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.

PROPERTY


It is important to understand a few accurate definitions of private property. These add reliability to the importance of life.

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 according to Andrew J. Galambos, astrophysicist and philosopher:
 
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. Ideas are 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 his
      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.

The importance of precise and workable definitions leads to accurate thinking and predictably productive action and applications.

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.

LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE


This often-repeated childhood statement takes on a more important significance when major life-altering changes are thrust upon us in a seemingly undesigning manner that makes them difficult to recognize. Carefully disguised aims can cause great harm.

Up to now, most of us have shown restraint in writing our observations and opinions of the man elected in November 2008 to be President of the United States. He began his time in office by starting fast to carry out his campaign promises. The first thing he did was to announce the closing of Guantanamo Bay terrorist prison in Cuba. He intended to do that regardless of no planning of where to transfer the prisoners and apparently only to satisfy a vague promise to the many liberal critics of the Bush Administration without forethought to the potential detrimental effects to the security of this country.

Obama next allowed his Left-wing Democrat machine to create a 1000+-page “Stimulus” bill, and he insisted that it be passed immediately without time to read it by either party (including himself), let alone debate it. Its cost is over $875 billion and was touted as stimulating the declining economy plus holding unemployment to 8%. It was dutifully passed by his majority-party Congress with no Republican votes. (So much for bipartisan cooperation!) Definitely it has not had the announced effect he promised; unemployment is 9.5% for the country but much higher in some parts. And the country is languishing in a more and more recognized and apparently planned recession.

Next big expenditure was a huge budget that increases the national debt to over one trillion dollars, and all this in less than six months. Obama insisted that we didn’t have a moment to waste. Being in a hurry allows for no scrutiny.

The unprecedented push to pass a nationalized health care plan in spite of the great groundswell of public opposition is egregious. Obama’s almost daily public speeches to press this legislation contain complete and utter lies. His hollow but middle-of-the-road sounding utterances are now being exposed and disbelieved by ever-enlarging numbers of citizens who were originally hood-winked into voting for this now obviously radical socialist ideologue. He has lied so eloquently that few have been able until now to see through his smooth-sounding rhetoric. Barack promised no tax increases, but, “It’s looking more and more like Mr. Obama’s no-middle-class-tax pledge was one of the greatest confidence tricks in American political history.” [Ref.: WSJ, Teeing up The Middle Class, Aug. 4, 2009, p 12]

Add to this suppression the potentially horrendous taxation in the name of “Cap and Trade” designed to take away our life’s earnings for a politically infamous and scurrilous excuse to limit the creation of industrial carbon dioxide (CO2). This is unconscionable. It is based on proven false premises, but it is being pushed on “scientific” claims, yet simply does not hold up on rational grounds.

Exposing these actions to the light of true information leads me (and, I believe, a large percentage of us) to the conclusion that dishonorable and treacherous intent is being imposed upon a believing and unsuspecting people to achieve political power.

Until now, out of traditional respect for a US President, I have refrained from calling him what this man has convinced me that he is.  Without hesitation now I am convinced that he is an unapologetic, abject liar! His actions are totally different from the good-sounding promises he makes and has made. 

Along with Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama was a student and follower of Saul Alinsky, a Marxist grassroots organizer in Chicago. Alinsky’s ultimate rule was that the ends justify the means. His goal was to get power any way one can, including lying, cheating and stealing. Does that describe Mr. O.?

The mechanism of lying to achieve ignoble ends is not new, yet few politicians have taken the art of subterfuge to the degree demonstrated by B. Obama. Those of his contingency who still want to believe him must understand well that to present the truth about the socialist agenda would result in its almost certain defeat. However, Obama’s apologists and propagandists understand what Hitler’s propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, understood. That is, repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.

I do not consider him to be the president of all the people. He isn’t even the president of the 52% of voters who put him in office, but he “won.” His collectivist program will enslave and impoverish all citizens who have believed in freedom of speech, individual and responsible decisions, and the free pursuit of happiness. Ludwig von Mises wrote, “All efforts to realize Socialism lead only to the destruction of society.”

In the light of the fundamentals of freedom and free-exchange capitalism, this elected spokesman for the radical left-wing socialist Democrats aims to “change” this country by using the language of conservatism into a timid, economically weakened structure that will be ruled by socialist elites and expose it to the rogue interests of sworn enemies. When the liberty of our life’s existence is threatened, it is most important to recognize it in order to defend ourselves.

God-fearing and God-respecting men built this great country with courage and determination. If not opposed, Godless, secular and property-destroying men (and women) may succeed in ruling over this great country and subjugating it by any means they can assemble.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, August 4, 2009.

TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION


The United States of America was established after the 1776 War of Independence and established a Constitution and a Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) in 1789. The following 200 years of freedom and liberty under the condition of free enterprise and development with ownership of private property created the greatest and most popular and powerful country this world has ever known.

Traditionally, every four years a president is elected to lead the government. That president begins his office by placing his right hand on a Bible and takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Like all presidents before him, Pres. B. Obama took that oath without hesitation, but also without hesitation he has proceeded to push for and enact legislation which goes against the Constitution and weakens the security of this great nation. Using words and sentences designed to comfort and give confidence in sustaining that oath, this man has acted in a manner that goes opposite to the very principles of the foundations of this country. This constitutes an enmity for the Constitution and for the principles of free enterprise, individuality, and national frugality.

His hypocritical speech and his open friendliness with enemies of Capitalism and of this very country are suspicious and unpatriotic. These actions together with negotiation of atomic weapons reduction with an avowed and historical enemy of the US (Russia) are contrary to the interests of the citizens of this country. This is a total disregard for the oath Obama took on January 20, 2009, which had he acted in this fashion in 1776, it would have been labeled “treason.” Even David Limbaugh admitted to realizing that his actions and support of the liberal-socialist agenda of the left-wing collectivists of the dominant Democrats makes Obama sound like a Marxist. Marxism is the antithesis of Capitalist America and the freedom for which it stands. Disregard for demonstrably-correct economic precepts and rules makes this man dangerous for the continuance of the United States as originated and propagated.

In spite of the aura of messianic popularity promulgated by the proved sycophantic majority of the printed and television media; this man, by definition, is a domestic enemy of capitalism and the basic tenets of this country against which he himself took an oath. It is not his privilege to change this country to the image impregnated into his brain by socialists of his youth (mother), and later by teachers, professors and a terrorist imbued with collectivism, plus a preacher seared with a vengeful anti-white mentality.

Rationality and respect for history and private property have escaped B. Obama’s understanding and vocabulary. He has demonstrated an unbelievable disregard for the proper creation of wealth; and he would, by stealth in the form of taxation and massive welfare programs, redistribute that wealth that does not belong to him or his Democrat cohorts, to those who do not earn it regardless of respect for the rule of law. Does he think that the wonderfully high standard of living in this country came about by the “poor?” Hamstringing and even harming individual freedom and entrepreneurial risk- taking and development can only reduce our standard of living and make dependent all citizens except the elite government leaders.

I can no longer give him the respect normally afforded the President of the United States because of what I recognize he is doing to “my country “ and me. He must be opposed at every turn and his disingenuous speech questioned continuously.

Respectfully submitted,

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, July 7, 2009;

OPEN LETTER TO BARACK OBAMA
(Submitted to the Wall Street Journal, but not published.)



June 12, 2009

President Barach H. Obama
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington DC  20500

Regarding: Nationalized Health Care

Dear Mr. Obama,

I have watched with misgiving the rapidity of your efforts to change the present healthcare system to one that is totally managed by government departments. I am a retired physician who experienced the positive doctor-patient relationship in delivering sound and strong medical care by which mutual responsibility was most important in the desired results of healing or at least relieving suffering.

News reporting has announced your intent of central management that is to deliver single-payer medical coverage to all citizens and aliens. The major issue is the cost to the projected one source of delivery, the government. Even the most modest estimates of such expenditure places the costs so high that even with huge tax increases, rationing of care will become necessary. The most feared result will become the demands of what will and what will not be reimbursed, which essentially announces to doctors what medical decisions must be made to qualify for payment. Such a result negates the appropriate treatment judged by a physician with nine to thirteen years of medical education and training. The reduced results will necessarily negate the quality of care and nullify centuries of experience and continual upgrading of medical delivery by relying only on “guidelines” designed by bureaucrats and non-professional employees.

It is clear that your philosophical understanding leads you to believe that “government should provide;” however, your projected plan cannot function as you announce in spite of your belief. If you decide to proceed regardless of reality, then rationality, integrity, and experience are useless.

I implore you to listen to us with experience and observe what actually works rather than relying on imagination of what you want to achieve.

Sincerely,

David L. Wood, M.D.

 

OBAMA’S SOCIALISM

The United States of America was established after the 1776-8 War of Independence and established a Constitution in 1789 and a Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution). The following 233 years of freedom and liberty under the condition of free enterprise and development with ownership of private property created the greatest and most popular and powerful country this world has ever known.

Traditionally, every four years a president is elected to lead the government. That president begins his office by placing his right hand on a Bible and takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Like all presidents before him, Pres. B. Obama took that oath without hesitation, but also without hesitation he has proceeded to push for and enact legislation which goes against the Constitution and weakens the security of this great nation. Using words and sentences designed to comfort and give confidence in sustaining that oath, this man has acted in a manner that goes opposite to the very principles of the foundations of this country. This constitutes an enmity for the Constitution and for the principles of free enterprise, individuality, and national frugality.

His hypocritical speech and his open friendliness with enemies of Capitalism and of this very country are suspicious and unpatriotic. These actions together with negotiation of atomic weapons reduction with an avowed and historical enemy of the US (Russia) are contrary to the interests of the citizens of this country. This is a total disregard for the oath Obama took on January 20, 2009, which had he acted in this fashion in 1776, it would have been labeled “treason.” Even David Limbaugh admitted to realizing that Obama’s actions and support of the liberal-socialist agenda of the left-wing collectivists of the dominant Democrats makes Obama sound like a Marxist. Marxism is the antithesis of Capitalist America and the freedom for which it stands. Disregard for demonstrably-correct economic precepts and rules makes this man dangerous for the continuance of the United States as originated and propagated.

In spite of the aura of messianic popularity promulgated by the proved sycophantic majority of the printed and television media; this man, by definition, is a domestic enemy of capitalism and the basic tenets of this country against which he himself took an oath. It is not his privilege to change this country to the image impregnated into his brain by socialists of his youth (mother), and later by teachers, professors and a terrorist imbued with collectivism, plus a preacher seared with a vengeful anti-white mentality and disdain for the US.

Rationality and respect for history and private property have escaped B. Obama’s understanding and vocabulary. He has demonstrated an unbelievable disregard for the proper creation of wealth; and he would, by stealth in the form of taxation and massive welfare programs, redistribute that wealth that does not belong to him or his Democrat cohorts, to those who do not earn it, and this is contrary to the rule of law. Does he think that the wonderfully high standard of living in this country came about by stealing from the middle class and the “poor?” Hamstringing and even harming individual freedom and entrepreneurial risk taking and development can only reduce our standard of living and make dependent all citizens except the elite government leaders.

I can no longer give him the respect normally afforded the President of the United States because of what I recognize he is doing to “my country “ and me. He must be opposed at every turn and his disingenuous speech questioned continuously.

Respectfully submitted,

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, July 7, 2009; word count 615.

 

June 12, 2009

President Barach H. Obama

White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington DC 20500

Regarding: Nationalized Health Care

Dear Mr. Obama,

I have watched with misgiving the rapidity of your efforts to change the present healthcare system to one that is totally managed by government departments. I am a retired physician who experienced the positive doctor-patient relationship in delivering sound and strong medical care by which mutual responsibility was most important in the desired results of healing or at least relieving suffering.

News reporting has announced your intent of central management that is to deliver single-payer medical coverage to all citizens and aliens. The major issue is the cost to the projected one source of delivery, the government. Even the most modest estimates of such expenditure places the costs so high that even with huge tax increases, rationing of care will become necessary. The most feared result will become the demands of what will and what will not be reimbursed, which essentially announces to doctors what medical decisions must be made to qualify for payment. Such a result negates the appropriate treatment judged by a physician with nine to thirteen years of medical education and training. The reduced results will necessarily negate the quality of care and nullify centuries of experience and continual upgrading of medical delivery by relying only on “guidelines” designed by bureaucrats and non-professional employees.

It is clear that your philosophical understanding leads you to believe that “government should provide;” however, your projected plan cannot function as you announce in spite of your belief. If you decide to proceed regardless of reality, then rationality, integrity, and experience are useless.

I implore you to listen to us with experience and observe what actually works rather than relying on imagination of what you want to achieve.

Sincerely,

David L. Wood, M.D.

 

MONSTROUS SUBTERFUGE

 

 

To understand today’s political doublespeak it is necessary to reiterate accurate, accepted English dictionary definitions.

Definition 1: TREASON, a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state;

an aiding and abetting of one’s enemy.

Definition 2: SEDITION is any act, writing of speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or incite others to hostility, ill will, or dissatisfaction; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense. Ann Coulter has observed, “Liberals consistently attack their own Country.”

Synonyms: instigation, stirring, agitation, protest.   

TREASON and SEDITION mean disloyalty or treachery to one’s country or its government. Treason is any attempt to impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one’s government.

Synonyms: betrayal, subversion, undermining, corruption.

Definition 3: TREACHERY is a violation of faith; a betrayal of trust.

Synonyms: deceit, deceitfulness          

Does any of Barack Obama’s actions parallel any of the above? After reading the following, you decide.

Many of us citizens have observed that the smooth reading of the teleprompter has projected Barack Obama as a “great orator.” The masterful and disarming doublespeak indicates an intended diversion of thinking to believe that he is accomplishing the things about which he is speaking. But in reality, his actual actions prove he is attempting the opposite. Yet when the people finally wake up to that fact, his agenda may be a fait accompli, and then it will be almost too late to oppose it. He accomplishes furtively small increments what would be impossible if the truth about them were revealed. Much of his support is derived from the large numbers of people receiving support from the government (redistribution of wealth).

B. Obama has been defined by Rush Limbaugh as an ideologue who believes genuinely in the precepts of socialism. He was taught and exposed to that philosophy all his life. This has been reported in his pre-school years, in his high school, college, and law school; as community organizer, in associations with left-wing believers and teachers; with an admitted terrorist, and an anti-white preacher, in the Senate, and now as President. When viewed together it all points toward the belief in the philosophy of socialism. Calling it “progressivism” or “collectivism” means exactly the same thing; namely, subjugation of the individual to the state, and state management of almost all aspects of businesses and individuals’ lives in order to solve the accused “inequalities” of capitalism.

Each step of this man’s life has been surrounded and influenced by those who believe in the system of societal organization that is diametrically opposed to the 226 year experience of the most successful system ever created and which resulted in the most advanced, free, and powerful nation in history. It is astounding that simple observation of the superior reality of free-market independence that he lived in compared to the verbalized contrast of socialism fed to him by ‘liberal’ malcontents, reflects, in my opinion, a lack of intellectual observational capability and honesty.

One might ask, “How could anyone live in this country and fail to recognize the high standard of living and see the effects of individual effort in the pursuit of happiness?” Where was the curiosity that would lead one at least to ask, “What brought this about?” The most likely explanation is when one is surrounded by those with a very different perception and sentiment that leads to associations with others of like persuasion, then meager exposure to the capitalism tradition and its success establishes little to no effective model or exemplar of the derivable esteem and satisfaction of personal accomplishment.

Barack’s mother was an avowed and active communist, and he was under her influence and tutelage for the first six years of his life. The instructors in high school and college that he admired and sought to be with were socialist ‘liberals’. The Harvard law school is famously liberal. After that he spent time with Bill Ayers, an admitted terrorist who bombed US buildings in which people died, and that man sponsored and supported Obama’s efforts politically and as a community organizer. Then, twenty years listening to a church preacher spew his disdain for the “white establishment” in the US and the fact that this capitalist nation deserved the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the NY Twin Towers, then one can see the background develop what has resulted in the man’s belief system that has little confidence in the principles of liberty and freedom of the individual under capitalism.

If one doubts the foregoing, one has only to observe Obama’s pre-election claims and his speeches, pronouncements, and actions. Witness the break-neck haste he and his Democrat Congress are pressing for their agenda to control the “big banks” and the “big auto industry” and pass the largest spending program ever compared to all the previous administrations added together. This is being advanced before the full consequences and long-term effects can be thought through to understand their full implications. This is not the “change” the voters expected. They were misled into so disliking the Republican Bush Administration, that they fell for a hoped-for betterment or “change.” Subterfuge is used to justify socialism or central control of society and “the means of production.”

The controlling aspect of the present massive financial debt program hugely diminishes the entrepreneurial spirit and tradition of building strong wealth production with saving and investment. Americans were conned into voting for a “change.” The anti-Bush propaganda plus Bush’s large spending program masked the gradual liberty-destroying program of the ‘liberal’ collectivism, which so many responsible Americans previously rejected for decades. Little from the “middle-of-the-road”-sounding rhetoric of the then Democrat nominee alerted the public to the real intended transfer of the basic capitalistic nation toward a more European-type socialistic society.

In spite of all the present frenzied political activity are slowly-appearing reports that people are becoming alarmed by the arrogant rapidity of “his” change and the disarming support of it in the biased-media as it advocates for the liberal-left Democrat Party. That party’s true plan is for a restrictive future of decreased value of the dollar, decreasing of people’s savings and retirement accounts, and for huge debts upon generations to come plus great enlargement of government and public welfare. This means unbelievable tax increases for us and our progeny. That’s a pretty thin “hope” compared to what was implied. That “hope” was part of the colossal deceit of the socialist mentality and modus operandi.

Announced by Congress what it intends for us to expect is the projected financially back-breaking nationalized health care program. Then next, on top of the already unreal national deficit will be an all-out attack upon free speech and the Second Amendment ownership of guns. The double-speak to divert the true intent from these programs is and will be interesting, if not frightening.

Naturally, from the liberals’ standpoint Obama is great. From the informed conservative standpoint, Obama is dangerous. Can this really be happening here? YES! 

We observe the preponderance of blame aimed at the previous president in Obama’s speeches, particularly in the recent attempt at justifying the disagreement with the previous administration’s handling of the national security. It is an old mode of the socialist technique of attacking to destroy the opposition in order to conceal the truth of the socialist masterplan. It is necessary for Obama to attack President Bush in order to hide his intent to propel his socialist agenda.

Understanding the basis of B. Obama’s belief system is helpful in prefiguring his moves.

No doubt he frankly believes in the philosophy of what he is doing, but sincerity does not lesson the foreseeable disruption of the US citizens’ lives and futures. The result will be the same regardless of his belief. It is a form of arrogance to take the reigns of government, then totally disregard the traditions and successful system of the majority with the excuse that “I won” the election. That is not government of all the people.

It is hard to accept this, having a good knowledge of the history of socialism and at the same time to be relatively helpless in doing anything about the present regime, yet I refuse to give up.

Does any of this new President’s speech and action fit any of the earlier-listed definitions?

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, May 22, 2009.

 

 

Greed Misunderstood

 

Justification by the bureaucratic mindset is the use of the word “greed” to put down capitalistic business as if it were bad, dirty, and taking advantage of customers. I define “greed” as earnest self-interest, but the term is used by the liberal politicians and printed media to imply taking advantage of customers.

 

“Taking advantage of customers” implies coercion. By definition, coercion is to compel by force, intimidation, or by authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition.

 

Corporations’ self-interest reflects their expectation of deriving profit from their products, and that is not coercion nor is it the negative meaning of “greed” as implied by the media’s common usage. It is in companies’ best interest to satisfy customers freely and honestly.

 

Consumers are interested in the satisfaction they derive from the products they purchase. This is the essence of “selfish”; that is, looking out for one’s self and one’s well-being. I taught my children what I observed to be true; namely, “No one has more interest in you than you.” The corollary is equally important, “You must take care of yourself and look after you own interests,” which, of course, must be done honestly and without fraud. Success in society as a whole occurs when its members (at least the majority) behave in honest self-interest.

 

What or who is of greatest benefit to society?

 

At the time of the United States’ War of Independence, Adam Smith in England described one of the most important effects of capitalism. He captured the vital element of societal success when he wrote, “He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. … He intends only his own security. By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be the greatest value, he intends only his own gain.” A. Smith observed further, “By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”

 

The consumer benefits by purchasing the businessman’s products. Multiply the benefits to all the purchasers of all the available products, produce, and services made available by the businesses, and one observes the improved standard of living or the total benefit to the whole society.

 

Imagine that, the total of all the so-called “greeds” of all the businesses, small and large, actually benefits the entire society! Then, where does the concept originate that businesses hurt society? It is from “progressive” collectivists who claim that they can improve society by taxing the working productive people and business enterprises to redistribute it to welfare recipients.

 

Today, the government attempts to spend its way to prosperity. By putting down big business, politicians expect to justify their own activity. They believe in redistributing the wealth without healthy market exchange, which they are now selling as “change.” In spite of what they proclaim, the liberal socialists’ true intent is in the deriving of political power, and they do so by subterfuge and fraudulent promises. Thomas Sowell so aptly observed: “More frightening to me than any policy or politician is the ease with which the public is played for fools with words.” 

 

Human nature guides individuals always to seek gain and avoid loss. Political activity works against individual human nature in pursuing its own concept of gain.

 

Non-coercive greed is a moral and positive concept. Hopefully understanding this will help honest and productive citizens to stand up for what is in their aggregate and combined interest.

 

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, May 20, 2009; word count 595.

 

 

THE MEDICAL ARROGANCE OF THE LEFT

 

            2. bring medical costs down

            3. everyone should have medical insurance

First off, in 1965 the present flat broke Medicare program was rammed onto the public. Inefficiency of government bureaucracy, ever-decreasing doctor reimbursement but ever-increasing physician overhead costs, and government-mandated “emergency” medical care without reimbursement by government regardless of people’s ability to pay have negatively altered private medicine.

Secondly, the huge government bureaucracy drove the cost of medical delivery up far beyond any necessary cost of usual medical care alone. The only way to reduce unnecessary costs is to remove government bureaucratic costs, not increase them.

Forced insurance coverage for all is equivalent to forcing everyone to kneel before the king. The cost of setting up such a coercive plan and adding an extensive enforcement system is always horrendous. Voluntary, individual action to self-insure is demonstrably more efficient and less costly. Many of today’s “uninsured” choose to be so.

Presently to attempt to add a colossally expensive (and inefficient) nationalized health care plan on top of the recently-passed massive budget deficits is unconscionable. In fact, the only real reason for promoting this plan in the first place is to create control (power) over medical care of the nation. The whole program is another furtive means to increase taxes.

To see this unfolding is a source of great dismay to me, a retired physician who experienced the former free-market exchange of the healthy doctor-patient relationship.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, May 13, 2003; word count 297.

 

Reality vs. Belief in Politics

A political position of certainty is one based either on the firmness of accurate observation, or on a belief staunchly rooted in the opinion of an accepted “authority” whose philosophical stance converted the ones holding that belief. In other words, observed and provable viewpoint versus “good-sounding” imagination are the two main political positions displayed on the stage of political action. The first (capitalism) is based upon accurate observation and knowledge of history, while the other (socialism) is based upon opinion and thus a belief that the system must be good because the believer wants it to be so. When first presented, socialism sounds plausible and even “good.” Still, history falsifies it.

This discussion is about capitalism vs. socialism. The system of free-exchange under conditions of freedom is labeled capitalism and is the observed system of growth that has developed the great United States of America. The system of governmental central control and suppression of individuality is the ethereal system known as socialism, which is sold by shameful and misleading claims and opinions of what “should be.” It is the system that when applied in groups, communities, and nations has failed historically in all instances by creating poverty, slavery, and even murderous suppression on a large scale.

Today, the label “socialism” doesn’t seem to evoke the disdain it deserves because of the lack of understanding that it once enjoyed in this country. Therefore, a list of comparisons is placed here to refresh an earlier, more accurate description.

Positive Features of Capitalism: 

1. It is based on private ownership of the means of production and the individual ownership of private property.
2. Under capitalism, initiative, innovation, and self-reliance develop and thrive.
3. It causes business efficiency, growth, and improvement.
4. Capitalism develops private property, wealth, and prosperity.
5. It provides for the wants and needs of consumers in the best and most efficient way.
6. Free people can work and save, then with savings, invest.
7. It develops “win-win” contracts (based on trust) and voluntary, free associations.
8. Capitalism gives rise to free-market economics.
9. Free-market economics require life, liberty, and private property.
10. Capitalism demands democracy.
11. Under US Democracy, free-speech, freedom of religion, and tolerance of opposition thrive.
12. Under capitalism, each individual’s future depends upon the efforts of each individual.
13. Under capitalism, self-interest and self-defense are moral concepts.

A radio commentator recently commented that the only thing she could recall about socialism was that it was the “central control of the means of production,” but that didn’t seem to mean much to her. The following should give her a more accurate clarification and could, therefore, secure a greater understanding for her.

Negative Hallmarks of Socialism:

       1.   Socialism means government control of the means of production; i.e., industry

             and the economy.

       2.  Socialism is the governmental control of society by a central committee or

             despot.

       3.  It abolishes ownership of private property.

       4.  It redistributes wealth by taking property (mostly by taxation) from the more   

             productive people and entitling it to those who have less, so that all people will

             have the same. This eventually results in poverty for all.

 5.  Socialism reverses liberty and controls lives.

6.      It represses initiative, innovation, and self-reliance.

7.      It subjugates the individual to the state.

8.      It promotes racial preferences.

9.      It creates and promotes class-envy.

10. It is advanced by fraud, and false promises.

11. It rewrites history, and it undermines the US Constitution.

12. Socialism subverts moral standards and education.

13. In order to promote socialism, its proponents relentlessly criticize capitalism, capitalists, and conservatism.

14. It suppresses religion, free-speech, and all opposition.

15. Socialism requires coercion, and in some countries it requires putting people in concentration camps (and even resorts to murder).

16. All attempts at socialism have failed to bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

It is my objective to bring more accurate understanding to these two systems, so that readers can make and preserve valid and sound decisions.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, April 9, 2009; word count 682.

 

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE

This note is to corroborate the article under WSJ’s Review & Outlook, Friday, March 27 on page A12, titled, National Health Preview.

The debate goes on with the Democrats determined to install nationalized health care to the nation regardless of any opposition, large or small; rational or irrational. The fallacious, though oft-repeated, figure of forty seven percent of the population that is uninsured but must be covered, is the main excuse for the push to install this massive program.

First of all, such enormous financial debt addition to the already outlandish and backbreaking national debt is rationally preposterous, but that does not dissuade the left’s agenda.

Second of all, is the total ignoring and disregard for the basic truth and efficacy of free-market exchange, which signals the preponderance of failure.  That is observable in Great Britain’s, Canada’s, and Massachusetts’ negative experience with “universal” health care.  

In Canada and Britain extended waiting times for necessary care and rationing are the order of the day. What whipped Governor Romney were claims that his health care program would be less expensive. The editor graphically states, “Reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues.”

How can Democrat Representatives and Senators honestly disregard the true overall cost control of the sum of the unencumbered, individual citizen decisions of what and how much medical insurance each person or family should have? Passage of Medicare and Medicaid was deceitfully accomplished by President Johnson’s Democrat-controlled Congress. Free-market, doctor-patient relationship has never been candidly and forthrightly refuted. It was and is just as efficient as the sum of all the free-market automobile purchases has ever been, when weighed against any nationalized automobile distribution program.

To preserve the still-available vestige of the greatest medical system every evolved, the inefficient and unaffordable enormous cost and eventual rationing of nationalized health care must be opposed and defeated.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, March 28, 2009; word count 322.

 

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS

 

I first heard this proverb from my mother when I was very young. This old English proverb likely has never been more applicable than it is today. Nor has it likely adversely affected more people at one time than by the ambitious young Democrat President pretending to represent a nation of 130 million people. His ascendency was only by a small 52 percent of the voters, yet by his oath of office he promised to uphold the Constitution of all the people. His smooth and loquacious speech with vague promises of “uniting” the parties, “transparency” of legislation, being “against big government,” and opposing pork-barrel “earmarks” could not have been more dishonestly spoken when judged against his actions in his first six weeks in elected office.

In the pre-election time there were a few clues to his true intensions, such as his announced belief in “spread the wealth around” statement to Joe, the plumber, and his frequent referrals to “tax the rich.” But his speeches were structured to sound ‘middle-of-the-road,’ so that working people could anticipate a regime of modified conservative administration that would preserve market exchange and reduced taxes. Instead, the opposite has been pushed. A clear anti-business passage of bills reflecting long-held “liberal,” Left-wing agenda has been passed without even time to read them by either party. They are filled with “earmarks,” and “transparency” has entirely been scrapped. Still, the glib teleprompter speech and the public appearances on television programs are selling an image of popularity of Obama while the financial status of the whole country sinks. Some conservative commentators believe this occurrence is by his and his party’s intent and design.

This proverb concept obviously is not new. Perhaps one of the best similarly-stated maxims of this idea is the one attributed to one from Russia, “What you do rings so loudly in my ears, I cannot hear what you say.” Voltaire, in his XIVth Dialogue said: “Men use thought only as authority for their injustice, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts.”

The conclusion is crystal clear. A straight-forward, honest presentation of his socialistic beliefs would fail. Therefore, since a forethought presentation of real meaning of collectivist intent will fail, as history has proved innumerable times, it is necessary to make confusing and deceitful statements like Obama’s: “We’ve been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principle.” But, putting more and more of the government in charge of more and more of the economy is entirely inconsistent with free-market principles. Such outrageous statements can only be believed if repeated often enough.

It is time for the deceived and unstudied voting citizens of this great and up-to-now successful country of individuals to wake up and start thinking and comparing to realize that our liberties are being diminished before our very eyes and ears by soothing but deceptive speech and secretive but destructive action.

David L. Wood, M.D., Long Beach, CA, March 22, 2009; word count 498.

 

I.