but not humans.]

Merely to place cost assessment upon age is indefensible and unjustifiable. Some of the greatest contributions to civilization have come from people in upper age. Look at Winston Churchill who at 66 inspired his British nation to stand up against almost insuperable odds and defend itself against the WW II German Forces. My cardiologist close friend is still actively in practice, contributing much to his hospital, his patients, and his community. He is in his eighties, and one of his prominent patients, who is a very successful inventor, is 96 years-old and is still managing his company successfully. Examples like these are all over this country, and they totally belie the disingenuous notion that younger age is more important than experienced older age. In the United States, individuals are important, not groups.

The actual history of this nation demonstrates the superiority of individual endeavor and innovation. Unencumbered by mandated requirements of behavior, wealth, and religion the growth and advancement of the standard of living in the US has never been equaled in all recorded history. Individual success has been demonstrated to be related to individual resolve, education, and hard work. For those who believe that stories of failure indicate the weakness of the free-exchange capitalistic system, then a proper comparison with the many examples of socialist, coercive societal systems of the past and present should unequivocally demonstrate the dismay, the destruction of personal freedom, and the loss of desire for individual improvement caused by those regimentations.

Most of what capitalism’s critics decry as faults of the capitalistic system is the result of the government restrictions heaped upon enterprises. A full, unencumbered capitalism is not operating freely now because of the gradually increasing bureaucratic interference and controls which impair its correct functions.

An aside thought; the huge spending programs of the last and present US regimes represent calculated but erroneous thinking. Correct economic principles of proper wealth creation have been disregarded. It calls to my mind an observation of Andrew J, Galambos, one of my significant teachers who contributed to my philosophy and economics. He observed, “The greater the development and accumulation of wealth, the greater will be the attack upon it.” The lack of frugality for the wealth of our country by the government attests to that observation. Certainly the mere printing of money to increase the amount of it is diametrically opposed to the legitimate creation of wealth. Enormous spending of it is in no form a production of assets.

The importance of life is inextricably connected to conditions of liberty and freedom and is not bestowed by government bureaucrats.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, August 30, 2009.